[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] 2006-10-09 03:04 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) Quick comments from a look at the spec: * perl requires should be autodetected * why an epoch of 1 and a release of 0? The epoch is 1 because the upstream packages have a an epoch of 1 (which was needed because of some version numbering goofiness earlier in the project's history). Having an epoch of zero means that all Extras versions of gotmail will be seen as older than even very old upstream packages, so I would suggest reverting the change that got rid of the epoch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-09 03:21 EST --- (In reply to comment #18) I received a reply from John Bradley. I think we are in the clear. I have copied his reply verbatim below: Ok, so please add that response to a file you add in Source (with a mention of the date, too). The licence is now clearly X11, there is no code under the BSD licence in xcalc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-09 03:55 EST --- (In reply to comment #14) The epoch is 1 because the upstream packages have a an epoch of 1 (which was needed because of some version numbering goofiness earlier in the project's history). Having an epoch of zero means that all Extras versions of gotmail will be seen as older than even very old upstream packages, so I would suggest reverting the change that got rid of the epoch. Ok, makes sense. May deserve a comment, 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 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] 2006-10-09 04:06 EST --- Some additional comments: * you miss a make invocation in %build * in the changelog for 1.0.1-4, I think the file wasn't an 'xpm file', but an 'xbm file'. And there is dekstop instead of desktop And also the the srpm url is wrong in comment #17, although the right one is only a change in release away. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209082] Review Request: scanbuttond - Scanner Button tools to SANE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: scanbuttond - Scanner Button tools to SANE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209082 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 04:08 EST --- Jima, Can you check new SRPM uploaded for anything still missings? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-09 04:14 EST --- Added Epoch back to the spec file. I will document the additional somewhere. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-09 04:18 EST ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Okay. I have updated the spec file. I've left in adjusted the %setup -n
option
as I want to use a structure different than gotmail-%{version} - I want to add
%{release} to this also - -n gotmail-%{version}-%{release}.
I don't really understand what you mean. You should use a Source
which is the upstream source, and may be downloaded with wget or
the like (when it is possible, and it is the case here). You
can check by doing
spectool -g gotmail.spec
and verify that the downloaded files are the right ones. Currently,
it isn't the case.
Then the -n argument is given by the directory name appearing
after unpacking the source.
As a side note, it would also be more convenient if the spec file and
src.rpm could also be easily fetched with wget.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-09 04:19 EST --- (In reply to comment #20) Ok, so please add that response to a file you add in Source (with a mention of the date, too). The licence is now clearly X11, there is no code under the BSD licence in xcalc. I was unsure of how exactly to proceed with this. What I did was to add a source with full url to the X11R7.0 license. I also added a file LICENSE.xcalc documenting the licensing issue and John Bradley's corresponding response. (In reply to comment #21) * you miss a make invocation in %build Wow... not sure how I missed that one all this time. * in the changelog for 1.0.1-4, I think the file wasn't an 'xpm file', but an 'xbm file'. And there is dekstop instead of desktop Fixed. LICENSE.xcalc: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/LICENSE.xcalc Spec URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc.spec SRPM URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc-1.0.1-6.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 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] 2006-10-09 04:47 EST --- Parallel make should be used whenever possible: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-525c7d76890cb22df33b759c65c35c82bf434d2e Regarding the licence, I think that the LICENCE file form X11R7 is not usefull, if I'm not wrong when John say X11R7 licence, I think he is referring to the X consortium license, the second license in the X11R7 LICENCE file. Since it is the licence that covers the other files in xcalc my opinion is that the full LICENCE file from X11R7 is not needed, and may even be misleading. (in case it would have been needed adding it with a full source was right). Another comment is that I find the naming of LICENSE.xcalc a bit unfortunate, it may be more accurately called something along math.c-LICENSE.xcalc, or xcalc-math.c-license-mail A licence file for the xcalc as a whole could be a X consortium licence. But it isn't required since upstream don't have one. Anyway, if you want to shut down rpmlint you could use MIT for the licence, but MIT/X11 is clearly better, so use what you prefer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-09 04:48 EST --- Thank you for the new review. As suggested, I have removed the provides for the man pages and stubs which do nothing. I have also added the -p switch, but a quick look shows no differences in the behaviour... Maybe because %doc already preserves the timestamps and man pages are gzipped before being packaged. Nothing else is preserved from upstream. The fact that the included patches were retrieved from Debian and Mandrake respectively is mentioned in the very first entry of the Changelog. I have decided to rename the patches in order to maintain the more-or-less standard policy of patch names used in RH. The included Debian patch is still at revision 6 because - major change in revision 7 is IPv6; the others are just Debian related. Unfortunately I have no IPv6 support around and cannot test - major change in rev 8 is the switch from openssl to gnutls. For the time being I cannot afford to test this either because all of the machines I run ssmtp on are production machines. Not to mention that the first listed change in rev7 is ssmtp maintained via alioth: http://alioth.debian.org/projects/ssmtp/; but the link says This Project Has Not Released Any Files :) I will again into the SSL differences some time later, probably next month. New versions of the spec file and SRPMS are available at http://wdl.lug.ro/linux/rpms/ssmtp/. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187282] Review Request: sax2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sax2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187282 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 04:49 EST --- Marcus, I'm assuming you need to be sponsored. Adding FE-NEEDSPONSOR. Also there is traditionally strong resistance to accept SPEC files that contain non-Fedora related bits, so I think you have a much better chance to get this reviewed with a Fedora-only 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 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] 2006-10-09 05:06 EST ---
(In reply to comment #21)
Thank you for the new review.
As suggested, I have removed the provides for the man pages and stubs which
do
nothing.
The provides for %{_mandir}/man5/ssmtp.conf.5.gz is still there,
although this file is allready listed as a ssmtp file, and besides
such a provides is of no use.
I have also added the -p switch, but a quick look shows no
differences in the behaviour... Maybe because %doc already preserves the
timestamps and man pages are gzipped before being packaged. Nothing else is
preserved from upstream.
I was too lazy to check exactly but it may be relevant for
other packages...
The fact that the included patches were retrieved from Debian and Mandrake
respectively is mentioned in the very first entry of the Changelog. I have
decided to rename the patches in order to maintain the more-or-less standard
policy of patch names used in RH.
Indeed, I didn't remarked it... The mandrake patch is very simple
so no issue. But in may opinion it would be better (though not a
blocker) to have, in comment near the Patch:, the full url to the debian
patch.
The included Debian patch is still at revision
6 because
- major change in revision 7 is IPv6; the others are just Debian related.
Unfortunately I have no IPv6 support around and cannot test
- major change in rev 8 is the switch from openssl to gnutls. For the time
being
I cannot afford to test this either because all of the machines I run ssmtp on
are production machines.
Not to mention that the first listed change in rev7 is ssmtp maintained via
alioth: http://alioth.debian.org/projects/ssmtp/; but the link says This
Project Has Not Released Any Files :)
I will again into the SSL differences some time later, probably next month.
From a quick look at the latest debian patch, it seems ot me that
the switch to gnutls hasn't been done very cleanly...
