[Bug 206839] Review Request: TurboKid - Python template plugin that supports Kid templates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: TurboKid - Python template plugin that supports Kid
templates
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206839
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 02:17 EST ---
http://people.redhat.com/lmacken/RPMS/python-turbokid-0.9.8-3.src.rpm
http://people.redhat.com/lmacken/SPECS/python-turbokid.spec
* Sat Sep 23 2006 Luke Macken [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.9.8-3
- Rename to python-turbokid
- Own %%{python_sitelib}/turbokid directory
- Install the EGG-INFO directory
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206816] Review Request: freedoom-freedm - Deathmatch levels for freedoom
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: freedoom-freedm - Deathmatch levels for freedoom https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206816 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 02:51 EST --- I also tend to have problems downloading from sourceforge via curl or wget, using various forms of the download URLs. I haven't seen a perfect solution to that problem yet. Imported and 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 187317] Review Request: mindi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mindi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187317 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 05:14 EST --- I have added an ExcludeArch entry in the spec file for ppc. mindi creates a boot environement which is architecture dependant and for now only i386, x86_64 and ia64 are supported. Upstream provides busybox .config file to allow people to rebuild busybox if needed. What is fedora habits here ? Shoud I provide a mindi-busybox package in addition ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207761] Review Request: xpdf - A PDF file viewer for the X Window System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xpdf - A PDF file viewer for the X Window System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207761 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 05:36 EST --- * I haven't tested, but it seems to me that the configure.in patch and autoconf call could be replaced by --without-Xp-library * Why isn't t1lib used? * There are some rpmlint errors/warning, most of them should be sorted out easily: E: xpdf tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: xpdf non-utf8-spec-file xpdf.spec W: xpdf mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs E: xpdf tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: xpdf obsolete-not-provided xpdf-chinese-simplified E: xpdf obsolete-not-provided xpdf-chinese-traditional E: xpdf obsolete-not-provided xpdf-korean E: xpdf obsolete-not-provided xpdf-japanese W: xpdf-utils summary-ended-with-dot Command line utilities for converting PDF files. E: xpdf-utils tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: xpdf-debuginfo tag-not-utf8 %changelog * It seems to me that the .png icon should better be in /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/ with the appropriate calls to the gtk cache snippet. * The calls to update-desktop-database are missing although there is a mimetype entry. * The desktop-file-install vendor should be fedora. * It seems to me that it should be xpdf-utils that requires poppler-utils. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207793] New: Review Request: flite - Small, fast speech synthesis engine (text-to-speech)
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=207793 Summary: Review Request: flite - Small, fast speech synthesis engine (text-to-speech) 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://dialogpalette.sourceforge.net/extras/fedora/flite.spec SRPM URL: http://dialogpalette.sourceforge.net/extras/fedora/flite-1.3-1.src.rpm Description: Flite (festival-lite) is a small, fast run-time speech synthesis engine developed at CMU and primarily designed for small embedded machines and/or large servers. Flite is designed as an alternative synthesis engine to Festival for voices built using the FestVox suite of voice building tools. This is my first package, and I am looking for a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207793] Review Request: flite - Small, fast speech synthesis engine (text-to-speech)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: flite - Small, fast speech synthesis engine (text-to-speech) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207793 [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 207795] New: Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic - Critique Perl source code for best-practices
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=207795 Summary: Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic - Critique Perl source code for best-practices 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: ftp://perl.di.uminho.pt/pub/fedora/perl-Perl-Critic.spec SRPM URL: ftp://perl.di.uminho.pt/pub/fedora/perl-Perl-Critic-0.2-1.src.rpm Description: Perl::Critic is an extensible framework for creating and applying coding standards to Perl source code. Essentially, it is a static source code analysis engine. Perl::Critic is distributed with a number of Perl::Critic::Policy modules that attempt to enforce various coding guidelines. Most Policy modules are based on Damian Conway's book Perl Best Practices. However, Perl::Critic is not limited to PBP and will even support Policies that contradict Conway. You can enable, disable, and customize those Polices through the Perl::Critic interface. You can also create new Policy modules that suit your own tastes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207796] New: Review Request: eventlog - Syslog-ng v2 support library
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=207796 Summary: Review Request: eventlog - Syslog-ng v2 support library 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: ftp://perl.di.uminho.pt/pub/fedora/eventlog.spec SRPM URL: ftp://perl.di.uminho.pt/pub/fedora/eventlog-0.2.5-1.src.rpm Description: The EventLog library aims to be a replacement of the simple syslog() API provided on UNIX systems. The major difference between EventLog and syslog is that EventLog tries to add structure to messages. EventLog provides an interface to build, format and output an event record. The exact format and output method can be customized by the administrator via a configuration file. Notes: * This package is a syslog-ng v2 build requirement (static library) A syslog-ng v2 test srpm is available at the above download directory -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207798] New: Review Request: perl-Test-File - Test file attributes
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=207798 Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-File - Test file attributes 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: ftp://perl.di.uminho.pt/pub/fedora/perl-Test-File.spec SRPM URL: ftp://perl.di.uminho.pt/pub/fedora/perl-Test-File-1.16-1.src.rpm Description: This modules provides a collection of test utilities for file attributes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187317] Review Request: mindi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mindi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187317 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 08:24 EST --- you can not provide a pre built binary. Why can you not use the Fedora provided busybox? and add support for ppc? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206842] Review Request: seq24 - Real-time MIDI sequencer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: seq24 - Real-time MIDI sequencer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206842
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 08:31 EST ---
* Also include seq24usr.example and TODO with the docs
* Modify the description, so that it is not in the first person
* Either use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}, but not both. I prefer
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 08:33 EST --- Okay!!! This package (ktechlab) is APPROVED by me. P.S. again I would appreciate it if you would review my request (bug 206487 ). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 173459] Review Request: initng
