[Bug 208453] Review Request: php-pear-Console-Getargs - Command-line arguments and parameters parser
Please 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-Console-Getargs - Command-line arguments and parameters parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208453 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 02:36 EST --- I wonder if pear run-tests -p Console_Getargs is supposed to do anything. I can't actually get it to do anything for any installed PEAR module (other than Running 0 tests). pear run-tests only work when test suite is provided upstream as .phpt files. For example pear run-tests -p Log. Must be run by root :( Some packages (like this one) use PHPUnit, others use PHPUnit2 as a test suite. I've worked a little on including test in %check without success. I'll propose PHPUnit for review (even if PHPUnit2 already in Extras). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208453] Review Request: php-pear-Console-Getargs - Command-line arguments and parameters parser
Please 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-Console-Getargs - Command-line arguments and parameters parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208453 [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 208679] Review Request: vamos - Automotive simulation 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: vamos - Automotive simulation framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208679 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 03:05 EST --- MUST FIX: * Please explain in detail, why you want to include a static lib or disable it (--disable-static). Feel strongly encouraged to do the latter. Some further remarks: 1. The configure script produces bogus results: ... checking for IceConnectionNumber in -lICE... no .. On FC5: nm -sD /usr/lib/libICE.so | grep IceConnectionNumber 00b1f530 T IceConnectionNumber 2. The *.info-install-rules are broken. The package doesn't ship/build *-N.info etc., just *.info. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198562] Review Request: zabbix - Open-source monitoring solution for your IT infrastructure
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: zabbix - Open-source monitoring solution for your IT
infrastructure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198562
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 03:06 EST ---
Zabbix 1.1.2 is out for some time and it adds support for PostgreSQL as the
backend database. Is it possible to parametrize the database support in the spec
file? To have something like the following:
%if !%db
%define db mysql
%endif
BuildRequires: %{db}-devel
Requires: php-%{db}
and when running the configure there will be --with-%{db} instead of
--with-mysql/--with-pgsql
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208200] Review Request: toped - IC Layout Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: toped - IC Layout Editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208200 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 03:30 EST --- Updated: SPEC: http://chitlesh.funpic.de/rpm/toped.spec SRPM: http://chitlesh.funpic.de/rpm/toped-0.8.2-1.src.rpm Thanks Svilen. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 04:12 EST --- I don't think it should Require RutilT, since the wifi card can be configured using command-line tools. RutilT would bring way too much dependencies (like Xorg...) for a simple wifi card driver. This would be a good use case for the Suggests tag that rpm CVS has. But not yet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208678] Review Request: SimGear - Simulation library components
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: SimGear - Simulation library components https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208678 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163779 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 04:40 EST --- Weird, rpmlint did not spot any error on my system. I will check further when I will reach my Fedora system. I am reverting the block to FE-REVIEW until these problems are ironed out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 05:10 EST --- This is true. RuiltT is not necessary to setup the card. I will drop the requires tag next time... In fact , it is easier NOT to use this tools but system-config-network (that have been reported by some users!) About the release in extras repository, i think i will close this bug because rt2x00 version can now be built on fc5 with a quick patch. I still trying to have working impressions from users then i will open a new review request titled rt2x00-kmod... (I don't expect i will be necessary to have both version!) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 05:20 EST --- About the release in extras repository, i think i will close this bug because rt2x00 version can now be built on fc5 with a quick patch. I still trying to have working impressions from users then i will open a new review request titled rt2x00-kmod... Great, I have an USB dongle with a ralink chipset so I can test this. Please post the bug number here when you've submitted it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198098] Review Request: xarchiver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xarchiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198098 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||m) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 07:19 EST --- Well, what is this review proceeding? Changing the STATUS: ASSIGNED - NEEDINFO from reporter. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198098] Review Request: xarchiver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xarchiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198098 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 07:22 EST --- Sorry, I meant is this review proceeding? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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: rt2x00-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: rt2x00-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202528 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: rt2500-kmod |Review Request: rt2x00-kmod --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 07:37 EST --- Spec URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/testing/rt2x00-kmod.spec SRPMS URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/testing/rt2x00-kmod-0.0.0cvs20061002-1.2.6.17_1.2187_FC5.src.rpm Description: Kernel module for Ralink wireless devices. Spec URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/testing/rt2x00.spec SRPMS URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/testing/rt2x00-0.0.0cvs20061002-1_FC5.src.rpm Description: Kernel module for Ralink wireless devices (common part). Don't know how to use make install script... rpmlint -i (partial) : W: kmod-rt2x00 unstripped-binary-or-object Don't know how to fix 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 203520] Review Request: evolution-brutus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: evolution-brutus Alias: evolution-brutus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203520 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Component|Package Review |osgcal --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 07:42 EST --- Yes, please. The spec and srpm files should not technically hinder an adoption into extras but I really need a formal review as well as a sponsor to make this happen. Step forward please. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198244] Review Request: libglade
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libglade https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198244 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 07:44 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) This builds in mock; rpmlint complains about the following: E: libglade-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib I think this is due to /usr/lib64/libgladeConf.sh. A couple of other packages (libxml2-devel, libxslt-devel) do this. I guess it's some pre-pkgconfig behavior or something. It's pretty bogus, but I don't think it's a blocker for a legacy library like this one. OK, left that one. Additionally, rpmlint on the installed package complains: W: libglade undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libglade-gnome.so.0.4.2 glade_standard_build_children plus 17 additional undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings. I guess it would be nice for these to go away, but again, this is a legacy library and these aren't generally blockers in any case. I believe I've fixed this in -19, along with the /usr/lib64 rpaths on the x86_64 build. Given that you approved the package already, I'll import it and build it. Any new issues you have, I'll fix in cvs. Thanks for the review. Spec URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/libglade.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/libglade-0.17-19.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 203520] Review Request: evolution-brutus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: evolution-brutus Alias: evolution-brutus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203520 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Component|osgcal |Package Review --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 07:53 EST --- Hmm... the osgcal must be an accident flip of the mouse. Sorry. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204955] Review Request: digikamimageplugins-doc - Documentation for digiKamimageplugins
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: digikamimageplugins-doc - Documentation for
digiKamimageplugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204955
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 09:18 EST ---
I can't run the full review because I can't get the upstream source.