If there is no security related changes (as it seems to be the case)
it seems perfectly right to me not to use the latest patch. However
it also seems very clear to me that the debian patchset is the new
upstream for the otherwise dead ssmtp package, so updating the package
really means using the latest debian patches.
In my opinion, still, updating to the patchset 7 could be relevant, even
if you cannot test ipv6, others could. I wouldn't personnaly make
that a blocker.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-09 05:09 EST --- I parallelized the make. I renamed the email license file to xcalc-math.c-license-mail. I removed the X11R7 license file. I would rather leave license as MIT/X11 since it is what the rest of xorg packages use as their license because it is more accurate. In my email to John, I had asked him if the X11R7 license could be applied and also asked him what he believed the license for xcalc was. Regardless, I think that I'd prefer if we just include his email and ship one less file. Spec URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc.spec SRPM URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc-1.0.1-7.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 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] 2006-10-09 05:09 EST ---
Also you should use /usr/sbin/alternatives or %{_sbindir}/alternatives
consistently and there is a missing Requires(preun) for alternatives.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 05:22 EST --- I am a sponsor now. Looking at my first comment on the bug, it seems like I allready noticed that the patch is a debian patch, but forgot later... Notice that I consistently ask for this patch to be named like the debian one, however ;-). This is still not a blocker. As for being sponsored, you should have a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored in case you haven't allready. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-09 05:23 EST --- The Source is now fixed and I've copied the source, spec and src.rpm to: http://www.hardening-linux.com/gotmail/gotmail.spec http://www.hardening-linux.com/gotmail/gotmail-0.8.9-1.tar.bz2 http://www.hardening-linux.com/gotmail/gotmail-0.8.9-1.src.rpm They can be downloaded via wget. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-09 05:49 EST --- * rpmlint warns only about the license, it may be ignored * follows packaging and naming guidelines * free software, with a precision on the file with a missing licence. No license file included, but there is none upstream. * spec legible * match upstream: c1ecea85be15f746a59931e288768bdb xcalc-X11R7.0-1.0.1.tar.bz2 * clean provides: Provides: xorg-x11-xcalc = 1.0.1 to match the name of other Xorg packages * %files right * a gui app, with icon and desktop file included This is potentially approved whenever you get sponsored. I am almost ready to sponsor you, since you shown you were ready to follow the guidelines, you have the required skills. This was not a very difficult package, but the licence issue was annoying and all the desktop stuff was missing. If you just show some more interest in fedora extras (as described in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored) I'll sponsor you. I still have some comments on the package: - in xcalc.desktop, the GenericName should better be along 'Scientific Calculator' (like for kcalc) 'Calculator' or 'Graphical Calculator'. (Could be changed after importing to CVS) - maybe you could notice xorg about the license issue. Normally you should ask for a licence file inclusion, but in that case I think that xorg allready knows that some split tarballs don't have a licence file. - when I start I have warnings: Warning: Missing charsets in String to FontSet conversion Warning: Cannot convert string -adobe-symbol-*-*-*-*-*-120-*-*-*-*-*-* to type FontStruct and the button corresponding with the square root is labelled รถ` this may be a local configuration issue or a bug in fonts or resource file. Something that may be worth investigating, but not a blocker. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-09 06:01 EST ---
We're moving forward, but it's still not right. The source should
be the upstream source. spectool -g gotmail.spec currently fails.
For example the following works
Source:
http://heanet.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/gotmail/gotmail-%{version}.tar.bz2
It is still not optimal since there is a sourceforge mirror hardcoded
but the generic paths without mirros fails.
rpmlint gives:
W: gotmail strange-permission gotmail.spec 0600
W: gotmail setup-not-quiet
W: gotmail mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 30)
The mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs may not be problematic.
setup-not-quiet is also not a blocker, but I can't see why -q
shouldn't be there for 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 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] 2006-10-09 06:14 EST --- It seems to be built in devel and added to owners.list, please don't forget to close 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 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] 2006-10-09 06:17 EST --- 1. I've moved the upstream source, the spec file and the source RPM to the site listed in Comment #18. The spectool -g gotmail.spec should work now. 2. I've added the -q option back to the spec file. 3. I've fixed the mixed use error. 4. I am stumped as to where the strange-permissions error is coming from - the file is 0644 in the package from what I can see. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-09 06:27 EST --- (In reply to comment #20) 1. I've moved the upstream source, the spec file and the source RPM to the site listed in Comment #18. The spectool -g gotmail.spec should work now. The upstream source is in sourceforge you cannot move it! I have checked that you are an upstream developper, but if you want to have the upstream source at a different location than the sourceforge mirrors, you should also add something on the project page. Currently the upstream source is still on sourceforge since it is where people download gotmail from. Regarding the spec file, it is really 600: $ rpm -Uvh ~/tmp/gotmail-0.8.9-1.src.rpm 1:gotmail### [100%] $ ls -l gotmail.spec -rw--- 1 dumas dumas 1413 oct 9 12:15 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] 2006-10-09 06:28 EST --- when you change anything during the review, you should bump the release, add a changelog entry and repost a modified .src.rpm. It is much easier for reviewers to track things. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209959] Review Request: tenr.de-styles-pkg - A collection of over 200 styles/themes for fluxbox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: tenr.de-styles-pkg - A collection of over 200
styles/themes for fluxbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209959
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 07:14 EST ---
* There shouldn't be a '.' in the package name as seen here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines
* The rpmlint issue is ignorable, although you may want to open
a bug about missing Creative Commons licences.
* If I'm not wrong -r is impled by -a for cp.
* The Source0 should be an url. It seems to be
http://www.tenr.de/files/fluxmod-styles-pkg.tar.bz2
What is a bit bad is that there is no versionning, you
should certainly ask upstream for a version string (in ascii
ascending order...).
Since there doesn't seems to be any release number currently,
and if upstream don't want to add any, my advice would be
to use the stamp file to construct the version. Something along:
%define stamp 20061009
Version:0.%{stamp}
Source0:%{name}-%{stamp}.tar.bz2
# unversioned upstream source, downloaded with wget -N
# renamed to %%{name}-MMDD.tar.gz
#Source0: http://www.tenr.de/files/tenr.de-styles-pkg.tar.bz2
%setup -q -n %{name}
With
$ ls -l tenr.de-styles-pkg.tar.bz2
-rw-r--r-- 1 dumas dumas 4778973 Oct 9 00:05 tenr.de-styles-pkg.tar.bz2
The leading 0 in version is there to try to have future version
number higher.
* %{_styledir}/ will be unowned.