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: initng https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173459 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 08:34 EST --- #332 known problem. have reported it various times in this thread. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187326] Review Request: smokeping - Network latency grapher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: smokeping - Network latency grapher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187326 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 08:45 EST --- Yeah. Sorry for the delay. I spent the last weeks in ireland with no ip access there. Right now I'm at akademy, the kde conference in dublin. I guess, I'll manage to fix the package up 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 173459] Review Request: initng
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: initng https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173459 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 09:31 EST --- Created an attachment (id=137000) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=137000action=view) check whether selinux is available before trying to use it Should fix the issues on systems not having SELinux. Please try it on SELinux enabled systems. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207802] New: Review Request: libpaper - Library and tools for handling papersize
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=207802 Summary: Review Request: libpaper - Library and tools for handling papersize 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.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/libpaper.spec SRPM URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/libpaper-1.1.20-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: The paper library and accompanying files are intended to provide a simple way for applications to take actions based on a system- or user-specified paper size. This release is quite minimal, its purpose being to provide really basic functions (obtaining the system paper name and getting the height and width of a given kind of paper) that applications can immediately integrate. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207676] Review Request: SDL_pango - Rendering of internationalized text for SDL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: SDL_pango - Rendering of internationalized text for SDL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207676
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 10:05 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=137001)
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=137001action=view)
patch for SDL_Pango-0.1.2 to suppress warning
This patch should suppress warning.
Well,
* %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) is
preferred.
* I recommend to explicitly remove *.a and *.la files in %install stage,
not to use %exclude method.
* Don't use %makeinstall
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 207802] Review Request: libpaper - Library and tools for handling papersize
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpaper - Library and tools for handling papersize https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207802 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||207761 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 207761] Review Request: xpdf - A PDF file viewer for the X Window System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xpdf - A PDF file viewer for the X Window System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207761 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||207802 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203212] Review Request: libgalago-gtk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libgalago-gtk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203212 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 10:11 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 207761] Review Request: xpdf - A PDF file viewer for the X Window System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xpdf - A PDF file viewer for the X Window System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207761 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 10:12 EST --- Indeed, every one of these points is valid, and I have adjusted the package accordingly. rpmlint is now clean. I even noticed that it was looking for libpaper, something not in Fedora, so I packaged that up and have it up for review at 207802. (It's a really easy review, should be no trouble to knock out). New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/xpdf-3.01-18.fc6.src.rpm New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/xpdf.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 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] 2006-09-23 10:13 EST --- I'm not agree with the removal of Requires gputils gpsim. Perhaps Requires gpsim isn't needed because rpm complain about dependencies: [EMAIL PROTECTED] i386]# LANG=C rpm -ivh ktechlab-0.3-2.i386.rpm error: Failed dependencies: libgpsim.so.0 is needed by ktechlab-0.3-2.i386 libgpsim_eXdbm.so.0 is needed by ktechlab-0.3-2.i386 libgpsimcli.so.0 is needed by ktechlab-0.3-2.i386 Of course, ktechlab examples.circuit work without gputils, because the circuit is an analog circuit, there is no PIC in it. But take the second example, code_entry.circuit. Ktechlab open an error dialog box: Assembly failed. Please check you have gputils installed Ktechlab requires gputils for PIC simulation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207802] Review Request: libpaper - Library and tools for handling papersize
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpaper - Library and tools for handling papersize https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207802 [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 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] 2006-09-23 10:31 EST --- (In reply to comment #14) I'm not agree with the removal of Requires gputils gpsim. Ktechlab requires gputils for PIC simulation. Well, if it is common that Ktechlab is used for PIC simulation , in which case gputils is required generally, making Ktechlab require gputils is reasonable. I leave the judgment of whether Ktechlab should require gputils to Chitlesh. Anyway this package 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 207802] Review Request: libpaper - Library and tools for handling papersize
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpaper - Library and tools for handling papersize https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207802 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 10:49 EST --- rpmlint from Rawhide gives W: libpaper mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (on the src.rpm) Could the static library be excluded? When running paperconf, it could not find /etc/papersize. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elektra https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 10:49 EST --- This has been in NEEDINFO for nearly two months now. I will close this bug in one week if there is no further response. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185535] Review Request: lurker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lurker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185535 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([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 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hardinfo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||m) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 10:51 EST --- This bug has been in the NEEDINFO state for six weeks now. I will close it in one week if there is no further response. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203212] Review Request: libgalago-gtk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libgalago-gtk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203212 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 10:52 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) W: libgalago-gtk mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (in src.rpm) W: libgalago-gtk-devel no-documentation - Remove tabs from spec file to unify spacing. - The latter rpmlibt conmplaint can be ignored, I think. In my opinion both of these warnings can be ignored. * Timestamps - Use: make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL=install -c -p to keep the timestamps of header files in -devel package. I also think that this can be ignored, but I would like to hear from other FE contributors to get their opinion on 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 207798] Review Request: perl-Test-File - Test file attributes