Grr... this *used* to work,
http://dl.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}-r1.tar.bz2
but now, it appears, one must prepend a mirror, so use (something like):
http://osdn.dl.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}-r1.tar.bz2
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204955] Review Request: digikamimageplugins-doc - Documentation for digiKamimageplugins
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: digikamimageplugins-doc - Documentation for digiKamimageplugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204955 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 09:19 EST --- Nevermind, looks like I biffed the Source tag altogether... Lemme go find one that actually works... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204955] Review Request: digikamimageplugins-doc - Documentation for digiKamimageplugins
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: digikamimageplugins-doc - Documentation for
digiKamimageplugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204955
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 09:31 EST ---
Spec URL:
http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/digikamimageplugins-doc.spec
SRPM URL:
http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/digikamimageplugins-doc-0.8.2-2.src.rpm
%changelog
* Mon Oct 02 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 0.8.2-2
- Release: use %%{?dist}
- Source: include URL that actually works
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196379] Review Request: kdeartwork-extras: Artwork Extras, including xscreensaver-based screensavers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdeartwork-extras: Artwork Extras, including xscreensaver-based screensavers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196379 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 10:35 EST --- Source doesn't seem to have a copy of GPL license. Please ask upstream to include GPL copy. Other things are okay. -- This package (kdeartwork-extras) 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 201417] Review Request: alleyoop : Graphical front-end to the Valgrind memory checker for x86
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: alleyoop : Graphical front-end to the Valgrind memory checker for x86 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201417 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 10:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) 1. The desktop file has Version=0.9.0. Should that be Version=0.9.3 ? Done. I'm not sure about the purpose of this field, though... 2. You are using %makeinstall. Can you switch to 'make DESTDIR=... ? Done. 3. Why %defattr(-,root,root,0755) instead of just %defattr(-,root,root,-). Do some of the installed dirs get the wrong permissions? This and the previous point was inherited from the original spec, so I'm not sure why it was that way. Changed 4. Your desktop install should add: --add-category X-Fedora Done 5. Doesn't build in mock. I get this at the end of build.log: configure: error: *** libiberty required to build Alleyoop. error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.34937 (%build) Missing BuildRequires: binutils-devel? Done 6. Adding the BuildRequires from point 5, the package builds and rpmlint says: W: alleyoop conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/alleyoop.schemas Should this be marked (noreplace)? I asked for this info in #fedora-extras before, and I was told to leave it this way: e.g an update should also overwrite the schema. However, the full rationale for this is not clear to me W: alleyoop macro-in-%changelog description W: alleyoop macro-in-%changelog postun In changelog's you need to use %% to refer to a macro, or rpm will expand them. Done New spec and srpms at: http://giallu.interfree.it/fedora/alleyoop.spec http://giallu.interfree.it/fedora/alleyoop-0.9.3-2.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 196379] Review Request: kdeartwork-extras: Artwork Extras, including xscreensaver-based screensavers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdeartwork-extras: Artwork Extras, including xscreensaver-based screensavers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196379 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 10:49 EST --- 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 196379] Review Request: kdeartwork-extras: Artwork Extras, including xscreensaver-based screensavers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdeartwork-extras: Artwork Extras, including xscreensaver-based screensavers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196379 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 11:13 EST --- imported... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208680] Review Request: ser2net - Proxy that allows tcp connections to serial ports
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ser2net - Proxy that allows tcp connections to serial ports https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208680 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 11:24 EST --- Hmm, sounds vaguely like conserver, but I'll give this a shot. :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208200] Review Request: toped - IC Layout Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: toped - IC Layout Editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208200 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 11:28 EST --- Well, I have two questions. A. The files included in toped main package which are under /usr/share/tll are C++ program text. Are these files necessary for main package? B. toped-devel package contains no header files. Therefore the prototypes of functions in the libraries in toped cannot be gained and I think this -devel package is not useful. (The exception for this case is X related packages. For example, libXxf86vm-devel does not have any header files, they are in xorg-x11-proto-devel package.) Is this package (toped-devel) really needed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208898] New: Review Request: bluez-gnome -- Bluetooth pairing and control applet