* The most annoying thing is that it doesn't work out of the box,
the new themes don't appear anywhere in the fluxbox menu...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 07:15 EST --- The build failed on x86_64, since listen installs everything in /usr/lib instead of /usr/lib64. I've increased release tag and moved /usr/lib/listen to /usr/lib64 for arch x86_64, after many builds (!), it succeeded.I'll be waiting feedbacks from x86_64 users. I'll see if I can help in reviewing :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-09 07:24 EST --- 1. Oh! I see. *thumps head* It is my understanding that the only option on Sourceforge will be to hardcode to one of the mirrors - whilst not optional - it seems to be the only way to maintain the upstream source at Sourceforge. I have hard-coded one of the mirrors for the moment but any suggestions of alternative ideas welcome. 2. I don't see where the gotmail.spec is getting the wrong permissions - any ideas? 3. Also bumped the release increment to 2 for the 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 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] 2006-10-09 08:01 EST --- I was living with the [wrong] impression that sendmail provides the main config man page. Removed. I have also fixed the unconsistent usage of %_sbindir and enabled IPv6. No need for any patches, it is just a configure option. This should be more or less equal with Debian's patch level 7. At the first glance (therefore I might be wrong) Debian's v8 patch includes - LIBS=$LIBS -lssl + LIBS=$LIBS /usr/lib/libgnutls-openssl.so which I think that breaks x86_64 compatibility. The same lines are included in the revision 9 of the patch. As I have said, I am not going to include this patch until I examine it closer. I will take care of that some time later, for the moment I focus on cleaning another package, in order to submit it. I was not able to find an URL for the version of patch I use, the only ones still available seem to be revisions 2, 8 and 9. I have included a commented line in the spec which points to the current Debian patch. As I have said, I prefer to have the patches named similar to the other patches used by the RH packaging system (where the filenames end in patch rather then diff). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-09 08:04 EST --- $ rpm -qlvp gotmail-0.8.9-1.src.rpm -rw-r--r--1 rootroot34639 Oct 9 03:18 gotmail-0.8.9-1.tar.bz2 -rw---1 rootroot 1464 Oct 9 03:18 gotmail.spec Use umask 0022 in your rpmbuild environment. And chmod 0644 gotmail.spec before building the 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 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] 2006-10-09 08:46 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=138037)
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=138037action=view)
config.log from mock rebuild on FC5, i386 (1.18.6.1-1)
I also experience the Qt installation detection problem when building via mock
on FC5, i386. Attached is the resulting config.log from the failed configure
script.
Also, in the %description section of the doc subpackage, there is an
incorrect macro: ${name} instead of %{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 201077] gfs-kmod
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: gfs-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201077 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 08:48 EST --- thl, can i sponsor 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 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] 2006-10-09 08:50 EST --- The rpmbuild environment is already set to umask 0022 and the gotmail.spec file is set to 0644 prior to the src.rpm build. I can find no reason why this is being changed to 0600. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-09 08:50 EST --- I'm aware, but I'm waiting for the FC5 branch to be created before closing 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 209959] Review Request: tenr.de-styles-pkg - A collection of over 200 styles/themes for fluxbox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: tenr.de-styles-pkg - A collection of over 200
styles/themes for fluxbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209959
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 09:00 EST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
* There shouldn't be a '.' in the package name as seen here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines
no problem, easy fix
* The rpmlint issue is ignorable, although you may want to open
a bug about missing Creative Commons licences.
Good idea
* If I'm not wrong -r is impled by -a for cp.
nope thats correct, according to the man it implys -dpR
so Ill remove the r
* The Source0 should be an url. It seems to be
http://www.tenr.de/files/fluxmod-styles-pkg.tar.bz2
This is not the same thing at all but I do plan to package these too so we will
get the package name fixed there too.
What is a bit bad is that there is no versionning, you
should certainly ask upstream for a version string (in ascii
ascending order...).
done. He is doing it for me now.
* %{_styledir}/ will be unowned.
How is the best way to resolve this?
* The most annoying thing is that it doesn't work out of the box,
the new themes don't appear anywhere in the fluxbox menu...
the problem with making them work out of the box is that some how every user on
the system would need the menu in ~/.fluxbox/menu edited, even if they didnt
want the styles to begin with, only the admin wanted them on the system for them
to use. This package adds over 200 styles, and getting them all in your menu if
you dont want them can annoy you when you open the menu and get scrolled to
where they are, because the submenu it makes will cover the whole screen area. I
did include a README which has instructions for a user to add them to the menu.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-09 09:02 EST ---
(In reply to comment #23)
1. Oh! I see. *thumps head* It is my understanding that the only option on
Sourceforge will be to hardcode to one of the mirrors - whilst not optional -
it
seems to be the only way to maintain the upstream source at Sourceforge. I
have
hard-coded one of the mirrors for the moment but any suggestions of
alternative
ideas welcome.
http://dl.sf.net/gotmail/gotmail-%{version}.tar.bz2 WORKSFORME.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201077] gfs-kmod
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: gfs-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201077 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 09:02 EST --- (In reply to comment #21) thl, can i sponsor this package? You don't have sponsor status yet, so no. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-09 09:08 EST --- Can the original commenter confirm that the suggestion from Paul also works for them? If so, I will change the spec file again to revert to this URL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-09 09:18 EST --- * It's missing at least BuildRequires: libXi-devel libXmu-devel due to a bad Qt detection and linker command-line. The configure script adds several unneeded X libs as constants. * There are several redundant and questionable BuildRequires for the sub-packages. This should be cleaned up. Most likely you wanted to add Requires instead. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209959] Review Request: tenr.de-styles-pkg - A collection of over 200 styles/themes for fluxbox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: tenr.de-styles-pkg - A collection of over 200
styles/themes for fluxbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209959
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 09:24 EST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
* The Source0 should be an url. It seems to be
http://www.tenr.de/files/fluxmod-styles-pkg.tar.bz2
This is not the same thing at all but I do plan to package these too so we
will
get the package name fixed there too.
Yep, I used the url just around the right one...
* %{_styledir}/ will be unowned.
How is the best way to resolve this?
Either you have
%{_styledir}/
Or if you insist on having the glob (since it will error out if the
directory is empty)
%dir %{_styledir}
%{_styledir}/*
you dont want them can annoy you when you open the menu and get scrolled to
where they are, because the submenu it makes will cover the whole screen
area. I
did include a README which has instructions for a user to add them to the
menu.
After some thinking, it seems that the alternative would imply
patching fluxbox-xdg-menu, which is not in the same package. Not
handy. Maybe a README is all what is 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 209082] Review Request: scanbuttond - Scanner Button tools to SANE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: scanbuttond - Scanner Button tools to SANE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209082 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 09:25 EST --- Sorry about that... First off, please bump the Release number whenever you make changes (as you did, apparently, but your SRPM link was still to -3). Requires(preun): /sbin/ldconfig should be (I think) Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig You're running ldconfig in %postun, not %preun. Your other three fixes are correct, 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 209959] Review Request: tenr.de-styles-pkg - A collection of over 200 styles/themes for fluxbox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tenr.de-styles-pkg - A collection of over 200 styles/themes for fluxbox https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209959 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 09:31 EST --- I am one of the devs of the fluxbox-xdg-menu and thats not out of the question for me to add that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-10-09 09:35 EST ---
(In reply to comment #25)
At the first glance (therefore I might be wrong) Debian's v8 patch includes
- LIBS=$LIBS -lssl
+ LIBS=$LIBS /usr/lib/libgnutls-openssl.so
which I think that breaks x86_64 compatibility.