Please 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-File - Test file attributes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207798 [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 207798] Review Request: perl-Test-File - Test file attributes
Please 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-File - Test file attributes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207798 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 11:03 EST --- * source files match upstream: 8997fa36af7b22d81c221d5325b46930 Test-File-1.16.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 (BR: perl(Test::Builder) and perl(Test::Builder::Tester) are unnecessary as they are part of the base Perl package.) * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(Test::File) = 1.16 perl-Test-File = 1.16-1.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(File::Spec) perl(Test::Builder) perl(base) perl(strict) perl(vars) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful, 5 subtests skipped. Files=9, Tests=63, 6 wallclock secs ( 5.35 cusr + 0.35 csys = 5.70 CPU) The five skipped subtests are expected. * 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 207802] Review Request: libpaper - Library and tools for handling papersize
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpaper - Library and tools for handling papersize https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207802 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 11:03 EST --- /etc/papersize is (re)generated with /usr/sbin/paperconfig, but the package should own it. I set letter as the default. New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/libpaper-1.1.20-2.fc6.src.rpm New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/libpaper.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 207795] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic - Critique Perl source code for best-practices
Please 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-Perl-Critic - Critique Perl source code for best-practices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207795 [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 203212] Review Request: libgalago-gtk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libgalago-gtk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203212 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 11:09 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) * Timestamps - Use: make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL=install -c -p to keep the timestamps of header files in -devel package. I also think that this can be ignored, but I would like to hear from other FE contributors to get their opinion on this. I usually recommend to keep timestamp if possible, especially when the package contains a lot of files which were originally included in the source and not created during compilation stage. Keeping timestamp make it clearer if packager (like you) made some fixes or changes against the files, IMO. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207795] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic - Critique Perl source code for best-practices
Please 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-Perl-Critic - Critique Perl source code for best-practices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207795 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 11:18 EST --- That sure is a large number of submodules with really long names * source files match upstream: a31ab7c92cdb0501c1a3e298495f61c5 Perl-Critic-0.2.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. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(Perl::Critic) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Config) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Document) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::BuiltinFunctions::ProhibitLvalueSubstr) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::BuiltinFunctions::ProhibitSleepViaSelect) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::BuiltinFunctions::ProhibitStringyEval) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::BuiltinFunctions::ProhibitStringySplit) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::BuiltinFunctions::ProhibitUniversalCan) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::BuiltinFunctions::ProhibitUniversalIsa) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::BuiltinFunctions::RequireBlockGrep) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::BuiltinFunctions::RequireBlockMap) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::BuiltinFunctions::RequireGlobFunction) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::BuiltinFunctions::RequireSimpleSortBlock) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::ClassHierarchies::ProhibitAutoloading) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::ClassHierarchies::ProhibitExplicitISA) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::ClassHierarchies::ProhibitOneArgBless) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::CodeLayout::ProhibitHardTabs) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::CodeLayout::ProhibitParensWithBuiltins) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::CodeLayout::ProhibitQuotedWordLists) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::CodeLayout::RequireTidyCode) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::CodeLayout::RequireTrailingCommas) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::ControlStructures::ProhibitCStyleForLoops) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::ControlStructures::ProhibitCascadingIfElse) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::ControlStructures::ProhibitDeepNests) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::ControlStructures::ProhibitPostfixControls) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::ControlStructures::ProhibitUnlessBlocks) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::ControlStructures::ProhibitUnreachableCode) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::ControlStructures::ProhibitUntilBlocks) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::Documentation::RequirePodAtEnd) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::Documentation::RequirePodSections) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::ErrorHandling::RequireCarping) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::InputOutput::ProhibitBacktickOperators) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::InputOutput::ProhibitBarewordFileHandles) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::InputOutput::ProhibitInteractiveTest) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::InputOutput::ProhibitOneArgSelect) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::InputOutput::ProhibitReadlineInForLoop) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::InputOutput::ProhibitTwoArgOpen) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::InputOutput::RequireBracedFileHandleWithPrint) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::Miscellanea::ProhibitFormats) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::Miscellanea::ProhibitTies) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::Miscellanea::RequireRcsKeywords) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::Modules::ProhibitAutomaticExportation) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::Modules::ProhibitEvilModules) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::Modules::ProhibitMultiplePackages) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::Modules::RequireBarewordIncludes) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::Modules::RequireEndWithOne) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::Modules::RequireExplicitPackage) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::Modules::RequireVersionVar) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::NamingConventions::ProhibitAmbiguousNames) = 0.20 perl(Perl::Critic::Policy::NamingConventions::ProhibitMixedCaseSubs) = 0.20
[Bug 203212] Review Request: libgalago-gtk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libgalago-gtk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203212 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 11:42 EST --- Spec URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/libgalago/libgalago-gtk.spec SRPM URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/libgalago/libgalago-gtk-0.5.0-2.src.rpm * Sat Sep 23 2006 Brian Pepple [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.5.0-2 - Preserve timestamps of header 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 196669] Review Request: filesystem-i18n
