[Bug 206872] Review Request: sipsak- SIP swiss army knife
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sipsak- SIP swiss army knife https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206872 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 03:04 EST --- All done. Thanks for 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 206872] Review Request: sipsak- SIP swiss army knife
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sipsak- SIP swiss army knife https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206872 [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 209614] Review Request: wmmemload - windowmaker dock app
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: wmmemload - windowmaker dock app
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209614
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 04:58 EST ---
I don't have access to the .src.rpm.
I have many comments on the spec file (some are in fact blockers, some
are really comments), though:
* I would personally have dropped 'for window managers such as WindowMaker'
from the summary, since it will be shorter, and also those apps
are well suited to fluxbox, for example if I'm not wrong.
* the provide wmmemload is unusefull, it is automatically set by rpm
* The Epoch is not needed. In my opinion it is clearer if it is not
mentioned when set to 0
* the buildroot is not the preferred one
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-f196e7b2477c2f5dd97ef64e8eacddfb517f1aa1
(although it has been agreed that %(%{__id_u} -n) could be removed).
* The Requires are not needed, there are picked up automatically by rpm
* BuildRequires: libX11-devel is optional since libX11-devel is required
by libXext-devel or libXpm-devel
* export CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS is unneeded, it is part of %configure
* if I'm not wrong, prefixing with %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/ is
not needed in %install since it is what the current working directory
is set to.
* in %files, I think it is better to use
%{_mandir}/man1/wmmemload.1*
instead of
%{_mandir}/man1/wmmemload.1.gz
to catch no compression and different compression schemes.
* in the changelog, I think the 0: corresponding with epoch is unneeded
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209615] Review Request: wmcpuload - WindowMaker dockapp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wmcpuload - WindowMaker dockapp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209615 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 05:00 EST --- I have exactly the same comments than for wmmemload (including the .src.rpm not accessible). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207839] Review Request: lush - An object-oriented Lisp interpreter and compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lush - An object-oriented Lisp interpreter and compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207839 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 05:40 EST --- I moved the demos to docdir, as well as those etc files that are not related to installation. The buildroot check is disabled. http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/lush-1.2-3.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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 07:08 EST --- W: alleyoop conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/alleyoop.schemas Should this be marked (noreplace)? It's not a config file and hence shouldn't be marked as %config. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-10-07 08:12 EST --- Sear requires guichan 0.4. These errors occur due to guichan 0.5 changes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202496] Review Request: quodlibet - A music management program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: quodlibet - A music management program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202496 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 10:51 EST --- Imported and built for development, branch requested for FC-5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209399] Review Request: root-tail - an app o show log files on the root window
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: root-tail - an app o show log files on the root window https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209399 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 11:21 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) The problematic item has been solved so it is APPROVED Just 3 comments (not blockers): * don't forget to add it to the comps file http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/CompsXml I sponsored you. Don't hesitate to mail me if you need help or advice. When reading this page I dont think any of the 3 apps I have thus far fit the profile, It says: Also, most text-mode utilities don't really fit in unless they have a pretty large established user-base. Given that the primary use is with a GUI, selecting a lot of text-mode things make little sense. And to use this app you have to type: root-tail (prams) logfile What do you think?? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-07 11:39 EST --- So what happens now? It's essentially impossible to get this in as-is; either sear needs to be fixed, guichan 0.4 needs to be packaged up or this package needs to be abandoned. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204700] Review Request: njb-sharp - C# bindings to libnjb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: njb-sharp - C# bindings to libnjb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 11:39 EST --- I cannot rebuild this by mockbuild under FC-devel i386. checking dynamic linker characteristics... cat: ld.so.conf.d/*.conf: No such file or directory GNU/Linux ld.so checking how to hardcode library paths into programs... immediate appending configuration tag F77 to libtool checking for i686-redhat-linux-gnu-pkg-config... no checking for pkg-config... /usr/bin/pkg-config checking pkg-config is at least version 0.9.0... yes checking for NJB... yes checking for mono... /usr/bin/mono checking for mcs... /usr/bin/mcs checking for monodocer... no configure: error: You need to install monodoc error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.2121 (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.2121 (%build) Error building package from njb-sharp-0.3.0-1.fc6.src.rpm, See 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 209399] Review Request: root-tail - an app o show log files on the root window
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: root-tail - an app o show log files on the root window https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209399 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 11:44 EST --- It is slightly out of date, since it is more established today that command line apps should be in comps (but not libs). But are much better in some categories. In my opinion * wmctrl could go in Development Tools * scrot could go in X Window System, but it is not obvious, since it is not a graphical app * root-tail could be in Administration Tools My understanding is that command line apps can be in Development Tools, Administration Tools, System Tools, Hardware Support, Engineering and Scientific and libraries that are to be used directly (like numerical libraries) can go in Engineering and Scientific. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188400] Review Request: ssmtp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ssmtp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188400
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 11:58 EST ---
I have some comments:
* it is still wrong to provide the man pages, especially for
man pages corresponding with commands that do nothing in ssmtp
* it seems very dubious to me to
Provides: %{_bindir}/mailq %{_bindir}/newaliases
since these do nothing with ssmtp
* the patch ssmtp-2.61.6.patch seems to be a debian patch. I
think it should be marked as such, the file name would better
be the one in debian, and it would also be nice to
have a comment telling what vulnerabilities are fixed.