That's exactly what I was referring to when saying that the switch
to gnutls wasn't done cleanly.
I was not able to find an URL for the version of patch I use, the only ones
still available seem to be revisions 2, 8 and 9. I have included a commented
line in the spec which points to the current Debian patch.
Ok.
As I have said, I prefer to have the patches named similar to the other
patches
used by the RH packaging system (where the filenames end in patch rather
then
diff).
Patches may perfectly be named with .diff. But I have no problem
if you prefer .patch.
You should post an url to the updated src.rpm when you have changed it.
I knew where to search but it is much less convenient, and a reviewer
coming at the end of the review wouldn't find it.
I still see one issue, the %{version} in Patch0 will lead to something
wrong if it changes. It seems more prudent to hardcode the version
instead. Not a blocker.
And also some compiler warning may seem worrisome, stil not a blocker in
my opinion.
Here is the formal review:
* rpmlint output is ignorable (right symlinks, virtual provides,
alternative provide):
W: ssmtp unversioned-explicit-provides MTA
W: ssmtp unversioned-explicit-provides smtpdaemon
W: ssmtp unversioned-explicit-provides %{_sbindir}/sendmail
W: ssmtp symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/sendmail.ssmtp /usr/sbin/ssmtp
W: ssmtp symlink-should-be-relative /usr/bin/newaliases.ssmtp /usr/sbin/ssmtp
W: ssmtp symlink-should-be-relative /usr/bin/mailq.ssmtp /usr/sbin/ssmtp
* follows naming and packaging guidelines
* free software, licence included
* spec legible
* source match upstream:
957e6fff08625fe34f4fc33d0925bbc9 ../SOURCES/ssmtp_2.61.orig.tar.gz
* %files section right
* use almost latest version, as the latest version corresponds with
a debian patchset which may not be straightforward to include
* sane provides:
Provides: /usr/sbin/sendmail MTA config(ssmtp) = 2.61-8 smtpdaemon
There is a controversy about smtpdaemon, so it is right to leave
it to the packager.
This is potentially approved once you are sponsored. You
seem to be ready to follow the guidelines, you have the required
skills. The most important thing is to be sure that you'll
remain interested in maintaining your packages in fedora.
I guess this will be the case since you didn't abandoned
the submission after 5 months... I am almost ready to sponsor
you.
To be sure I would prefer if you could show even more interest
in fedora extras by doing things advertized there:
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] 2006-10-09 09:43 EST ---
http://dl.sf.net/gotmail/gotmail-%{version}.tar.bz2
Works for me too. However, some hours ago it didn't work. It
is indeed the prefered form, but now and then it breaks.
Maybe the best thing would be to have 2 source lines, one
being commented out such that when one don't work the other
is used...
Anyway I think using one or the other form is right.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207793] Review Request: flite - Small, fast speech synthesis engine (text-to-speech)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: flite - Small, fast speech synthesis engine
(text-to-speech)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207793
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 09:52 EST ---
(In reply to comment #9)
It doesn't build on x86_64 and this is a blocker.
But it can be simple fixed by removing %{?_smp_mflags} from `make`.
Done. :-)
New package:
Spec URL: http://dialogpalette.sourceforge.net/extras/fedora/flite.spec
SRPM URL:
http://dialogpalette.sourceforge.net/extras/fedora/flite-1.3-4.src.rpm
Changes:
- Removed _smp_flags macro from build for x86_64 arch
I've successfully rebuilt it on an FC5, x86_64 and FC5, i386.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209959] Review Request: tenr.de-styles-pkg - A collection of over 200 styles/themes for fluxbox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: tenr.de-styles-pkg - A collection of over 200
styles/themes for fluxbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209959
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 09:57 EST ---
I tested
[submenu] (tenr.de)
[stylesmenu] (tenr.de) {/usr/share/tenr.de-styles-pkg-1.0/styles}
[end]
This is unusable, as you predicted. So a README seems better.
What would seem the best to me would be an app which allows to
set the theme by choosing in a scroll down menu in a simple widget,
with an easy way for packagers to drop a file listing new directories
for themes, in a config directory.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209959] Review Request: tenr.de-styles-pkg - A collection of over 200 styles/themes for fluxbox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tenr.de-styles-pkg - A collection of over 200 styles/themes for fluxbox https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209959 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 10:04 EST --- funny you mention.. I have this app written already and was waiting for this style pack to get the OK then adding my app next called fluxstyle: http://fluxstyle.berlios.de its a graphical style manager that looks some what like the gnome-theme-manager in looks.. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209959] Review Request: tenr.de-styles-pkg - A collection of over 200 styles/themes for fluxbox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tenr.de-styles-pkg - A collection of over 200 styles/themes for fluxbox https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209959 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 10:12 EST --- In that case a README will really be sufficient, and the perfect integration may be done later ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO
Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]
||)
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 10:16 EST ---
The %lang(nl) %{_mandir}/nl* in filelist will include the nl directories into
the package which is wrong. Only the individual manpage files should be owned by
the package. Also I think that the various encodings of the man page should be
removed in %install and only the nl/man1/ should be included in the
filelist.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 10:29 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) All issues in #187430 have been fixed, except for some names being too generic. I can avoid re-emphasizing my comments from: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430#c15 In particular: - header name are too general to all allow them to installed into $(includedir) - Still many warnings, which justify doubts on the package to be installed into /lib rsp. /bin , /sbin In addition to that: - kbd is too general as a program name, c.f. http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/816-0210/6m6nb7mcf?a=view - Please explain in detail why you want to ship static libs. As you probably are aware about, there is a strong tendency to eliminate them. In addition to that -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-10-09 10:33 EST --- The most recent ssmtp.spec is / will be vailable (for as long as possible) at http://wdl.lug.ro/linux/rpms/ssmtp/ssmtp.conf The src.rpm is available at http://wdl.lug.ro/linux/rpms/ssmtp/ssmtp-2.61-8.src.rpm Previous versions of the spec and src.rpm files, as well as some precompiled binaries are available under http://wdl.lug.ro/linux/rpms/ssmtp. All of the precompiled binaries were in use in my network at the time they were uploaded. I intend to maintain the package for the simple reason that I actively use it. Keeping the spec file clean is a small burden first but makes live easier afterwards. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-09 10:42 EST --- I intend to maintain the package for the simple reason that I actively use it. Keeping the spec file clean is a small burden first but makes live easier afterwards. Being a fedora maintainer is a bit more than maintaining some packages. It also means reviewing others packages, fixing bugs, keeping specs up-to-date with changes in guidelines, rebuilding for new releases, compiler changes or dependency changes, watching others commits, discussing about fedora extras future, guidelines, and organization. Of course you don't have to be involved that much when you've just become a maintainer, but I hope you get the idea that it is being part of a developpers community, not strictly packaging. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210007] New: Review Request: libtune - standard API to access the kernel tunables
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=210007 Summary: Review Request: libtune - standard API to access the kernel tunables 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://libtune.sourceforge.net/specfiles/libtune.spec SRPM URL: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/libtune/libtune-0.10-1.src.rpm?download Description: libtune (Tunables library) is an API that helps accessing the kernel tunables and system information in a standard way. The actual pseudo-files that contain the tunables values are hidden to the developer, making any binary built on top of this API completely portable across kernel releases or across distro families. The libtune library provides the following features: 1) get the value of a tunable, either stored as a part of a pseudo-file or as a complete pseudo-file 2) set the value of a writable tunable 3) locate a tunable (in terms of the associated pseudo-file) 4) get a help string for a tunable libtune is different from sysctl in that: 1) there is no need to know where the underlying pseudo-file is located: the tunables are manipulated via key words rather than their actual file location. 2) it is possible to get or set a value that is a part of pseudo-file (eg it is possible to get or set semmns value that is part of /proc/sys/kernel/sem). Today, there is a limited set of supported kernel releases, distros, as well as a limited set of supported tunables. Support for new kernel releases, distros, families or tunables can easily be achieved thanks to a set of scripts that are delivered with the libtune API. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-09 10:50 EST --- Unfortunately, I wasn't unable to upload it last friday, but Ill do my best to this friday. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-09 10:51 EST --- Thanks Mamoru, I'll upload it this friday -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-09 11:06 EST ---