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=208898 Summary: Review Request: bluez-gnome -- Bluetooth pairing and control applet Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://david.woodhou.se/bluez-gnome.spec SRPM URL: http://david.woodhou.se/bluez/bluez-gnome-0.5-2.src.rpm Description: The bluez-gnome package contains Bluetooth helper applets and tools for the GNOME desktop environment. rpmlint output: W: bluez-gnome unversioned-explicit-obsoletes bluez-pin E: bluez-gnome obsolete-not-provided bluez-pin These are intentional. It obsoletes all versions of bluez-pin and does not provide compatible functionality. The new bluez-utils requires bluez-gnome _instead_ of bluez-pin. W: bluez-gnome non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/autostart/bt-applet.desktop I think this is correct. All the other files in /etc/xdg/autostart are non-config files too. -- 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 204166] Review Request: xeuphoric - an X based Oric emulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xeuphoric - an X based Oric emulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204166 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||182235 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 208200] Review Request: toped - IC Layout Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: toped - IC Layout Editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208200 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 11:38 EST --- Note: undefined non-weak symbol problem is solved. Thanks, Svilen. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208898] Review Request: bluez-gnome -- Bluetooth pairing and control applet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bluez-gnome -- Bluetooth pairing and control applet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208898 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 11:43 EST --- Where should the bt-applet.desktop file go? /etc/xdg/autostart seems to work for GNOME but not for KDE. /usr/share/autostart seems to work for KDE but not for GNOME. -- 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 191743] Review Request: sysprof - a sampling CPU profiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sysprof - a sampling CPU profiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191743 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 11:46 EST --- The exact details escape me at the moment, but while = would be closer to the intent, = here IIRC helps in some upgrade scenarios. It's also possible that comment 14 was a brainfart - thl, do you remember better? Anyway, upgrading only the kmod package is prevented by the specfile emitted by kmodtool; it produces a = dependency to the corresponding kmod-common in the kmod 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 198244] Review Request: libglade
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libglade https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198244 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 11:50 EST --- Oddly enough I didn't see any rpaths in my x86_64 build. But the new package looks fine and it seems that fixing the undefined-non-weak-symbol stuff was easy. 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 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] 2006-10-02 11:58 EST --- Chitlesh, importing this to CVS cannot be done yet? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208898] Review Request: bluez-gnome -- Bluetooth pairing and control applet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bluez-gnome -- Bluetooth pairing and control applet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208898 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||208904 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207607] Review Request: telepathy-butterfly - MSN connection manager for Telepathy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: telepathy-butterfly - MSN connection manager for Telepathy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207607 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 12:09 EST --- 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 205343] Review Request: cohoba - Cohoba is a GNOME interface for Telepathy.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cohoba - Cohoba is a GNOME interface for Telepathy. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205343 Bug 205343 depends on bug 207607, which changed state. Bug 207607 Summary: Review Request: telepathy-butterfly - MSN connection manager for Telepathy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207607 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE 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 208675] Review Request: miau - Full-featured IRC bouncer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: miau - Full-featured IRC bouncer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208675 [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 208680] Review Request: ser2net - Proxy that allows tcp connections to serial ports
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ser2net - Proxy that allows tcp connections to serial
ports
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208680
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO
Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]
||m)
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 12:15 EST ---
Using my own review checklist:
http://beer.tclug.org/fedora-extras/review-checklist-1.1.txt
1. `rpmlint ser2net-2.3-1.fc?.*.rpm` returns:
W: ser2net service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/ser2net
More on this below (#38).
SRPM and -debuginfo package have no rpmlint output.
2. Package appears to meet Package Naming Guidelines.
3. Spec is ser2net.spec, check.
4. Package appears to follow Packaging Guidelines.
5. Upstream site lists package as GPL.
6. Spec agrees.
7. %doc contains COPYING.
8. Spec appears to be American English.
9. Spec seems legible.
10. Tarball md5 matches upstream (5f83a3e8aec18331cb61069dccdfba47).
11. Package builds under FC5/i386, FC5/ppc, and devel/i386.
12. n/a, unless it fails under x86_64.
13. Package builds in Plague, so I imagine all necessary BRs are included.
14. Package does not appear to attempt to handle locales either properly nor
improperly.
15. n/a, no library files.
16. Package does not appear to be designed to be relocatable.
17. Package owns all directories it creates.
18. No duplicate files.
19. Permissions appear to be sane.
20. Spec contains valid %clean section.
21. Macro use appears consistent.
22. Package contains code, not content.
23. %doc is minimal.
24. %doc doesn't affect runtime.
25. n/a, no header files or static libraries.
26. n/a, no .pc files.
27. n/a, no library files.
28. n/a, no -devel subpackage.
29. n/a, no .la files.
30. n/a, not a GUI application.
31. Package doesn't appear to have file conflicts with other packages.
32. Release tag contains %{?dist}.
33. n/a, already contains (and uses) COPYING.
34. n/a, no translations.
35. Package builds in Plague for FC5/i386, FC5/ppc, devel/i386.
36. I can't verify x86_64, but package builds everywhere else, yes.
37. Package works on FC5/i386, at least. Neat package, too.
38. Scriptlet use appears to violate documented protocol:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#head-69c816fcf14e5130694c81f1ffa17a553ac94302
From my understanding of this text, and other package reviews, services should
not be automatically enabled, especially without checking whether the
transaction is an installation or an upgrade.
39. n/a, no subpackages.