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: filesystem-i18n https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196669 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 12:06 EST --- Any chance to get this into Fedora Core 6 or will it definately be a canditate for Fedora Extras 6 and reach Fedora Core = 7? -- 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 203212] Review Request: libgalago-gtk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libgalago-gtk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203212 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 12:09 EST --- Okay. -- This package (libgalago-gtk) 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 207796] Review Request: eventlog - Syslog-ng v2 support 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: eventlog - Syslog-ng v2 support library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207796 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 12:12 EST --- This builds fine for me; rpmlint on the insatlled rpm says: W: eventlog-devel ldd-failed /usr/lib64/libevtlog.a which is sort of expected as ldd will just return not a dynamic executable. This package pretty well fits the exception to the no-static-libs rule, being a dependency of a package that needs to be statically linked so that it can run early in the boot sequence. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207676] Review Request: SDL_pango - Rendering of internationalized text for SDL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: SDL_pango - Rendering of internationalized text for SDL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207676 [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 207805] New: Review Request: skey - one-time password crap
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=207805 Summary: Review Request: skey - one-time password crap 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://david.woodhou.se/skey/skey.spec SRPM URL: http://david.woodhou.se/skey/skey-0.2-8.src.rpm Description: The S/Key suite is the forerunner of OTP, the IETF One-Time Password system. S/Key uses the MD4 (MD5, in this version) algorithm to generate a list of nonsensical pass phrases using your password, an interation count, and a seed. $ rpmlint SRPMS/skey-0.2-8.src.rpm RPMS/ppc/skey-0.2-8.ppc.rpm RPMS/ppc/pam_skey-0.2-8.ppc.rpm RPMS/ppc/skey-sshhelper-0.2-8.ppc.rpm RPMS/ppc/skey-debuginfo-0.2-8.ppc.rpm W: skey no-url-tag W: skey no-url-tag E: skey setuid-binary /usr/sbin/skeyinit root 04755 E: skey non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/skeyinit 04755 E: skey non-readable /etc/skeykeys 0600 E: skey zero-length /etc/skeykeys W: pam_skey no-url-tag W: skey-sshhelper no-url-tag W: skey-debuginfo no-url-tag No appropriate URL to give. skeyinit is intended to be setuid, and skeykeys is intended to be empty. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207313] Review Request: php-pear-PHP-Compat - Provides missing functionality for older versions of PHP
Please 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-PHP-Compat - Provides missing functionality for older versions of PHP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207313 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elektra https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 12:32 EST --- Most of the issues raised during the review have been fixed upstream in the new release (I believe so) except for the potential name clashes. So I think it shouldn't be closed for now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207806] New: Review Request: evolution-bogofilter - A plugin for bogofilter support in evolution
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=207806 Summary: Review Request: evolution-bogofilter - A plugin for bogofilter support in evolution 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.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/evolution-bogofilter.spec SRPM URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/evolution-bogofilter-0.2.0-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: This plugin implements junk filtering for the Evolution mailer, provided by the bogofilter utility. Bogofilter (http://www.bogofilter.org) is a fast and nimble mail filter using a so-called Bayesian technique to classify junk and non-junk email. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207802] Review Request: libpaper - Library and tools for handling papersize
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpaper - Library and tools for handling papersize https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207802 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 12:38 EST --- Thanks for the fast review, built in FC-5 and devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207761] Review Request: xpdf - A PDF file viewer for the X Window System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xpdf - A PDF file viewer for the X Window System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207761 Bug 207761 depends on bug 207802, which changed state. Bug 207802 Summary: Review Request: libpaper - Library and tools for handling papersize https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207802 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 206816] Review Request: freedoom-freedm - Deathmatch levels for freedoom
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: freedoom-freedm - Deathmatch levels for freedoom https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206816 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206222] Review Request: manaworld-music - music for the manaworld 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: manaworld-music - music for the manaworld game
Alias: manaworld-music
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206222
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 12:56 EST ---
- rpmlint output clean
- package named according to package naming guidelines
- spec file name matches package %{name}
- package meets packaging guidelines
- package is licensed with open source compatible license
- license matches actual license
- license is included in %doc
- spec file written in American english
- spec file is legible
- package successfully builds on x86_64 FC5
- package does not use locales
- package does not contain shared library files
- package is not relocatable
- package owns all directories it creates
- no duplicates in %files
- permissions on files set properly
- package contains proper %clean section
- macro usage is consistent
- package contains permissible content
- package does not contain large documentation
- files in %doc do not affect runtime
- no header files or static libraries present
- no pkgconfig files present
- no library files with suffix present
- no devel subpackage required
- no .la files present
- not a GUI app needing a .desktop file
- package does not own files or directories owned by other packages
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206222] Review Request: manaworld-music - music for the manaworld 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: manaworld-music - music for the manaworld game Alias: manaworld-music https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206222 [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 185423] Review Request: php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR
Please 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-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR Alias: php-pear-PCP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185423 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 13:00 EST --- Why hasn't this package 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 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elektra https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 13:14 EST --- The lack of response by the package submitter is the problem. Nothing upstream does makes any difference as long as the person who submitted the package doesn't respond to comments here. The last message from the submitter was in early June. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196669] Review Request: filesystem-i18n
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: filesystem-i18n
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196669
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 13:16 EST ---
Rex, regarding comment #8 - the following directories are unowned when looking
around on a normal Fedora installation at my system, which is a very good
reason
to carry all man directories with filesystem-i18n, too. Guess the exactly
number
of directories depends on the locale selected during setup.