:( Sorry about that. I usually run file and directory checks at the beginning
of a review, and because this didn't build in mock for me, I didn't do that,
then forgot before approval. ;(
As mschwent pointed out also, you need to own:
%{_datadir}/%{name}
Sorry again, I should have caught that and the x86_64 issue. :(
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 11:11 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) I can avoid re-emphasizing my comments from: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430#c15 In particular: - header name are too general to all allow them to installed into $(includedir) I agree, but I'd prefer to follow upstream, and only if they don't cooperate start changing things. - Still many warnings, which justify doubts on the package to be installed into /lib rsp. /bin , /sbin There are less warnings, most of them now corresponds with error codes not checked, I hope that they are harmless, an audit of the code is required to know for sure. But elektra is a bit experimental, and in my opinion apps using it are being adventurous, so I am not too worried by those warnings. If elektra is in /lib, /bin and so on it is because some apps may use it during boot without /usr mounted, but this won't happen magically, apps have to explicitely use elektra, and at that point developper know what they are doing. In addition to that: - kbd is too general as a program name, c.f. http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/816-0210/6m6nb7mcf?a=view It is kdb, not kbd. But I agree that it is too generic anyway, but here too, I'd prefer following upstream. - Please explain in detail why you want to ship static libs. As you probably are aware about, there is a strong tendency to eliminate them. I think static libs could be usefull, in case one want to be sure that elektra may still be used within an app even if dynamical linking fails. Remember that today most of the apps reimplement what elektra provides, so the situation today is similar with static linking with elektra. It doesn't meeans that I think it is wise to link statically against elektra in the general case, and the default would be dynamic linking anyway. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210007] Review Request: libtune - standard API to access the kernel tunables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libtune - standard API to access the kernel tunables https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: libtune - |Review Request: libtune - |standard API to access the |standard API to access the |kernel tunables|kernel tunables 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 207782] Review Request: itpp - C++ library for math, signal/speech processing, and communications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: itpp - C++ library for math, signal/speech processing,
and communications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207782
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 11:50 EST ---
(In reply to comment #14)
Means there are undefined symbols, preventing prelink from functioning. This
really should be fixed.
Well, I have found that undefined non-weak symbols are in libstdc++.so.
Actually, unless this is fixed, I cannot compile the following:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] PROGRAM]$ g++ -O2 -o itpp-check itpp-check.cpp -litpp
-nostdlib
[EMAIL PROTECTED] PROGRAM]$ cat itpp-check.cpp
int main(){
return 0;
}
[EMAIL PROTECTED] PROGRAM]$ g++ -O2 -o itpp-check itpp-check.cpp -litpp
-nostdlib
/usr/bin/ld: warning: cannot find entry symbol _start; defaulting to 080481c0
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.1.1/../../../libitpp.so: undefined reference to
`std::runtime_error::runtime_error(std::basic_stringchar,
std::char_traitschar, std::allocatorchar const)'
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.1.1/../../../libitpp.so: undefined reference to
`std::basic_ostringstreamchar, std::char_traitschar, std::allocatorchar
::~basic_ostringstream()'
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.1.1/../../../libitpp.so: undefined reference to
`virtual thunk to std::basic_iostreamchar, std::char_traitschar
::~basic_iostream()'
..
Re: comment #13
deps for -devel
Related to shared lib undefined symbols, the *library* ought to link against
all
those things, not itpp-using apps, they ought need only:
-litpp
Explicit linking against external libraries are always needed when
header files in the library use some types,
structure or so which are defined by other packages then the
header files include other external header files.
( I have not checked if this package falls under this case).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 11:55 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #3) I can avoid re-emphasizing my comments from: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430#c15 In particular: - header name are too general to all allow them to installed into $(includedir) I agree, but I'd prefer to follow upstream, and only if they don't cooperate start changing things. It's you who is proposing this package, it's you whose task it is to provide proper integration = It's your job, not upstream. - Still many warnings, which justify doubts on the package to be installed into /lib rsp. /bin , /sbin There are less warnings, most of them now corresponds with error codes not checked, I hope that they are harmless, an audit of the code is required to know for sure. Then please do it - This package wants to be used at boot up, therefore I am imposing tighter constraints on it than on ordinary applications. In addition to that: - kbd is too general as a program name, c.f. http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/816-0210/6m6nb7mcf?a=view It is kdb, not kbd. But I agree that it is too generic anyway, but here too, I'd prefer following upstream. kdb isn't much better either. google for kdb.h ... - Please explain in detail why you want to ship static libs. As you probably are aware about, there is a strong tendency to eliminate them. I think static libs could be usefull, I don't. in case one want to be sure that elektra may still be used within an app even if dynamical linking fails. If dynamical linking fails almost nothing works on Fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207782] Review Request: itpp - C++ library for math, signal/speech processing, and communications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: itpp - C++ library for math, signal/speech processing, and communications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207782 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 12:01 EST --- (In reply to comment #16) (In reply to comment #14) Means there are undefined symbols, preventing prelink from functioning. This really should be fixed. Well, I have found that undefined non-weak symbols are in libstdc++.so. Actually, unless this is fixed, I cannot compile the following: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PROGRAM]$ g++ -O2 -o itpp-check itpp-check.cpp -litpp -nostdlib 1. Why do you expect this to work? -nostdlib disables GCC's internal libs (such a gcc_s, stdc++), so this is a non-issue. 2. There is nothing wrong in using undefined non-weak symbols. If this causes prelink to fail, then prelink is broken ... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210025] New: Review Request: openpbx - The truly 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210025 Summary: Review Request: openpbx - The truly open source PBX Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://david.woodhou.se/opbx/openpbx.spec SRPM URL: http://david.woodhou.se/opbx/openpbx-0-1.svn1912.src.rpm Description: OpenPBX is an Open Source PBX and telephony development platform that can both replace a conventional PBX and act as a platform for developing custom telephony applications for delivering dynamic content over a telephone similarly to how one can deliver dynamic content through a web browser using CGI and a web server. OpenPBX talks to a variety of telephony hardware including BRI, PRI, POTS, Bluetooth headsets and IP telephony clients using SIP and IAX protocols protocol (e.g. ekiga or kphone). For more information and a current list of supported hardware, see www.openpbx.com. rpmlint complains a lot about non-standard-[ug]id -- obviously I need to add the openpbx user to the UserRegistry at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageUserRegistry It also complains of lack of documentation for the subpackages, since the documentation is in the _main_ package. And it complains about lack of release version in the changelog entry -- obviously that'll be fixed when it's committed. I'm tracking Subversion in the expectation that there'll be a release any day now, and that's what I'd actually build. Finally, rpmlint complains of dangling relative symlinks and 'only-non-binary-in-usr-lib' because of the foo.so symlinks in the -devel package. I'm not entirely sure what its problem is there, but I don't see anything wrong. Please advise. It also complaints of mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs. I use tabs. Except where I need to indent the second and subsequent lines of %config to a column which isn't a multiple of 8, where I use some spaces. That's fine. Oh, and log-files-without-logrotate in amongst all the noise. Will fix... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210027] New: Review Request: bitmap - Bitmap editor and converter utilities for the X Window System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210027 Summary: Review Request: bitmap - Bitmap editor and converter utilities for the X Window System 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.