[Bug 210632] Review Request: fbg - Falling Block Game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fbg - Falling Block Game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210632 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 02:49 EST --- Woops, good catch. I used a spec from a previous package for this and that stayed in. Here is a version with the license tag fixed: Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/fbg.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/fbg-0.9-2.fc6.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 210464] Review Request: anjuta-2 - A very capable IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: anjuta-2 - A very capable IDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210464 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 03:14 EST --- No. I want 2.0.2 in Rawhide only until it's stability is proven - that said, it's on 3 machines here and has only crashed once in 4 months. It will replace 1.2.4a once uploaded. The plan is to have it in core 5 and 6 within 6 months. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177603] Review Request: libpri
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpri https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177603 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 05:40 EST --- Versioning: libpri-1.4.0-1.fc6.beta1 libpri-1.4.0-1.fc6 Make it -0.fc6.beta1 like you did zaptel. W: libpri-devel summary-ended-with-dot Development files for libpri. Fix those two and it's fine. Approving... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177603] Review Request: libpri
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpri https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177603 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 05:45 EST --- Oh, and you can drop the BR: zaptel-devel since you're not actually building the test binaries which actually use it. libpri itself doesn't. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177584] Review Request: zaptel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zaptel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177584 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 06:01 EST --- OK, looks good. Only outstanding question is the licence of the OCT6114-128D.ima file. Is that GPL'd? If so, where's the source. If not, it needs to go. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210632] Review Request: fbg - Falling Block Game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fbg - Falling Block Game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210632 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 06:08 EST --- You haven't updated a spec file but a SRPM looks good. So package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210553] Review Request: xerces-c - Validating XML Parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xerces-c - Validating XML Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210553
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 06:26 EST ---
- A nasty typo had crept into your spec through my patch: search for fine
and
replace it with find, sorry.
Done.
- You should install the samples into %{_datadir}, instead of %{_prefix}/share
Done.
W: xerces-c-devel summary-ended-with-dot
Fixed.
I disabled samples temporarily. I'm in doubts whether to ty make 'em buildable
(correctly set up XERCESROOT etc) or simply move samples-directory to
doc-package.
New package and spec:
http://lemenkov.newmail.ru/SPECS/xerces-c.spec
http://lemenkov.newmail.ru/SRPMS/xerces-c-2.7.0-2.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193446] Review Request: GLiv: OpenGL image viewer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: GLiv: OpenGL image viewer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193446 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 06:42 EST --- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193446] Review Request: GLiv: OpenGL image viewer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: GLiv: OpenGL image viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193446
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 06:50 EST ---
Little note:
Change
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root
to
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Btw, are you still have interest to package this application? If not, I can
take 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 210464] Review Request: anjuta-2 - A very capable IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: anjuta-2 - A very capable IDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210464
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 07:20 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I want 2.0.2 in Rawhide only until it's stability is proven - that said, it's
on
3 machines here and has only crashed once in 4 months. It will replace 1.2.4a
once uploaded.
Then I think there is no reason that the spec file should have the name
anjuta2.spec, as far as you think of this package as a normal upgrade
of anjuta-1.2.4a.
Well, I have not checked this precisely, however:
1. rpmlint is not silent.
W: anjuta devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/anjuta/project/gtk/src/main.c
W: anjuta devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/anjuta/project/anjuta-plugin/src/plugin.h
W: anjuta devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/anjuta/project/anjuta-plugin/src/plugin.c
W: anjuta devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/anjuta/project/xlib-dock/src/main.c
E: anjuta zero-length /usr/share/anjuta/project/cpp/AUTHORS
W: anjuta devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/anjuta/project/xlib/src/main.c
E: anjuta zero-length /usr/share/anjuta/project/terminal/po/ChangeLog
W: anjuta devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/anjuta/project/gtk/src/callbacks.h
W: anjuta devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/anjuta/project/gtk/src/callbacks.c
E: anjuta zero-length /usr/share/anjuta/project/cpp/po/ChangeLog
E: anjuta zero-length /usr/share/anjuta/project/cpp/NEWS