Unless I'm mistaken (which, admittedly, is quite possible), I don't believe this
package quite passes review. (Sorry...)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208898] Review Request: bluez-gnome -- Bluetooth pairing and control applet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bluez-gnome -- Bluetooth pairing and control applet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208898 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 12:22 EST --- http://standards.freedesktop.org/autostart-spec/autostart-spec-latest.html http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-spec-latest.html#variables $ echo $XDG_CONFIG_DIRS /etc/xdg.d/kde:/etc/xdg -- 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 198839] Review Request: sear - WorldForge client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sear - WorldForge client Alias: sear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198839 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 12:30 EST --- And unfortunately all this does is segfault for me. With just the package and its dependencies installed in a mock chroot: oot -c DISPLAY=localhost:10.0 XAUTHORITY=/tmp/.Xauthority sear which: no java in (/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin) which: no gij in (/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin) Could not find WFUT.jar Error running WFUT. No native 'wfut' found on path or no Java found on path or missing WFUT.jar Starting Sear ALSA lib confmisc.c:670:(snd_func_card_driver) cannot find card '0' ALSA lib conf.c:3479:(_snd_config_evaluate) function snd_func_card_driver returned error: No such device ALSA lib confmisc.c:391:(snd_func_concat) error evaluating strings ALSA lib conf.c:3479:(_snd_config_evaluate) function snd_func_concat returned error: No such device ALSA lib confmisc.c:1070:(snd_func_refer) error evaluating name ALSA lib conf.c:3479:(_snd_config_evaluate) function snd_func_refer returned error: No such device ALSA lib conf.c:3947:(snd_config_expand) Evaluate error: No such device ALSA lib pcm.c:2143:(snd_pcm_open_noupdate) Unknown PCM default ALSA lib confmisc.c:670:(snd_func_card_driver) cannot find card '0' ALSA lib conf.c:3479:(_snd_config_evaluate) function snd_func_card_driver returned error: No such device ALSA lib confmisc.c:391:(snd_func_concat) error evaluating strings ALSA lib conf.c:3479:(_snd_config_evaluate) function snd_func_concat returned error: No such device ALSA lib confmisc.c:1070:(snd_func_refer) error evaluating name ALSA lib conf.c:3479:(_snd_config_evaluate) function snd_func_refer returned error: No such device ALSA lib conf.c:3947:(snd_config_expand) Evaluate error: No such device ALSA lib pcm.c:2143:(snd_pcm_open_noupdate) Unknown PCM default Sprite compass_case has no filename defined Sprite compass_needle has no filename defined Sprite compass_needle_shadow has no filename defined /usr/bin/sear: line 104: 31365 Segmentation fault $bindir/sear-bin ending Anyway, some notes for the built package. First, rpmlint issues: E: sear script-without-shebang /usr/share/doc/sear-0.6.2/COPYING E: sear script-without-shebang /usr/share/doc/sear-0.6.2/AUTHORS These shouldn't be executable. E: sear-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/sear-0.6.2/renderers/default_font.h (and several others) The source files shouldn't be executable; you'll need to chmod them in %prep. With those fixed and a statement from someone who can test that this actually does run, I'd approve this. If I have time I'll try to put together a rawhide box. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193784] Review Request: linuxdcpp - A port of DC++ to Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: linuxdcpp - A port of DC++ to Linux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193784 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |201449 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177747] Review Request: glade3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: glade3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177747 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 12:41 EST --- We're going to need something to actually review, so a spec and an SRPM are absolutely necessary. Sponsorship is granted only after the packager has demonstrated familiarity with the packaging guidelines; please see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored for more information. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208915] New: Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208915 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests 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://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pear-PHPUnit.spec SRPM URL: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pear-PHPUnit-1.3.2-1.fc5.src.rpm Description: PHPUnit is a regression testing framework used by the developer who implements unit tests in PHP. This is the version to be used with PHP 4. Developper should use PHPUnit2 with PHP5. I think this extension still useful (when PHPUnit2 is available) to test older packages which provide a test suite using this tools. For exemple, to test php-pear-Console-Getargs, youd should run cd /usr/share/pear/test/Console_Getargs/tests php -q test.php --- rpmlint does not complain. build in mock : http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pear-PHPUnit-build.log -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |201449 nThis|| Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 12:50 EST --- And another week with no response. Closing. If upstream indeed has fixed the issues and there is another maintainer willing to resubmit this package, they should open a new tiket and mark this one as a duplicate of the new one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208675] Review Request: miau - Full-featured IRC bouncer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: miau - Full-featured IRC bouncer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208675
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 13:04 EST ---
First review of miau:
1. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines :
* Scriptlets requirements
- This package should require /sbin/install-info as
Requires(post), Requires(preun).
- The scriplets of post, postun is incollect.
1. use || :
2. don't call /sbin/install-info --delete when
upgrading.
See the section Texinfo of:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
2. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines :
* The sources used to build the package must
Well, I cannot directly access to
http://dl.sf.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 .
I prefer like:
http://umn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
3. Other things I have noticed:
* I think INSTALL is not needed for document files.