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/bitmap.spec SRPM URL: http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/bitmap-1.0.2-1.src.rpm Description: Bitmap provides a bitmap editor and misc converter utilities for the X Window System. The package also includes files defining bitmaps associated with the Bitmap x11 editor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207782] Review Request: itpp - C++ library for math, signal/speech processing, and communications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: itpp - C++ library for math, signal/speech processing, and communications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207782 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 12:24 EST --- (In reply to comment #17) [EMAIL PROTECTED] PROGRAM]$ g++ -O2 -o itpp-check itpp-check.cpp -litpp -nostdlib 1. Why do you expect this to work? -nostdlib disables GCC's internal libs (such a gcc_s, stdc++), so this is a non-issue. As you said, I _EXPLICITLY_ disabled default linkage provided by gcc and this should success if libitpp.so is linked against libstdc++.so.6 properly. 2. There is nothing wrong in using undefined non-weak symbols. If this causes prelink to fail, then prelink is broken ... I am not familiar with prelink mechanism, however explanation by Jakub: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2003-05/msg00034.html perhaps means that undefined non-weak symbols can cause some problems with prelink. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-09 12:30 EST --- Yeah, it would be good to make sure the md5sums match up. On the Target comment, that shouldn't need to be there for fedora-extras, should it? You should be able to see what branch you checked the spec out on, and determine version at that point? It's a pretty minor issue either way however. Let me know when the 0.0.7 release is out so I can check md5sums... ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207782] Review Request: itpp - C++ library for math, signal/speech processing, and communications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: itpp - C++ library for math, signal/speech processing, and communications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207782 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 12:42 EST --- (In reply to comment #18) (In reply to comment #17) [EMAIL PROTECTED] PROGRAM]$ g++ -O2 -o itpp-check itpp-check.cpp -litpp -nostdlib 1. Why do you expect this to work? -nostdlib disables GCC's internal libs (such a gcc_s, stdc++), so this is a non-issue. As you said, I _EXPLICITLY_ disabled default linkage provided by gcc and this should success if libitpp.so is linked against libstdc++.so.6 properly. Oops.. This breaks start up symbol, however, linkage aganst libstdc++.so.6 is broken, anyway. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207782] Review Request: itpp - C++ library for math, signal/speech processing, and communications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: itpp - C++ library for math, signal/speech processing, and communications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207782 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 12:46 EST --- (In reply to comment #19) (In reply to comment #18) (In reply to comment #17) [EMAIL PROTECTED] PROGRAM]$ g++ -O2 -o itpp-check itpp-check.cpp -litpp -nostdlib 1. Why do you expect this to work? -nostdlib disables GCC's internal libs (such a gcc_s, stdc++), so this is a non-issue. As you said, I _EXPLICITLY_ disabled default linkage provided by gcc and this should success if libitpp.so is linked against libstdc++.so.6 properly. Oops.. This breaks start up symbol, however, linkage aganst libstdc++.so.6 is broken, anyway. Nope, you're simply trying to overengineer a non-issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189375] Re-Review Request: Maelstrom: space combat game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Re-Review Request: Maelstrom: space combat game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189375 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 13:16 EST --- No word. Consideirng Sam's the author and only upstream maintainer, I'm not sure who else you would ask. As to where, I sent it to his actual address, which is active (judging by the SDL lists). I'll send it 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 210027] Review Request: bitmap - Bitmap editor and converter utilities for the X Window System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bitmap - Bitmap editor and converter utilities for the X Window System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210027 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 13:48 EST --- Well, I cannot rebuild this by mockbuild under FC-devel i386. + ./configure --build=i686-redhat-linux-gnu --host=i686-redhat-linux-gnu --target=i386-redhat-linux-gnu --program-prefix= --prefix=/usr --exec-prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/bin --sbindir=/usr/sbin --sysconfdir=/etc --datadir=/usr/share --includedir=/usr/include --libdir=/usr/lib --libexecdir=/usr/libexec --localstatedir=/var --sharedstatedir=/usr/com --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info --disable-dependency-tracking checking for a BSD-compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c checking whether build environment is sane... yes checking for gawk... gawk checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... yes checking whether to enable maintainer-specific portions of Makefiles... no checking for i686-redhat-linux-gnu-gcc... no checking for gcc... gcc checking for C compiler default output file name... a.out checking whether the C compiler works... yes checking whether we are cross compiling... no checking for suffix of executables... checking for suffix of object files... o checking whether we are using the GNU C compiler... yes checking whether gcc accepts -g... yes checking for gcc option to accept ANSI C... none needed checking for style of include used by make... GNU checking dependency style of gcc... none checking for a BSD-compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c checking for mkstemp... yes checking for i686-redhat-linux-gnu-pkg-config... no checking for pkg-config... no checking for BMTOA... configure: error: The pkg-config script could not be found or is too old. Make sure it is in your PATH or set the PKG_CONFIG environment variable to the full path to pkg-config. Alternatively, you may set the environment variables BMTOA_CFLAGS and BMTOA_LIBS to avoid the need to call pkg-config. See the pkg-config man page for more details. To get pkg-config, see http://www.freedesktop.org/software/pkgconfig. See `config.log' for more details. error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.82696 (%build) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210042] New: Review Request: fyre - Tool for producing computational artwork
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=210042 Summary: Review Request: fyre - Tool for producing computational artwork 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/fyre/fyre.spec SRPM URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/fyre/fyre-1.0.1-1.src.rpm Description: Fyre is a tool for producing computational artwork based on histograms of iterated chaotic functions. At the moment, it implements the Peter de Jong map in a fixed-function pipeline with an interactive GTK+ frontend and a command line interface for easy and efficient rendering of high-resolution, high quality images. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-09 14:29 EST --- OK, please import the package into the cvs and make a build. After this please close 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 210042] Review Request: fyre - Tool for producing computational artwork
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fyre - Tool for producing computational artwork https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 14:53 EST --- Brian: Fyre is already in Fedora Extras (though orphaned). Just for clarification, is this review request to claim ownership of it with the version and spec updates that you've done? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209965] Review Request: ruby-bdb - Berkeley DB is an embedded database system that supports keyed access to data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-bdb - Berkeley DB is an embedded database system that supports keyed access to data https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209965 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 15:03 EST --- You have to write '%setup -q' thats all. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210042] Review Request: fyre - Tool for producing computational artwork
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fyre - Tool for producing computational artwork https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 15:21 EST --- Didn't see it the repo, I'll go ahead and take over the orphaned 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 210061] New: Review Request: msyslog - A daemon for the syslog system log interface