(I guess it is even possible to have an url in %Patch if you
like).
And it doesn't seems to be the latest version in debian
unstable. Is there a reason?
* you could add -p switch to install when the file is from upstream
since it keeps the timestamp.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-07 12:00 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) W: alleyoop conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/alleyoop.schemas Should this be marked (noreplace)? It's not a config file and hence shouldn't be marked as %config. It makes sense. I am not sure why I assumed _everything_ under /etc had to be marked %config... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193103] Review Request: Listen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Listen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193103 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 12:08 EST --- Some time ago I also made a listen package, which is used by people on fedoraforums.org. The spec file can be found here: http://forums.fedoraforum.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=9292 and source rpms (gziped) here: http://forums.fedoraforum.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=9295 I have this rpmlint output: rpmlint listen-0.5-0.b1.4.i386.rpm W: listen unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/listen/mmkeys.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 209617] Review Request: comix - A user-friendly, customizable image viewer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: comix - A user-friendly, customizable image viewer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209617 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 12:10 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) You should use dl.sourceforge.net instead of prdownloads.sourceforge.net. I changed URL as you recommended. This package owns /etc/gconf, which is owned by GConf in FC5 but which is completely unowned in FC6. Ouch. Well, I checked FC5, however, /etc/gconf is not owned by GConf2 (I have not checked GConf because this package does not require GConf) and.. /etc/gconf is not owned by any packages required by this package in FC5, either. So I have to make this package own /etc/gconf in FC5, too (I strongly think that some other package should own /etc/gconf and /etc/gconf/schemas) This package also owns /etc/gconf/schemas, which unfortunately doesn't seem to be owned by GConf as it should. This is the same for FC5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209894] New: Review Request: python-eyed3 - Python module for processing ID3 tags
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=209894 Summary: Review Request: python-eyed3 - Python module for processing ID3 tags Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/python-eyed3/python-eyed3.spec SRPM URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/python-eyed3/python-eyed3-0.6.10-1.src.rpm Description: A Python module and program for processing ID3 tags. Information about mp3 files(i.e bit rate, sample frequency, play time, etc.) is also provided. The formats supported are ID3 v1.0/v1.1 and v2.3/v2.4. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204700] Review Request: njb-sharp - C# bindings to libnjb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: njb-sharp - C# bindings to libnjb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 12:33 EST ---
Okay, x things.
First, are you intending to have this available for FC5 as well as FC6? If you
are then until mono in FC5 is updated, you'll need a hack otherwise it will be
broken for x86_64
Something like
%if %{?fedora} == 5
%define monodir %{_prefix}/lib
%else
%define monodir %{_libdir}
%endif
You will then need patches for the makefile.am files which point statically to
/usr/lib and change them to @[EMAIL PROTECTED] These patches ONLY need to be
applied if
you're not using them for FC5, so in %setup you have
%if %{?fedora} 5
%patch0 -p1
autoreconf
%endif
(obviously, this will mean you need to include the BRs for autoreconf - IIRC,
it's autoconf, automake and libtool)
2. Anything that is for a pkgconfig *must* be in it's own package - it doesn't
matter if it's a single line or not, it has to be in it's own -devel package.