W: anjuta devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/anjuta/project/terminal/src/main.c
E: anjuta zero-length /usr/share/anjuta/project/terminal/NEWS
W: anjuta devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/anjuta/project/gnome/src/callbacks.c
W: anjuta devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/anjuta/project/gnome/src/callbacks.h
W: anjuta devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/anjuta/project/xlib-dock/src/wmgeneral.h
W: anjuta devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/anjuta/project/xlib-dock/src/wmgeneral.c
W: anjuta devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/anjuta/project/gnome/src/main.c
W: anjuta devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/anjuta/project/mkfile/src/main.c
E: anjuta zero-length /usr/share/anjuta/project/mkfile/po/ChangeLog
E: anjuta zero-length /usr/share/anjuta/project/terminal/README
W: anjuta devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/anjuta/project/xlib-dock/src/pixmaps.h
E: anjuta zero-length /usr/share/anjuta/project/cpp/README
E: anjuta zero-length /usr/share/anjuta/project/cpp/ChangeLog
E: anjuta zero-length /usr/share/anjuta/project/terminal/ChangeLog
E: anjuta zero-length /usr/share/anjuta/project/terminal/AUTHORS
W: anjuta devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/anjuta/indent_test.c
E: anjuta invalid-spec-name anjuta2.spec
E: anjuta-debuginfo script-without-shebang
/usr/src/debug/anjuta-2.0.2/scintilla/StyleContext.cxx
E: anjuta-debuginfo script-without-shebang
/usr/src/debug/anjuta-2.0.2/scintilla/LexLisp.cxx
E: anjuta-debuginfo script-without-shebang
/usr/src/debug/anjuta-2.0.2/scintilla/LexRuby.cxx
E: anjuta-debuginfo script-without-shebang
/usr/src/debug/anjuta-2.0.2/scintilla/LexCrontab.cxx
E: anjuta-debuginfo script-without-shebang
/usr/src/debug/anjuta-2.0.2/scintilla/LexAda.cxx
E: anjuta-debuginfo script-without-shebang
/usr/src/debug/anjuta-2.0.2/scintilla/XPM.cxx
E: anjuta-debuginfo script-without-shebang
/usr/src/debug/anjuta-2.0.2/scintilla/StyleContext.h
E: anjuta-debuginfo script-without-shebang
/usr/src/debug/anjuta-2.0.2/scintilla/XPM.h
E: anjuta-debuginfo script-without-shebang
/usr/src/debug/anjuta-2.0.2/scintilla/LexEiffel.cxx
1-A Please explain why some usually-in-devel files should be in main package.
1-B The errors of zero-length files cannot be acceptable. Remove all these
files (when the files become non-empty, add the files _THEN_ ).
1-C script-without-shebang in debuginfo rpm: permissions are incorrect.
Fix these.
1-D invalid-spec-name: I think the name of spec file should be anjuta.spec.
2. Clean up BuildRequires and Requires. I can see many redundant
(Build)Requires.
3. Please explain bliefly why Requires you added are needed.
4. Don't use %{buildroot} and ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} both. Please use only one.
5. Also use || : method to update-mime-database and redirect the result to
/dev/null.
6. A package including pkgconfig configration file should require
pkgconfig. Also, libanjuta-1.0.pc includes:
Requires: libgnomeui-2.0 libglade-2.0. This means that -devel package should
libgnomeui-devel and libglade2-devel.
(again note: I have not checked this package fully yet)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
[Bug 210757] New: Review Request: magicor - Push ice blocks around to extenguish all fires
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=210757 Summary: Review Request: magicor - Push ice blocks around to extenguish all fires 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://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/magicor.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/magicor-0.1-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: The goal of the game is to annihilate all burning fires. You do this by pushing blocks of ice until they collide with a burning fire. When the ice blocks hit burning fire the block and the fire are destroyed. Once all fires are extinguished the level is completed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210758] New: Review Request: aspell-fa - Persian dictionaries for Aspell
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=210758 Summary: Review Request: aspell-fa - Persian dictionaries for Aspell 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://mola.c100c.com/data/files/Spec%20file/aspell-fa.spec SRPM URL: http://mola.c100c.com/data/files/fc5.srpm/aspell6-fa-0.10-0.src.rpm Description: Provides the word list/dictionaries for the following: Persian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210757] Review Request: magicor - Push ice blocks around to extenguish all fires
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: magicor - Push ice blocks around to extenguish all fires https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210757 [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 210757] Review Request: magicor - Push ice blocks around to extenguish all fires
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: magicor - Push ice blocks around to extenguish all fires https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210757 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 08:27 EST --- rpmlint warning/errors .src.rpm - no %build section (W) .noarch.rpm - non-conffile-in-etc /etc/magicor.conf Builds cleanly in mock. I'll do the full review after I've had some lunch! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210758] Review Request: aspell-fa - Persian dictionaries for Aspell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aspell-fa - Persian dictionaries for Aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210758 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |fc5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210087] Review Request: pekwm - Light weight window manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pekwm - Light weight window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210087
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 10:03 EST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
So my proposal is, keep sysconfdir as is, but move the
scrips to %_bindir, and use sed yourself to regenerate menu from
data/menu.in.