/usr/share/man/fr/man3
/usr/share/man/hu/man{1,8}
/usr/share/man/id/man8
/usr/share/man/it/man3
/usr/share/man/pl/man7
/usr/share/man/pt_BR
/usr/share/man/pt_BR/man{1,5}
/usr/share/man/ru/man{1,3,5,8}
/usr/share/man/ru/man3
/usr/share/man/sk/man8
/usr/share/man/tr/man{1,5,8}
/usr/share/man/zh_CN/man{1,8}
/usr/share/man/zh_TW/man{1,8}
--
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 195683] Review Request: smarteiffel - The GNU Eiffel Compiler and Libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: smarteiffel - The GNU Eiffel Compiler and Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195683 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 13:17 EST --- Built on FC5 and devel. Made entries in owners.list and comps-fe5.xml.in and comps-fe6.xml.in. 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 207795] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic - Critique Perl source code for best-practices
Please 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-Perl-Critic - Critique Perl source code for best-practices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207795 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 13:19 EST --- Tibbs, Thanks for the review. The package has been imported and already built for devel. I will close this ticket as soon as the package gets built for FC-5 (branch pending). jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207798] Review Request: perl-Test-File - Test file attributes
Please 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-File - Test file attributes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207798 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 13:19 EST --- Tibbs, Thanks for the review. The package has been imported and already built for devel. I will close this ticket as soon as the package gets built for FC-5 (branch pending). jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207802] Review Request: libpaper - Library and tools for handling papersize
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libpaper - Library and tools for handling papersize
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207802
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 13:20 EST ---
I have spotted some more or less minor issues:
* the man pages for functions should be in the devel
package
%{_mandir}/man3/*
* removing unneded files
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/*.la
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/*.a
should be without -r and even maybe without f
* I think that there is no need to set letter as a default, it
is allready the default according to the man paperconf. In my
opinion, what should be better is an empty file or a file with a
comment along
echo '# Simply write the paper name. See papersize(5) for possible values'
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/papersize
* in man paperconfig there is a reference to /etc/libpaper.d
* The file NEWS in debian/ should certainly be in %doc
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 168719] Review Request: gdal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gdal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=168719 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WONTFIX |DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 13:29 EST --- Marking this as duplicate as new request appeared. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 205955 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205955] Review Request: gdal - A translator library for raster geospatial data formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gdal - A translator library for raster geospatial data formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205955 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 13:30 EST --- *** Bug 168719 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 207810] New: Review Request: gaim-galago - Galago feed plugin for Gaim
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=207810 Summary: Review Request: gaim-galago - Galago feed plugin for Gaim 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/libgalago/gaim-galago.spec SRPM URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/libgalago/gaim-galago-0.5.0-1.src.rpm Description: A plugin for the Gaim instant messenger client that allows it to act as a presence feed for Galago. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-09-23 13:39 EST --- Chitlesh, I don't know if you saw that: http://ktechlab.org/download/gpsim.php I commited the patch and I'll ask for rebuild on monday. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207810] Review Request: gaim-galago - Galago feed plugin for Gaim
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gaim-galago - Galago feed plugin for Gaim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207810 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 13:50 EST --- Well, looks very simple package. Just explain why this package requires galago-daemon? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207796] Review Request: eventlog - Syslog-ng v2 support 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: eventlog - Syslog-ng v2 support library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207796 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 13:50 EST --- It's not necessary to have: Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig since you are using the %post -p /sbin/ldconfig form for your scriptlets. Not a blocker, of course, but /sbin/ldconfig does show up four times in the dependency list. * source files match upstream: a6bdba91f88540cc69b398fd138d86cd eventlog-0.2.5.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 has one acceptable warning. * final provides and requires are sane: eventlog-0.2.5-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm libevtlog.so.0()(64bit) eventlog = 0.2.5-1.fc6 = /sbin/ldconfig libevtlog.so.0()(64bit) eventlog-devel-0.2.5-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm eventlog-devel = 0.2.5-1.fc6 = eventlog = 0.2.5-1.fc6 libevtlog.so.0()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream * shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths; ldconfig called as necessary. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (ldconfig) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel subpackage. * pkgconfig file is in the -devel subpackage. * static libraries and unversioned .so files are in the -devel subpackage. * static libraries are acceptable in this instance. * 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 207810] Review Request: gaim-galago - Galago feed plugin for Gaim
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gaim-galago - Galago feed plugin for Gaim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207810 [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 187317] Review Request: mindi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mindi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187317 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 13:52 EST --- I need to check the pre-built fedore busybox contain all the options needed by mindi. I'll look at it and report. Concerning ppc, have you really looked at what mindi does ? It you want to port it, then propose patches upstream, but I do not have any time nor hardware to do that myself sorry. Do you ask for elilo to be available on ppc too ? mindi deals with boatloading and then has a lot of dependancies with lilo/syslinux/isolinux/elilo which means that you really need to adapt it for ppc if you want it to work on power. I also wanted to add that you do NOT provide a disaster recovey solution for fedora currently whereas I have add much less problem to integrate mindi and mondo in Mandriva, OpenSuSE or Debian. I try to follow the requirements you give for the spec file, but can't follow when you deal with porting, internals of the tool ... which are upstream concerns not packaging concerns. Now if the goal is to avoid adding packages to fedora, I would prefer a clear opinion on that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207802] Review Request: libpaper - Library and tools for handling papersize