3. You will need BR pkgconfig and monodoc (there may be some switch in the
configure script which can switch off monodoc). Me, I'd include it as the more
that goes in monodoc, the better.
4. Don't steel from SuSE - their spec files have been known to cause people's
brains to explode, implode and then make a sort of sqe noise.
5. Not sure what you mean about these commented out lines
# These are for /usr/bin/monodoc, part of mono-tools, not part of FC/FE
# and not present in the current mododoc package.
If there is a problem with monodoc, please file a BZ report and I'll fix 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 204700] Review Request: njb-sharp - C# bindings to libnjb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: njb-sharp - C# bindings to libnjb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204700 [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 209894] Review Request: python-eyed3 - Python module for processing ID3 tags
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: python-eyed3 - Python module for processing ID3 tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209894
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 12:53 EST ---
* as it is a noarch package it may be better to have
BuildRequires: python
instead of
BuildRequires: python-devel
* you could remove the -f option of rm such that it
breaks if the file isn't there anymore
* You could add README.html and THANKS to %doc
* the build is done twice since make triggers the build
and the install target depends on all. So I think the
make in %build should be removed or commented out with a
comment indicating that install triggers the build
unconditionally
* I think that it would be better to have a * for man files
to catch man pages when no compressed or compressed using
something different than gz, like
%{_mandir}/man1/*.1*
* Given that it only creates the directory in python_sitelib,
you may optionally set
%{python_sitelib}/eyeD3/
instead of
%{python_sitelib}/*
These issues are not blockers.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-07 13:10 EST --- On QT: the configure bug (missing space before xno) caused failure to disable rpath, but shouldn't have caused failure to find Qt. The QT_xxx flags look the same to me as on my local x86_64 machine. I need too look at the resulting config.log file to see what really went wrong. On boost_python. I'll change the m4 macro for boost to try to link instead of looking for a file for the next version. Fortran is not required, but one of the standard autoconf/automake macros checks for Fortran. I suspect AM_LIBTOOL. Do you know how to turn off the search? Minuit2, ROOT, and WCSLIB are optional when user builds from tar.gz file. None of them are in Core or Extras. The message that comes out at the end of the configure step is meant to confirm to user that he got the optional packages he had hoped for. Perhaps I should add a message to indicate missing options is ok? Only the C++ part of the test suite is run with make check'. The larger part (the Python scripts) need manual intervention for the builder to look on the canvas to verify things. Should I do something about this? No I didn't know I didn't have to seperately list the BuildRequires. I'll fix that for the next release. Thanks for you comments. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209894] Review Request: python-eyed3 - Python module for processing ID3 tags
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-eyed3 - Python module for processing ID3 tags https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209894 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 13:13 EST --- Shouldn't the name be python-eyeD3? Otherwise * rpmlint is silent * follow packaging guidelines * spec legible * free software, licence GPL included * sane provides python-eyed3 = 0.6.10-1 * match upstream source 2f7ee6749b993faba3b5d10d9621d314 ./eyeD3-0.6.10.tar.gz * %files right * buildrequires/requires right The only remaining issue is the name. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209894] Review Request: python-eyed3 - Python module for processing ID3 tags
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-eyed3 - Python module for processing ID3 tags https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209894 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 13:26 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) Shouldn't the name be python-eyeD3? It's up to the maintainers discretion. I based the name on how other distros package it also. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-96b3088669f40824665abf97ff34841f9b65172d -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209894] Review Request: python-eyed3 - Python module for processing ID3 tags
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-eyed3 - Python module for processing ID3 tags https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209894 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 13:48 EST --- Ok, APPROVED. But please take into consideration my comments, even though they aren't blockers. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199905] Review Request: gotmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gotmail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199905
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 14:33 EST ---
The link is not a link to a spec file.
You should also post alink to the modified .src.rpm.
Quick comments from a look at the spec:
* perl requires should be autodetected
* why an epoch of 1 and a release of 0?