This is required for installing 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 208675] Review Request: miau - Full-featured IRC bouncer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: miau - Full-featured IRC bouncer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208675
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 13:06 EST ---
Sorry, I meant:
http://umn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201417] Review Request: alleyoop : Graphical front-end to the Valgrind memory checker for x86
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: alleyoop : Graphical front-end to the Valgrind memory checker for x86 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201417 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 13:13 EST --- 1. Ah, thats the version of the desktop file spec that the spec obeys: Version of the Desktop Entry Specification that the desktop entry conforms with. I guess change that back to 0.9.0 since that was likely the version it was written against. 2-5. All ok. 6. Yeah, makes sense to just leave it. Users are unlikely to change schema files, and you want new schema files to be there on upgrades. If you could change the desktop Version= back before you import it, that would be great. This package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this bug NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built. Also, consider doing a review of another package awaiting review to help out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202334] Review Request: jetty5 - The Jetty Webserver and Servlet Container
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jetty5 - The Jetty Webserver and Servlet Container https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202334 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 13:21 EST --- The extras guidelines for jpp packages have never been finalized, so currently packages can't have .jpp in their name. Would you be willing to drop the jpp from the name to get this moving forward? See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/JavaPackageNaming for discussion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191743] Review Request: sysprof - a sampling CPU profiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sysprof - a sampling CPU profiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191743 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 13:28 EST --- (In reply to comment #17) The exact details escape me at the moment, but while = would be closer to the intent, = here IIRC helps in some upgrade scenarios. It's also possible that comment 14 was a brainfart - thl, do you remember better? /me scratches his head and tries to remember but fails for now, too Anyway: I agree = here IIRC helps in some upgrade scenarios and that should be used. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205343] Review Request: cohoba - Cohoba is a GNOME interface for Telepathy.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cohoba - Cohoba is a GNOME interface for Telepathy. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205343 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||208933 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208675] Review Request: miau - Full-featured IRC bouncer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: miau - Full-featured IRC bouncer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208675 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 14:02 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) 2. This is a widely disputed point. I'm in the dl.sf.net camp, personally. Well, I prefer to specify URL, however, this is not a blocker. Other things are correctly fixed. - This package (miau) 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 202334] Review Request: jetty5 - The Jetty Webserver and Servlet Container
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jetty5 - The Jetty Webserver and Servlet Container https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202334 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 14:10 EST --- Just a minor clarification: there is very, very little chance that the guidelines will ever be changed to allow jpp in a release. The packaging committee made a few proposals to the Core Java folks, but we never heard back. I assume that was due to the general lack of free time due to RHEL5 and FC6 stuff. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208200] Review Request: toped - IC Layout Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: toped - IC Layout Editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208200 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 14:32 EST --- (In reply to comment #15) Well, I have two questions. A. The files included in toped main package which are under /usr/share/tll are C++ program text. Are these files necessary for main package? Actually these are TELL sources - syntax is deliberately very close to C, but actually they are just examples. They contain also an example of the initial setup. Package will work without them, but you certinly need something similar if you want to do some work with the packet. B. toped-devel package contains no header files. Therefore the prototypes of functions in the libraries in toped cannot be gained and I think this -devel package is not useful. (The exception for this case is X related packages. For example, libXxf86vm-devel does not have any header files, they are in xorg-x11-proto-devel package.) Is this package (toped-devel) really needed? Actually I agree. At the moment libraries are rather modules of the main program. At some point in the future devel package might be appropriate - it's too early though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205343] Review Request: cohoba - Cohoba is a GNOME interface for Telepathy.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cohoba - Cohoba is a GNOME interface for Telepathy. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205343 Bug 205343 depends on bug 208933, which changed state. Bug 208933 Summary: cohoba needs darcs version of telepathy-python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208933 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE Status|NEW |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 205343] Review Request: cohoba - Cohoba is a GNOME interface for Telepathy.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cohoba - Cohoba is a GNOME interface for Telepathy. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205343 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 15:23 EST --- Ok, it looks like all the outstanding issues in comment #7 and comment #13 have been fixed. In addition, since Bug #208933 has been fixed, the problem with telepathy-gabble in comment #14 is solved. 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 208898] Review Request: bluez-gnome -- Bluetooth pairing and control applet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bluez-gnome -- Bluetooth pairing and control applet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208898 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 15:32 EST --- So when KDE doesn't find it in /etc/xdg/autostart, it's buggy? -- 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 208009] Review Request: perl-Wx - Interface to the wxWidgets cross-platform GUI toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Wx - Interface to the wxWidgets cross-platform GUI toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208009 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 15:43 EST --- Tibbs, Thanks for the review. Package imported and built for FC6. I will close this ticket as soon as the FC5 build completes (FC5 CVS branch still 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 205075] Review Request: fwbackups - a user backup program, with support for automated backups and on-demand backups
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fwbackups - a user backup program, with support for automated backups and on-demand backups https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205075 [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 208116] Review Request: oorexx - Open Object Rexx