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpaper - Library and tools for handling papersize https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207802 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 13:56 EST --- Yes, I really missed the man3 directory. The rest is minor, but reasonable. Also in debian/po subdirectory there are hidden localized files. It would be nice to have them installed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207810] Review Request: gaim-galago - Galago feed plugin for Gaim
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gaim-galago - Galago feed plugin for Gaim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207810 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 13:59 EST --- When applications that act as presence feeds use libgalago, information that they set on the various objects are transmitted to galago-daemon. galago-daemon then combines the new information with information it may already have on the various type of object (which would be sent from other presence feeds) and then retransmits it out to anything that's listening. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206222] Review Request: manaworld-music - music for the manaworld 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: manaworld-music - music for the manaworld game Alias: manaworld-music https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206222 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 14:00 EST --- Imported and built. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203212] Review Request: libgalago-gtk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libgalago-gtk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203212 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207810] Review Request: gaim-galago - Galago feed plugin for Gaim
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gaim-galago - Galago feed plugin for Gaim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207810 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 14:09 EST --- Another thing: When I wanted to check http://www.galago.info/ , I was re-directed to http://www.games.tl/ . Is this okay? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207810] Review Request: gaim-galago - Galago feed plugin for Gaim
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gaim-galago - Galago feed plugin for Gaim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207810 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 14:15 EST --- Ah, the website changed its address since I originally wrote this spec. I'll need to change it before importing it into cvs. It should be: http://www.galago-project.org/news/index.php -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207810] Review Request: gaim-galago - Galago feed plugin for Gaim
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gaim-galago - Galago feed plugin for Gaim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207810 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 14:17 EST --- Okay, just correct URL. - This package (gaim-galago) 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 207781] Review Request: libmatheval - parse and evaluate symbolic expressions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libmatheval - parse and evaluate symbolic expressions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207781 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 14:18 EST --- This crops up during a mock build: /builddir/build/BUILD/libmatheval-1.1.3/config/missing: line 52: makeinfo: command not found WARNING: `makeinfo' is missing on your system. You should only need it if you modified a `.texi' or `.texinfo' file, or any other file indirectly affecting the aspect of the manual. The spurious call might also be the consequence of using a buggy `make' (AIX, DU, IRIX). You might want to install the `Texinfo' package or the `GNU make' package. Grab either from any GNU archive site. Indeed, you do modify a .texi file so you'll need a BR: texinfo. Also, one of the tests fails on my platform (x86_64, rawhide): Checking evaluating functions. 5: Check functions. FAILED (functions.at:423) Unfortunately you have ||: at the end of the make check line so the build continues when it really should fail and thus deletes the test log. I've rebuilt without that bit and will attach the generated testsuite.log. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207781] Review Request: libmatheval - parse and evaluate symbolic expressions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libmatheval - parse and evaluate symbolic expressions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207781 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 14:20 EST --- Created an attachment (id=137005) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=137005action=view) Log from failing test suite. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185423] Review Request: php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR
Please 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-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR Alias: php-pear-PCP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185423 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO OtherBugsDependingO|163779 |163778 nThis|| Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 14:43 EST --- Changing this back to FE-REVIEW and NEEDINFO status since it's been several weeks since this was approved and nothing has been done. Let me know when you are no longer AWOL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187196] Review Request: kernel-module-rt2500
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kernel-module-rt2500 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187196 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 14:45 EST --- Actual module built successfully for me with this on FC4 with kernel 2.6.17_1.2142_FC4, i686, no smp Couldn't build as non-root user as make install does /sbin/depmod -a and also installs directly into /lib/modules - DESTDIR apparently doing nothing tried to fix it up, then discovered bug 202528 and bug 202529 These are much more up to date and correct and build successfully, so this bug should probably be marked as a duplicated of them... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202528] Review Request: rt2500-kmod
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rt2500-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202528 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||202521 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 14:49 EST --- Depends on RutilT -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202521] Review Request: RutilT
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: RutilT https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202521 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||202528 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 202529] Review Request: rt2500-(kmod-common)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: rt2500-(kmod-common)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202529
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 15:47 EST ---
some of the install -D caused problems for me in the latest spec file - they
seemed to be in the case where there is a file given with a directory
destination (-D expects the full pathname as destination):
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/network-scripts
install -D -p -m 0644 Module/ifcfg-ra0
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/network-scripts
That -D (and several other similar) should be removed AFAICT
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207761] Review Request: xpdf - A PDF file viewer for the X Window System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xpdf - A PDF file viewer for the X Window System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207761
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 16:10 EST ---
More issues:
* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/X11/applnk/Graphics seems to be unneeded
* removing the files should better be without -r and, in my
opinion even without f.