* the -n in %setup isn't needed since it is the default
* [ %{buildroot} != / -a -n %{buildroot} ] is not needed
%{buildroot} is set
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209608] Review Request: dwdiff - Front end to diff for comparing files on a word per word basis
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dwdiff - Front end to diff for comparing files on a word per word basis https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209608 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 15:11 EST --- BAD: Use full url on Source0 BAD: Use either $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + $RPM_OPT_FLAGS or the macros, not both. BAD: See packaging guidelines how to use %find_lang to package the localizations. Thanks, fixed It should Requires diffutils. Fixed, I've ommited it because of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions but you're right that that document mentions BuildRequires not Requires It must BuildRequires at least gettext and diffutils (as diff is checked by the configure program) You're right about gettext, sorry, fixed. I'm aware of the fact that the package uses diff but according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions there's no need to include diffutils in the BuildRequires section. Next time read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines Thanks for reviewing the package! packages that should fix the above problems are located at: spec URL: http://www.stud.fit.vutbr.cz/~xhroze01/dwdiff/dwdiff.spec SRPM URL: http://www.stud.fit.vutbr.cz/~xhroze01/dwdiff/dwdiff-1.2-2.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 204513] Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204513 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 16:10 EST --- The version number seems to be 1.0.1 from configure.ac. So, no need to have X11R7.0. * There could be the word calculator in the summary, it is a bit terse currently * you should add the version to the Provides: xcalc * a dot should end the description * the Requires aren't needed for libs, they should be autodetected * are you sure xorg-x11-xbitmaps is needed? * are all the buildrequires really needed? For example libXdmcp-devel don't seems to be needed to me. indirect buildrequires are optional. * the Changelog could be in %doc * in %files macros should be used there is also W: xorg-x11-xcalc strange-permission xcalc-X11R7.0-1.0.1.tar.bz2 0600 To be sponsored, you should have a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199905] Review Request: gotmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gotmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199905 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 16:22 EST --- Created an attachment (id=137980) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=137980action=view) Gotmail spec file Gotmail spec file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199905] Review Request: gotmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gotmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199905 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 16:24 EST --- Not sure what the first comment means but here is a link to the updated spec file: http://svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/*checkout*/gotmail/gotmail/gotmail.spec I have also attached the spec file. Also - which modified .src.rpm? Otherwise - all comments have been addressed in the current spec file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189949] Review Request: mystun - STUN (Simple Traversal of UDP through NATs) server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mystun - STUN (Simple Traversal of UDP through NATs) server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189949 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209468] Review Request: Sjitter - Another network performance tool...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Sjitter - Another network performance tool... Alias: sjitter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209468 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 16:37 EST --- This seems to be your first package? In that case you should block FE-NEEDSPONSOR 177841. Your spec file isn't adhering to the Guidelines. I think you should read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines and you can also take a look at existing fedora extras spec files to have an idea of the usual spec files. For example from http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/?root=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 204700] Review Request: njb-sharp - C# bindings to libnjb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: njb-sharp - C# bindings to libnjb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204700 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 17:08 EST --- Created an attachment (id=137981) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=137981action=view) New spec file This spec file sorts out the problems already seen and includes the FC5 hackery. Packages built are pretty much clean with rpmlint. I've dropped the makefile patch from the original version of the spec file as it breaks everything under FC6/rawhide on x86_64 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204700] Review Request: njb-sharp - C# bindings to libnjb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: njb-sharp - C# bindings to libnjb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204700 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 17:09 EST --- Created an attachment (id=137982) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=137982action=view) Patch Patch file for the .pc.in file - it is not applied unless FC6 or above is being 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 204700] Review Request: njb-sharp - C# bindings to libnjb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: njb-sharp - C# bindings to libnjb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204700 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 17:14 EST --- Packages created with the above spec file are clean as well with mock (x86) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199905] Review Request: gotmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gotmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199905 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 17:44 EST --- When you update the spec file you should rebuild a .src.rpm and put it on the web. * You can drop Epoch: 0 from the spec file. * a release of 0 is not right, if I recall well, you should set it to 1 and increase it during review, or alternatively, some packagers set it to 0.1 and increase it to 0.2 and so on during review and set it to 1 when imported in cvs. * You misunderstood my comment about perl requires being autodetected. I meant that Requires: perl = 5 is certainly not needed. * the following are set automatically: %define __find_provides /usr/lib/rpm/find-provides.perl %define __find_requires /usr/lib/rpm/find-requires.perl * in the comment about -n I talked about -n and its argument, not -n on its own. The %setup line is wrong now. * the release is missing from the changelog entries. It is not a blocker, but in general the changelog entries are like 0.8.9-0, or 0.8.9-1 once you have corrected the release... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-07 17:49 EST --- Until I ran a yum update yesterday I was already running guichan 0.4 from fedora 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 209906] New: Review Request: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations