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=210061 Summary: Review Request: msyslog - A daemon for the syslog system log interface 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://wdl.lug.ro/linux/rpms/msyslog/msyslog.spec SRPM URL: http://wdl.lug.ro/linux/rpms/msyslog/msyslog-v1.08g-0.10.src.rpm Description: This project is intended as a whole revision of previous Secure Syslogd project (wich is unsupported by now). It has all functionalities and some more. The remaining things are Solaris support and Audit compatibility (on the works). The whole internal structure was redesigned to work with input and output modules, standarizing interfaces to facilitate development for using special devices and flexible configurations. Current available output modules are classic, mysql, peo, pgsql, regex and tcp. Available input modules are bsd, linux, unix, tcp and udp. This is my third submission (second original) and I am still looking for a sponsor -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210061] Review Request: msyslog - A daemon for the syslog system log interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: msyslog - A daemon for the syslog system log interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210061 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 15:57 EST --- rpmlint on the rpm will yield the following error: E: msyslog shared-lib-without-dependency-information /lib/alat/libmsyslog.so.1.08g As far as I can tell, libmsyslog.so.1.08g is actually built as a static library and seems to be so by design. If anyone can provide a method to make rpmlint happy, I would definitely appreciate. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207782] Review Request: itpp - C++ library for math, signal/speech processing, and communications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: itpp - C++ library for math, signal/speech processing, and communications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207782 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 16:14 EST --- I agree with Ralf in comment #20. If you (Mamoru) really want to straighten out this linkage issue then please work with upstream to get it into their regular build system. So, getting back to the actual review, are there any blockers left 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 207793] Review Request: flite - Small, fast speech synthesis engine (text-to-speech)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: flite - Small, fast speech synthesis engine (text-to-speech) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207793 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 16:34 EST --- I am not sure if you should remove _smp_flags only for x86_64 arch or remove it completely. We don't if it causes error on e.g. ppc. But it's only my suggestion, you don't have to comply with 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 209965] Review Request: ruby-bdb - Berkeley DB is an embedded database system that supports keyed access to data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-bdb - Berkeley DB is an embedded database system
that supports keyed access to data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209965
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 17:14 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
You have to write '%setup -q' thats all.
So should I rename the package from ruby-bdb to just bdb? I used ruby-bdb and
did the %setup -n %{tarname}-%{version} because having the package named bdb
didnt seem very descriptive to me...
comment #2
E: ruby-bdb-debuginfo empty-debuginfo-package
I have tried to get it to build with debug but Im not sure what else to do to
get it to build a debug package. Any pointers you could give?
The package should contain the text of the license
So should I add it until upstream provides it in 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 209965] Review Request: ruby-bdb - Berkeley DB is an embedded database system that supports keyed access to data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-bdb - Berkeley DB is an embedded database system
that supports keyed access to data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209965
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 17:34 EST ---
- I believe your debuginfo problem comes from stripping bdb.so in the spec file
- if you don't strip manually, you should get a valid debuginfo package.
- The specfile should explicitly list the files to be installed instead of
generating them with find - as far as I can tell, the only thing missing is
%{ruby_sitearch}/bdb.so, since everything else is covered by the %doc directive.
- The name of the package should stay ruby-bdb; it's the right thing to do
according to the packaging guidelines
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207292] Review Request: ruby-racc - LALR(1) Parser Generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-racc - LALR(1) Parser Generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207292 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 18:07 EST --- I imported this package now - sorry for the delay, I was preoccupied with some other things. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210061] Review Request: msyslog - A daemon for the syslog system log interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: msyslog - A daemon for the syslog system log interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210061
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 18:16 EST ---
* the version should be 1.08g, since it looks like a postrelease
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-18aa467fc6925455e44be682fd336667a17e8933
* the indenting is bad (not a blocker)
* initdir could be %{_sysconfdir}/rc.d/init.d, but both are
arguable.
* -n %{name}-%{version} is unusefull, it is the default
* the patches and install section are complicated. I propose
simplified version and a corresponding spec file patch, I attach them.
* I also attach a patch to use user provided value for localstatedir
and modify the pid file name.
* the daemon seems not to drop privileges without a patch posted
on cvs. It should be applied and used in init, together with
the creation of a user and so on.
* libmsyslog.so.1.08g shouldn't be a static library, you should patch
the Makefile.in or the like to have it compiled as a module.
* the stuff at the end of %post should rapidly be removed before
somebody notice what you were trying to do ;-)
* libmysqlclient.so and libpq.so are dlopened in om_mysql.c and
om_pgsql.c, that's bad. They should be linked.
Overall I am not convinced that this software is worth packaging in
fedora. It seems to be unmaintained since 3 years, the build system is
very broken, there are non portable Makefiles, and dlopening the
libraries seems very bad to me. You can try nevertheless if you
like, but it will be a fair amount of work.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210061] Review Request: msyslog - A daemon for the syslog system log interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: msyslog - A daemon for the syslog system log interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210061 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 18:18 EST --- Created an attachment (id=138089) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=138089action=view) spec file patch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210061] Review Request: msyslog - A daemon for the syslog system log interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: msyslog - A daemon for the syslog system log interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210061 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 18:20 EST --- Created an attachment (id=138090) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=138090action=view) simpler version of msyslog.noBSD.patch There is no reason to modify the package like what is done in msyslog.noBSD.patch. Just fix the broken stuff, no need to remove 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 210061] Review Request: msyslog - A daemon for the syslog system log interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: msyslog - A daemon for the syslog system log interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210061 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 18:21 EST --- Created an attachment (id=138091) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=138091action=view) modified, to keep Makefile.in untouched -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210061] Review Request: msyslog - A daemon for the syslog system log interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: msyslog - A daemon for the syslog system log interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210061 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 18:22 EST --- Created an attachment (id=138092) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=138092action=view) fix the pid file and 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 210061] Review Request: msyslog - A daemon for the syslog system log interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: msyslog - A daemon for the syslog system log interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210061 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 18:23 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) Created an attachment (id=138091) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=138091action=view) [edit] modified, to keep Makefile.in untouched This is a modified version of msyslog.x86_64v2.patch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210061] Review Request: msyslog - A daemon for the syslog system log interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: msyslog - A daemon for the syslog system log interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210061 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 18:25 EST --- Also most of the man pages should be prefixed, for example by msyslogd. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199681] Review Request: slab
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: slab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199681 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 18:52 EST --- There has been some fantastic work done on this package by Chris Slab Chabot and Parag An, with the help of very constructive functionality reviews done by Rahul and others. I think this has reached a state where it can be reviewed (in the traditional packaging/spec sense) and released to the end users, and further development and discussion can happen in bugzilla tickets filed against specific problems or enhancements. - the CVS version of gnome-main-menu is now at 0.6.3, Chris were you planning on integrating the patches into a more recent version ? (not a request, just asking) - if you do, you may want to use an RPM versioning such as 0.6.3-0.20061003.1, so that if upstream ever decides to tag their tree and make an official release, 0.6.3-1 will be greater. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209965] Review Request: ruby-bdb - Berkeley DB is an embedded database system that supports keyed access to data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-bdb - Berkeley DB is an embedded database system
that supports keyed access to data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209965
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 19:45 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
- I believe your debuginfo problem comes from stripping bdb.so in the spec
file
You hit the nail on the head. Fixed.