* /etc/xpdfrc in %files should be %{_sysconfdir}. And it should
also be nice to have a sed on all the files mentionning
/etc/xpdfrc substituted by the patches.
Something along
for file in doc/*.1 doc/*.5 xpdf-*/README; do
sed -i -e 's:/etc/xpdfrc:%{_sysconfdir}/xpdfrc:g'
done
* similarly /usr/share in the relevant files should be changed
to %{_datadir}. Something along
for file in xpdf-*/README xpdf-*/add-to-xpdfrc; do
sed -i -e 's:/usr/share/:%{_datadir}/:g'
done
* All the README files that are in /usr/share/xpdf/LANG/README
should be in %doc, and I propose to have for them the
name README.LANG for each LANG.
* The add-to-xpdfrc files should certainly be marked as %config.
Also it is not obvious that these files are rightly in
/usr/share/xpdf/LANG/. In my opinion they should better be in
/etc. What I would suggest would be to add the directory
%{_sysconfdir}/xpdf/
and put the add-to-xpdfrc within subdirectories one for each
language, or, if you prefer otherwise, something similar.
xpdf-3.01-redhat.patch should then be updated (the part corresponding
with xpdf-3.00/doc/sample-xpdfrc).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207761] Review Request: xpdf - A PDF file viewer for the X Window System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xpdf - A PDF file viewer for the X Window System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207761 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 16:14 EST --- Those BR seems unneeded BuildRequires: fileutils BuildRequires: findutils And there is a duplicate Requires: poppler-utils in the main 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 205300] Review Request: gtk-sharp - a set of mono bindings for gtk1.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gtk-sharp - a set of mono bindings for gtk1.2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205300
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 16:48 EST ---
W: gtk-sharp non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/gconfsharp-schemagen.exe 0644
Should this be 755?
Yes and fixed.
W: gtk-sharp strange-permission gtksharp-libdir.patch 0666
The patch should probibly be 644.
Done
Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/gtk-sharp.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/gtk-sharp-1.0.10-10.src.rpm
E: gtk-sharp hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
Is this normal for mono packages?
It is for the moment. The problem is that the current FC5 release of mono still
depends on everything being in /usr/lib irrespective of the processor used. The
version in rawhide/FC6 has this problem corrected. When FC5's version is
upgraded to the current version (1.1.17), the hack goes.
All the other problems have been fixed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196591] Review Request: bitlbee
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bitlbee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196591 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 17:00 EST --- Paul, did you finish the proxy 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 185423] Review Request: php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR
Please 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-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR Alias: php-pear-PCP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185423 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 17:20 EST --- I'm not AWOL. This one has just slipped under the radar, sorry. I'll import and build ASAP. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207818] New: Review Request: eds-feed - Evolution Data Server feed for Galago
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=207818 Summary: Review Request: eds-feed - Evolution Data Server feed for Galago 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/libgalago/eds-feed.spec SRPM URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/libgalago/eds-feed-0.5.0-1.src.rpm Description: A feed for Galago that uses contact entries in the Evolution address book to link people and accounts. Note: This spec is for FC6, since it includes the patch for the api change in the eds. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||196989 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 21:12 EST --- Perhaps we could call for testers on fedora-extras and fedora-devel lists? Parag: Can you ask for testers on those lists? If you like I can probibly build packages for fc5|fc6 i386/x86_64 and put them up so people don't need to build the packages to test... I would feel better if we had at least a few 'this works fine for me' reports... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207174] Review Request: whatmask - Convert between different netmask types and show information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: whatmask - Convert between different netmask types and show information https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207174 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 17:36 EST --- Thanks for the review and comments. Built successfully in devel (job #18275) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185423] Review Request: php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR
Please 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-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR Alias: php-pear-PCP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185423 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 17:44 EST --- Thanks for all the comments and review. successfully built in devel (job #18300) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207763] Review Request: ddd - GUI for several command-line debuggers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ddd - GUI for several command-line debuggers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207763 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 19:38 EST --- just a couple of quickie: 1. Buildroot does not seems to be the preferred extras one 2. gcc-c++ should be safely removed from BRs -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207761] Review Request: xpdf - A PDF file viewer for the X Window System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xpdf - A PDF file viewer for the X Window System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207761 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 21:42 EST --- You sir, are a machine. All items updated in -19. New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/xpdf-3.01-19.fc6.src.rpm New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/xpdf.