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=209906 Summary: Review Request: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.lmd.jussieu.fr/~pdlmd/elektra.spec SRPM URL: http://www.lmd.jussieu.fr/~pdlmd/elektra-0.6.4-1.src.rpm Description: Elektra provides a universal and secure framework to store configuration parameters in a hierarchical key-value pair mechanism, instead of each program using its own text configuration files. This allows any program to read and save its configuration with a consistent API, and allows them to be aware of other applications' configurations, permitting easy application integration. While architecturally similar to other OS registries, Elektra does not have most of the problems found in those implementations. This package also contains a Berkeley DB backend for Elektra, to let Elektra use Berkeley DB databases to store its keys and daemon which can be used as a proxy for access to the keys. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199905] Review Request: gotmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gotmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199905 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 18:18 EST --- I have adjusted the spec file based on Comment #9 but I am still missing your point regarding -n. Can you explain further? Sorry a newcomer to RPM and I am a little slow today. http://svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/*checkout*/gotmail/gotmail/gotmail.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199905] Review Request: gotmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gotmail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199905
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 18:24 EST ---
Do you mean that -n gotmail-%{version} is the default and as such I don't need
to specify 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 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 Resolution|NOTABUG |DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 21:14 EST --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 209906 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209906] Review Request: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations
Please 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 - A key/value pair database to store software configurations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209906 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 21:14 EST --- *** Bug 187430 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204513] Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204513 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 22:12 EST --- Without xorg-x11-bitmaps, you will get an warning upon launch that states: Warning: Cannot convert string calculator to type Pixmap This is due to xcalc looking for its corresponding pixmap. It will run without it, but it throws warnings up that I doubt people would like. So, I figured that in order to prevent warnings, the package might as well have the dependency. As per above comments, I added some text to summary, cleaned up the buildrequires list, and added ChangeLog to %doc. The files now use appropriate macros. Spec URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xorg-x11-xcalc.spec SRPM URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xorg-x11-xcalc-1.0.1-2.fc5.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 193103] Review Request: Listen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Listen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193103 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 23:07 EST --- 1. Ok. 2. Yeah, but it still has mime types for things like audio/mpeg3, which it can't play if it doesn't have python-mad, right? 3 - 4. ok. 5. Yeah, it builds ok in mock here now too. ;) I think your version/release is not correct... Look at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#NonNumericRelease perhaps something like release: 0.5 version: 0.2.b1 ? You might also take a look at Martins sepc from comment #10 and see if he has any improvements. ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177512] Review Request: mysql-connector-net
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mysql-connector-net https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177512 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 23:35 EST --- Ping Paul... it looks like this has been imported into cvs, but not added to owners or built. Any issues I can help with? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189188] Review Request: sqlgrey - postfix grey-listing policy service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sqlgrey - postfix grey-listing policy service https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189188 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-07 23:37 EST --- Ping Steven. Any chance to look at this again? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197732] Review Request: optipng - a PNG optimizer and converter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: optipng - a PNG optimizer and converter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197732 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 00:14 EST --- Is there any hold up on importing and building this? Anything I can do to assist? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199679] Review Request: pgpool - Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pgpool - Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199679 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 00:16 EST --- Devrim: Are you back from vacation yet? Any chance to move this review forward? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200700] Review Request: clipsmm - A C++ interface to the CLIPS 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: clipsmm - A C++ interface to the CLIPS library Alias: clipsmm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200700 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 00:22 EST --- Ping Rick. Do you still want to submit 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 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] 2006-10-08 00:33 EST --- This package appears to have been imported and built, but I don't see it in owners.list yet. ;) Can you add it there and close this 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 209399] Review Request: root-tail - an app o show log files on the root window
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: root-tail - an app o show log files on the root window https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209399 [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