- The specfile should explicitly list the files to be installed instead of
generating them with find - as far as I can tell, the only thing missing is
%{ruby_sitearch}/bdb.so, since everything else is covered by the %doc
directive.
Done
- The name of the package should stay ruby-bdb; it's the right thing to do
according to the packaging guidelines
Ok so what about comment #1 What should I do about it, is this a blocker or is
this good?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209965] Review Request: ruby-bdb - Berkeley DB is an embedded database system that supports keyed access to data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-bdb - Berkeley DB is an embedded database system that supports keyed access to data https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209965 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 19:47 EST --- Oh it would help to put the link to the src rpm and spec :) http://errr.fluxbox-wiki.org/fedora_stuff/bdb/2/ruby-bdb.spec http://errr.fluxbox-wiki.org/fedora_stuff/bdb/2/ruby-bdb-0.5.9-2.fc5.src.rpm I do realize that the source in the src.rpm is not from spectool -g but the site seems to be down at the moment because all my requests time 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 210061] Review Request: msyslog - A daemon for the syslog system log interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: msyslog - A daemon for the syslog system log interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210061 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 19:50 EST --- I will look at your suggestions in the morning. 16hrs of continuous work lead to dumb typo errors :( Thanks a lot for your efforts and suggestions, Patrice. What I liked most was your fix for x86_64. I had no idea about the make INSTALL_LIBDIR option, I guess that's my major lesson for today. Fast comments: - I have kept the version as defined by the developer. Actually during the first iterations I was using 1.08g (hence the setup -n), but switched back to the original after a talk with a developer friend (while trying to convince him to help me fix the dlopens). The funny part is that for the devel tree (1.9) the developer changed the convention used for naming the tar file :) - I have removed the BSD part on purpose. We do not support/build for openBSD, do we ? - About the uglyness in %post: I know. Unfortunately I have not found any other way of getting rid of the dlopen effect without modifying the source files. - With one exception, all the man pages already have distinctive names (either starting with im_, om_ or with msyslog) and do not seem to clash with anything. Why do you suggest renaming them? Just to be able to locate where do they belong to from a first glance? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209965] Review Request: ruby-bdb - Berkeley DB is an embedded database system that supports keyed access to data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-bdb - Berkeley DB is an embedded database system
that supports keyed access to data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209965
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 20:31 EST ---
To fix the two warnings, in comment #1:
Change the license to Ruby License. The Ruby License incorporates the GPL by
reference; there is no need to list it separately.
Add the '-q' argument to the %setup line:
%setup -q -n %{tarname}-%{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 206837] Review Request: TurboCheetah - TurboGears plugin to support use of Cheetah templates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: TurboCheetah - TurboGears plugin to support use of Cheetah templates https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206837 [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 206837] Review Request: TurboCheetah - TurboGears plugin to support use of Cheetah templates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: TurboCheetah - TurboGears plugin to support use of Cheetah templates https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206837 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 22:54 EST --- Ah, the Source0 in the spec is wrong (I'll fix it up for the next revision). I pulled down the tarballs for 0.9.5 from the Cheese Shop: http://cheeseshop.python.org/pypi/TurboCheetah -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202324] Review Request: nagios-plugins-snmp-disk-proc - Nagios SNMP plugins to monitor remote disk and processes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nagios-plugins-snmp-disk-proc - Nagios SNMP plugins to monitor remote disk and processes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202324 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 23:30 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: cf70e405718d016debe206d01f54262c nagios-snmp-plugins-1.0.tar.gz cf70e405718d016debe206d01f54262c nagios-snmp-plugins-1.0.tar.gz.1 OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - BuildRequires correct 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: OK - Should include License or ask upstream to include it. OK - Should build in mock. Issues: 1. rpmlint says: E: nagios-plugins-snmp-disk-proc-debuginfo description-line-too-long This package provides debug information for package nagios-plugins-snmp-disk-proc. I think this is just due to the very long name of this package, and can be ignored. Everything looks good to me, so this package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this package NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built. Please consider doing a review of another package thats waiting to help spread the reviewing load. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206837] Review Request: TurboCheetah - TurboGears plugin to support use of Cheetah templates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: TurboCheetah - TurboGears plugin to support use of
Cheetah templates
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206837
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 23:34 EST ---
Ah, OK. I changed Source0 to
http://cheeseshop.python.org/packages/source/T/TurboCheetah/TurboCheetah-%{version}.tar.gz
The one remaining issue I see is that this package needs to own
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/turbocheetah.
* source files match upstream:
52e12130302a218a8e3b925447041be4 TurboCheetah-0.9.5.tar.gz
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text 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:
python-turbocheetah = 0.9.5-3.fc6
=
python(abi) = 2.4
python-cheetah = 1.0
* %check is not present; tests not runnable.
X needs to own /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/turbocheetah
* 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 206837] Review Request: TurboCheetah - TurboGears plugin to support use of Cheetah templates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: TurboCheetah - TurboGears plugin to support use of
Cheetah templates
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206837
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-10 00:15 EST ---
http://people.redhat.com/lmacken/RPMS/python-turbocheetah-0.9.5-4.src.rpm
http://people.redhat.com/lmacken/SPECS/python-turbocheetah.spec
* Tue Oct 10 2006 Luke Macken [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.9.5-4
- Fix Source0
- Own %%{python_sitelib}/turbocheetah
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210117] Review Request: perl-aliased - Use shorter versions of class names
Please 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-aliased - Use shorter versions of class names https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210117 [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 209082] Review Request: scanbuttond - Scanner Button tools to SANE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: scanbuttond - Scanner Button tools to SANE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209082 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-10 00:57 EST --- here it goes final version Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/scanbuttond/scanbuttond.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/scanbuttond/scanbuttond-0.2.3-5.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199681] Review Request: slab
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: slab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199681 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-10 01:50 EST --- Hi Denis, If the cvs version is not a to major departure from 0.6.2, i'll intergrate it this evening, if it is a relativly large change, it might take some rebasing of some huge patches, so then it would have to wait until the weekend :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