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 207781] Review Request: libmatheval - parse and evaluate symbolic expressions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libmatheval - parse and evaluate symbolic expressions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207781 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 22:24 EST --- Hi Jason, thatanks for taking a look. I spent some time today digging into the make check errors and it turns out that there are some deprecated guile bits which are: SCM_STRINGP is deprecated. Use scm_is_string instead. SCM_LENGTH is deprecated. Use scm_c_string_length instead, for example, or see the manual. SCM_STRING_LENGTH is deprecated. Use scm_c_string_length instead. SCM_CHARS is deprecated. See the manual for alternatives. SCM_STRING_CHARS is deprecated. See the manual for alternatives. The interesting thing is that these deprecated bits *ONLY* appear in the the file libmatheval-1.1.3/tests/matheval.c and nowhere else in the actual libmatheval code. So it appears that there are some deprecated bits only in the testing code that then triggers some warnings that then causes one of the tests (test number 5) to fail (although the test actually works, it just emits a bunch of these warnings so that the test script *thinks* that it has failed). In any case, I'll report the deprecated bits in the testing code to the upstream folks. But I see no reason to do anything else since there appear to be no other deprecated (or otherwise broken) bits in any of the actual library code. Here's an update that includes the BR: texinfo http://mitgcm.org/eh3/fedora_misc/libmatheval-1.1.3-4.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196669] Review Request: filesystem-i18n
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: filesystem-i18n
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196669
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 22:56 EST ---
man already owns most/all of %_datadir/man/locale, so man could also own
%{_datadir}/man/locale/man{1-9}. It could be argued that these should be in
man, and not here, so that manpages will (implicitly) depend on man (for
directory ownership).
OTOH, why should man have to complicate it's packaging so, when it could be so
easily included here?
OK, I'm officially undecided. (:
--
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 207818] Review Request: eds-feed - Evolution Data Server feed for Galago
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eds-feed - Evolution Data Server feed for Galago https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207818 [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 207818] Review Request: eds-feed - Evolution Data Server feed for Galago
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eds-feed - Evolution Data Server feed for Galago https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207818 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 187317] Review Request: mindi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mindi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187317 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-23 23:38 EST --- if the fedora busybox is missing something you need then please file bugs against busybox. as far as ppc goes i will look at what is needed in regards to porting to ppc. we have a policy to have all arches except when something is arch specific. we use yaboot for ppc loading. We have a clear set of guidelines for packaging and reviewing. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines#head-2f03bba0a9f05b2ac0128eb1d70b1e3ce9f9dc40 states - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number. (Extras Only) The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues: [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-x86, [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-x64, [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-ppc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-09-24 00:49 EST --- (In reply to comment #15) (In reply to comment #14) I'm not agree with the removal of Requires gputils gpsim. Ktechlab requires gputils for PIC simulation. Well, if it is common that Ktechlab is used for PIC simulation , in which case gputils is required generally, making Ktechlab require gputils is reasonable. Quite easy to prove/counter-prove: Show us the piece of source code that introduces this dependency on gputils! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207818] Review Request: eds-feed - Evolution Data Server feed for Galago
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eds-feed - Evolution Data Server feed for Galago https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207818 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 00:56 EST --- No problem is found. - This problem (eds-feed) 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 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] 2006-09-24 01:00 EST --- (In reply to comment #17) (In reply to comment #15) (In reply to comment #14) I'm not agree with the removal of Requires gputils gpsim. Ktechlab requires gputils for PIC simulation. Well, if it is common that Ktechlab is used for PIC simulation , in which case gputils is required generally, making Ktechlab require gputils is reasonable. Quite easy to prove/counter-prove: Show us the piece of source code that introduces this dependency on gputils! Well, autually: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ktechlab-0.3]$ grep -r 'gputils' . ./doc/en/flowcode.docbook: paraOf course, if you don't have gputils installed - with which commandgpasm/command is distributed - then the last step can't be performed./para ./src/languages/gpdasm.cpp: KMessageBox::sorry( LanguageManager::self()-logView(), i18n(Disassembly failed. Please check you have gputils installed.) ); ./src/languages/gpasm.cpp: KMessageBox::sorry( LanguageManager::self()-logView(), i18n(Assembly failed. Please check you have gputils installed.) ); ./src/languages/gplink.cpp: KMessageBox::sorry( LanguageManager::self()-logView(), i18n(Linking failed. Please check you have gputils installed.) ); ./src/languages/gplib.cpp: KMessageBox::sorry( LanguageManager::self()-logView(), i18n(Linking failed. Please check you have gputils installed.) ); -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207810] Review Request: gaim-galago - Galago feed plugin for Gaim
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gaim-galago - Galago feed plugin for Gaim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207810 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207141] Review Request: farsight - A audio/video conferencing 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: farsight - A audio/video conferencing framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207141 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