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: oorexx - Open Object Rexx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208116 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 16:47 EST --- I have submitted a bug report to oorexx.sf.net: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=1569548group_id=119701atid=684730 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-02 17:43 EST --- This friday I'm committing and building it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208200] Review Request: toped - IC Layout Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: toped - IC Layout Editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208200 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 17:43 EST --- (In reply to comment #15) Well, I have two questions. A. The files included in toped main package which are under /usr/share/tll are C++ program text. Are these files necessary for main package? Yes there are important. They are used as include files B. toped-devel package contains no header files. Therefore the prototypes of functions in the libraries in toped cannot be gained and I think this -devel package is not useful. (The exception for this case is X related packages. For example, libXxf86vm-devel does not have any header files, they are in xorg-x11-proto-devel package.) Is this package (toped-devel) really needed? Rpmlint complains W: toped devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libtpd_common.so W: toped devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libtpd_parser.so W: toped devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libtpd_DB.so -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208675] Review Request: miau - Full-featured IRC bouncer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: miau - Full-featured IRC bouncer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208675 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 18:04 EST --- Thanks for the fast review! Imported into CVS, added to owners.list, built for devel, and requested FC-5 branch. All systems go. Closing with NEXTRELEASE; have a nice day! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208034] Review Request: HippoDraw - Interactive and Python scriptable data analysis application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: HippoDraw - Interactive and Python scriptable data analysis application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208034 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 18:32 EST --- Updated source rpm and spec file. rpmlint now shows no output on any rpm file. Spec URL: ftp://ftp.slac.stanford.edu/users/pfkeb/hippodraw/HippoDraw.spec SRPM URL:ftp://ftp.slac.stanford.edu/users/pfkeb/hippodraw/HippoDraw-1.18.6-2.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 201417] Review Request: alleyoop : Graphical front-end to the Valgrind memory checker for x86
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: alleyoop : Graphical front-end to the Valgrind memory checker for x86 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201417 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 18:36 EST --- Imported and built from -devel. FC5 branch will follow. Thanks a lot for the review (I will try to do some myself, though time is my biggest enemy...) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 178922] Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178922 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 18:54 EST --- It can't pass a review while it still requires zaptel and libpri packages which aren't in Fedora -- let's disable those for the 'asterisk' package, and build them as a separate package for now. We can't put spandsp into Extras either -- that has to be in Livna. So app_[rt]xfax need to be omitted from the package too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202528] Review Request: rt2x00-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: rt2x00-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202528 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|202521 | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 19:47 EST --- I've decided to follow with this review request because some info about the module and when it is planned to be merged is already there. rt2x00-kmod-common is on the same review (so i will close the old rt2500-(kmod-common) ). I expect it will be fine... Please note that some rt61 and rt71 chipset will need to download a firmware from Ralink: (to /lib/firmware !) http://www.ralinktech.com/drivers/Linux/RT61_Firmware_V1.2.zip http://www.ralinktech.com/drivers/Linux/RT71W_Firmware_V1.8.zip -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 177583] Review Request: zaptel-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: zaptel-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177583 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 19:51 EST --- (In reply to comment #54) I know that you don't have a problem with including a dual-licensed component into your distribution, and I also know that Linus et. al. don't have a problem including dual-licensed code into the kernel tree. Those are not our concern. What is our concern is that if Zaptel is merged into the main kernel tree, from that point forward anyone who wants to improve it can do so without contributing their changes to our version of Zaptel, which devalues our dual licensing of Zaptel completely. In practice, that doesn't happen. I maintain a large chunk of dual-licensed code in the kernel (JFFS2), and Linus doesn't _take_ updates from anyone other than me unless they're trivial oneliners and build fixes, which you really don't have to worry about. People _already_ have the option to take your version of Zaptel and 'improve' it without giving their changes back. If I were inclined to do that, the _first_ thing I'd do is submit my version to Linus and become the defacto maintainer of it. You'd probably do well to get there first. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX BugsThisDependsOn|202528 | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 19:53 EST --- Review closed because rt2x00 can now be built, i'm using bug : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202528 to request review of rt2x00-kmod and rt2x00-kmod-common. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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: rt2x00-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: rt2x00-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202528 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|202529 | 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 178922] Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178922 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 19:56 EST --- Looking at the spandsp review bug, it seems I was wrong -- we can put spandsp in. I've also been looking at OpenPBX, which is apparently due for release soon. I'm not particularly impressed by their political reasons for forking Asterisk, but they have a codebase which: - Uses POSIX timers instead of ztdummy - Contains app_conference, again not requiring zaptel - Contains chan_bluetooth I wonder if OpenPBX would be a better choice for packaging in Extras, if Digium refuse to put their kernel modules upstream and refuse to remove the most gratuitous dependencies on 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 208915] Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208915 [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 198839] Review Request: sear - WorldForge client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sear - WorldForge client Alias: sear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198839 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 20:14 EST --- Updates addressing the rpmlint issues in comment #11: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/sear.spec http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/sear-0.6.2-2.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 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208636] Review Request: perl-PPI-Tester - A wxPerl-based interactive PPI debugger/tester
Please 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-PPI-Tester - A wxPerl-based interactive PPI debugger/tester https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208636 [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 204228] Review Request: sleuthkit - Open Source forensic toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sleuthkit - Open Source forensic toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204228 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 20:33 EST --- Since you are looking for sponsorship, you should take a look at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored Adding FE-NEEDSPONSOR. In reply to comment #4, perhaps you could ask the upstream source if they could change the setup to honor flags passed in? Otherwise you will have to look at patching the Makefile(s) yourself. :( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 20:39 EST --- Since the Ralink chipset works better with system-config-network, i will not add : Requires: RuiltT from the new rt2x00-kmod-common. It remains one problem about root access ( file need to be setuid - but this is a potential security risk as i know!) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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: rt2x00-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: rt2x00-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202528 [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 204140] Review Request: libmtp - MTP client library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libmtp - MTP client library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204140 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 20:42 EST --- ok, this appears to be in owners.list and imported and built. Is anything keeping this review request from being closed 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 209025] New: Review Request: xfce4-dev-tools - Xfce developer tools
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=209025 Summary: Review Request: xfce4-dev-tools - Xfce developer tools 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://home.arcor.de/christoph.wickert/fedora/extras/review/SPECS/xfce4-dev-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://home.arcor.de/christoph.wickert/fedora/extras/review/SRPMS/xfce4-dev-tools-4.3.99.1-1.fc5.src.rpm http://home.arcor.de/christoph.wickert/fedora/extras/review/SRPMS/xfce4-dev-tools-4.3.99.1-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: This package contains common tools required by Xfce developers and people that want to build Xfce from SVN. In addition, this package contains the Xfce developer's handbook. Note: This package is needed to build some plugins for the upcoming XFCE 4.4 Release. XFCE 4.4 is not available atm in Fedora Extras, so you will need the packages from http://www.scrye.com/xfce-4.4b1/ For more Information on these packages see: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-June/msg00974.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-October/msg00019.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198098] Review Request: xarchiver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xarchiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198098 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 20:46 EST --- Hi, Damien told me (on IRC) that he's waiting for a new upstream release (I don't really remember the reason why). If Damien still wants to maintain this package, I'll do a review once the issues in comment #1 are addressed (It seems to me those are the only issues keeping this package from being 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 187243] Review Request: lazarus : IDE and RAD tool for the free pascal compiler (fpc)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lazarus : IDE and RAD tool for the free pascal compiler (fpc) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187243 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 21:05 EST --- (In reply to comment #14) Why is the debuginfo package disabled? Actually, I don't know. Someone told me to do so, because an empty package was generated. I tried without that code, and that empty package isn't there anymore. So' I'll remove it. The debuginfo package is not empty, but at ~500K relatively small. Which leads to the next point: And it seems that rpmbuild doesn't strip the executables. The RPM is HUGE now. Where can I find more information about strip and rpmbuild? Not sure about documentation, but it is clear from the strip scripts in /usr/lib/rpm that rpm only strips ELF binaries that have the execute bit set. I see everything is in $(LIBDIR), executable, documentation, pascal modules, and all. Are any of the make targets suitable for splitting this up? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208915] Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208915 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 21:15 EST --- I suggest you change the last line of the summary to: Developers should use PHPUnit2 with PHP5. to be grammatical. Other than that, everything is fine. * source files match upstream: 4b9dd2158e4035318481c93bbd59aaa5 PHPUnit-1.3.2.tgz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: php-pear(PHPUnit) = 1.3.2 php-pear-PHPUnit = 1.3.2-1.fc6 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/pear php = 4.3.0 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (pear module installation) * 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 165985] Review Request: Aeryn - A C++ testing 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: Aeryn - A C++ testing framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165985 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|fedora-extras- | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | CC||fedora-package- ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 21:14 EST --- Any progress on this? If not, will close in a week as per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Policy/StalledReviews -- 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 200422] Review Request: international-time (first package, seeking sponsor)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: international-time (first package, seeking sponsor) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200422 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 21:25 EST --- Jeez, this has sat around for a long time. Tim, I know your folks are rather busy lately, but do you still want to pursue getting this into extras? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208072] Review Request: brasero - Gnome CD/DVD burning application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: brasero - Gnome CD/DVD burning application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208072 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 21:30 EST --- Humm. I can't make much from the URL and Source0 links here. Do they need to be updated? The URL points to a graphic design web site with lots of flash and javascript, but no mention of open source software I can see. The Source0 url on sourceforge doesn't seem to point to any 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 198098] Review Request: xarchiver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xarchiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198098 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 21:34 EST --- We are working at getting Xfce 4.4rc1 in very soon... perhaps the version at: http://www.xfce.org/archive/xfce-4.3.99.1/src/xarchiver-0.4.0.tar.bz2 would be the upstream release being waited on? Or the perhaps the 4.4 final version? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209025] Review Request: xfce4-dev-tools - Xfce developer tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xfce4-dev-tools - Xfce developer tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 21:35 EST --- I'll go ahead and review this, so we can hopefully get Xfce 4.4rc1 in later this week. ;) Look for a full review in a few 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 172869] Review Request: nss-mdns
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nss-mdns https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=172869 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163776 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 21:42 EST --- On second thought others can probably do this review better and get it through. Resetting to FE-NEW. Anybody CCed want to review this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209025] Review Request: xfce4-dev-tools - Xfce developer tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xfce4-dev-tools - Xfce developer tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209025 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 21:55 EST --- OK - Package name OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: dc6403caf82edfb896eb3878385b439a xfce4-dev-tools-4.3.99.1.tar.bz2 dc6403caf82edfb896eb3878385b439a xfce4-dev-tools-4.3.99.1.tar.bz2.1 OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - BuildRequires correct See below - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. See below - No rpmlint output. SHOULD Items: OK - Should include License or ask upstream to include it. OK - Should build in mock. Issues: 1. rpmlint says: E: xfce4-dev-tools explicit-lib-dependency libtool This can be ignored I think. rpmlint is just looking for anything starting with lib... However, there might be some more Requires. I see it checking for the following at runtime: ## Check for a suitable make ## Check for autoconf, first trying autoconf-2.59, then autoconf-2.58, then ## Check for intltoolize ## Check for libtoolize ## Check for glib-gettextize ## Check for gtkdocize ## Check for aclocal, first trying aclocal-1.9, then aclocal-1.8, and finally ## Check for autoheader, first trying autoheader-2.59, then autoheader-2.58, ## Check for automake, first trying automake-1.9, then automake-1.8, and finally 2. Should require the Xfce package that owns datadir/xfce4... Should perhaps be xfwm4? (which I need to fix to own that dir). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177747] Review Request: glade3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: glade3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177747 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added URL|http://ftp.acc.umu.se/pub/GN|ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedo |OME/sources/glade-3/|ra-cn/fe-review/glade3 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 23:09 EST --- spec and srpm uploaded to ftp for review, which is at ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/fe-review/glade3 mock build passed, there is something I'm not sure, that is BuildRequires: perl(XML::Parser) since I don't know if it is an intltool dependency or glade3's. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 23:37 EST --- Hi Jason, the package built successfully for FC6 and an FC5 branch has been requested. Thank you 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 208200] Review Request: toped - IC Layout Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: toped - IC Layout Editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208200 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-02 23:43 EST --- (In reply to comment #18) (In reply to comment #15) Well, I have two questions. A. The files included in toped main package which are under /usr/share/tll are C++ program text. Are these files necessary for main package? Yes there are important. They are used as include files Okay, then include this as you did. B. toped-devel package contains no header files. Therefore the prototypes of functions in the libraries in toped cannot be gained and I think this -devel package is not useful. Is this package (toped-devel) really needed? Rpmlint complains W: toped devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libtpd_common.so W: toped devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libtpd_parser.so W: toped devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libtpd_DB.so Then simply remove these 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 188478] Review Request: fxload-2002_04_11.spec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fxload-2002_04_11.spec https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188478 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-03 00:22 EST --- Sorry, I must have gotten confused somewhere there. Neal is now sponsored tho (in bug #205023). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 178922] Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178922 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-03 00:26 EST --- OpenPBX has been due for release soon for a long time now... While OpenPBX has progressed on the fronts that you mention, other parts of the code that were inherited from Asterisk have seen little or no maintenance, while Asterisk has had many security and bug fixes applied. OpenPBX has lofty goals and I applaud what they have done so far... however I fear that there are just too few people working on the OpenPBX code to keep up with security and bug fixes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208636] Review Request: perl-PPI-Tester - A wxPerl-based interactive PPI debugger/tester
Please 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-PPI-Tester - A wxPerl-based interactive PPI debugger/tester https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208636 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-03 00:35 EST --- This fails to build for me. First the perl Build.PL bit hangs; from the looks of an strace it's waiting for user input. Prepending echo| gets things going: + /usr/bin/perl Build.PL installdirs=vendor Warning: prerequisite ExtUtils::AutoInstall 0.49 not found. Checking if your kit is complete... Looks good Warning: Guessing NAME [PPI-Tester] from current directory name. Writing Makefile for PPI-Tester And then there's no Build script to run. (A Makefile is created instead, for whatever reason.) I added BR: perl(ExtUtils::AutoInstall) and the build makes it to completion. It took me quite some time to figure that all out, though. The only rpmlint complaint is over the src.rpm: W: perl-PPI-Tester strange-permission PPI-Tester-0.06.tar.gz 0444 which admittedly is a bit weird but isn't a blocker (and won't really matter once it's in CVS anyway). Oddly, I could not run this within the mock chroot, because it can't find any fonts. I wonder if there's a missing runtime requirement somewhere. (If so it's almost certainly not here, but in one of the dependencies.) The %check tests are successful, but aren't terribly happy: t/01_compileError: Unable to initialize gtk, is DISPLAY set properly? Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/Wx.pm line 179. Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/Wx.pm line 180. ok Unfortunately I can't test this because there's no perl(Wx) package for FC5 yet and because of the above font problem; I'll try to get a rawhide machine going tomorrow but if I don't have a chance to do so then I'll leave it up to you to test it. Review: * source files match upstream: 9fcad41d6b2e33cfdf4025eb29644fae PPI-Tester-0.06.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. X BuildRequires are proper (needs perl(ExtUtils::AutoInstall)) * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(PPI::Tester) = 0.06 perl(PPI::Tester::App) perl(PPI::Tester::Window) perl-PPI-Tester = 0.06-1.fc6 = /usr/bin/perl perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(FindBin) perl(PPI::Dumper) perl(PPI::Lexer) perl(PPI::Tester) perl(Wx) perl(Wx::Event) perl(base) perl(constant) perl(lib) perl(strict) perl(vars) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=2, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.14 cusr + 0.05 csys = 0.19 CPU) * 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. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 176579] Review Request: ipsvd -- Internet protocol service daemons
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ipsvd -- Internet protocol service daemons https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176579 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-03 00:37 EST --- Perhaps this should be moved back to FE-NEW and assigned to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jochen? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-03 01:02 EST --- Sorry for taking much time to build that package. But After all this is first time i did build my package. So it took some time to learn me. Thanks to Kevin and all those who helped me alot to make and test this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208737] Review Request: ivman - Generic handler for HAL events
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ivman - Generic handler for HAL events https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208737 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-03 01:11 EST --- OK - Package name OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (QPL/GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 031c763d6acc927bf2fefd7c6140247d ivman-0.6.12.tar.bz2 031c763d6acc927bf2fefd7c6140247d ivman-0.6.12.tar.bz2.1 OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. See below - No rpmlint output. SHOULD Items: - Should include License or ask upstream to include it. - Should build in mock. Issues: 1. rpmlint says: W: ivman incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/ivman $servicename W: ivman incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/ivman $servicename W: ivman incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/ivman $servicename I think this is rpmlint getting confused. The pid file looks correct to me. You might doublecheck it. 2. I take it this is targeted for fc6? dbus-glib-devel doesn't exist in fc5. Everything else looks good... this package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