When you say this do you mean to leave it like I have it now, or remove what I
have now and let this stuff be places in %{_sysconfdir}
A wild guess is that to put the scripts for example in %_bindir
you could just redefine scriptsdir on the make install command line.
This sounds fine to me, Ill see what I can do to get it like that.
Otherwise scripts use pkill from procps, and also there seems
to be a need for xprop, which is a virtual provides of
xorg-x11-utils.
Does there need to be a requires for this or are they pretty much a standard
tool to have on board?
The default menu brings in a lot of dependencies. I am not convinced
what should be done there. Have a menu with wrong entries? Trim
it down and add requires?
Would you feel like modifying fluxbox-xdg-menu, remove the footer
and header, change parseMenu to generate pekwm format,
and remove the Submenus from Submenu = Editors to
Submenu = Development, and replace them by an entry like:
Entry = { Actions = Dynamic %{bindir}/pekwm-xdg-menu }?
This seems to be the best thing to do, currently it doesn't
really integrate with fedora.
Solved 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 210758] Review Request: aspell-fa - Persian dictionaries for Aspell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aspell-fa - Persian dictionaries for Aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210758 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 11:07 EST --- I'm blocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR because I don't see Mola's name in the cvsextras group. Please remove it if this is incorrect. Mola, please see 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 193446] Review Request: GLiv: OpenGL image viewer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: GLiv: OpenGL image viewer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193446 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 11:31 EST --- Hi, thanks for the tip. Actually, I got a very intense scholar year, so I'd be glad if you could take this app. I'll let the spec and the srpm online. Regards Adrien BUSTANY -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206838] Review Request: TGFastData - Automatic user interface generation for TurboGears
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: TGFastData - Automatic user interface generation for TurboGears https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206838 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 11:51 EST --- Hmm, I interpreted the above to mean that you were going to send along an updated version. But I'll go ahead and review -3 with the Source0: URL fixed and see how it comes out. The rpmlint warnings in comment #4 are present; I've found that not-zip-safe is indeed a flag file and it seems that the egg-info junk really does need to be packaged, so the zero-length-file bit is OK. The no-documentation bit is unfortunate, but you're not expected to write the documentation if it's not already there. There are tests, but there's no %check and I'm not sure if they can be run at build time. Is it possible to run them at all, even after the package is installed? Otherwise I have no way to test this package. The /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/tgfastdata/ directory is unowned, as are all of the subdirectories of that directory. You can probably just delete the empty %doc tag from %files. * source files match upstream: 523bdd96bda2f505c2626051a95565d4 TGFastData-0.9a6-py2.4.egg * 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 (none) * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly O rpmlint has only acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: python-tgfastdata = 0.9a6-3.fc6 = python(abi) = 2.4 ? %check is not present, but there are tests present. X fails to own /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/tgfastdata and its subdirs. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * no docs at all to 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 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] 2006-10-14 12:10 EST --- Check the new package listen-0.5-6.beta1 or better wait listen-0.5-7.beta1 build , I had updated the spec with more requires. It only lacks gnome-python2-gtkhtml2, which will be added now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195645] Review Request: rasqal - RDF query 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: rasqal - RDF query library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195645 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 12:14 EST --- Thomas: Any reply to my plea in comment #11? Do you still wish to submit this (and redland/redland-bindings)? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193319] Review Request: chestnut-dialer - A PPP dialing program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: chestnut-dialer - A PPP dialing program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193319 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 12:20 EST --- Hey Konstantin. Sorry this package has been sitting here so long. ;( Hopefully you still wish to submit it. You might want to take a look at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored If you have some other packages to submit and/or can add some feedback on other pending reviews, that would help sponsors see that you understand the 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 169704] Review Request: mosml - Moscow ML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mosml - Moscow ML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169704 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 12:22 EST --- Built on same machine for devel i386. Perhaps this could be ExcludeArch x86_64? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210087] Review Request: pekwm - Light weight window manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pekwm - Light weight window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210087
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 12:27 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
When you say this do you mean to leave it like I have it now, or remove what I
have now and let this stuff be places in %{_sysconfdir}
My proposal would be let this stuff be placed in %{_sysconfdir}.
and set scriptsdir=%{_bindir}.
And adjust paths.
Otherwise scripts use pkill from procps, and also there seems
to be a need for xprop, which is a virtual provides of
xorg-x11-utils.
Does there need to be a requires for this or are they pretty much a standard
tool to have on board?
They are standard, but I think we shouldn't assume anything,
especially for lightweight window managers, so requires should be
the right ones.
Solved this. :)
And that's great :)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196591] Review Request: bitlbee
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bitlbee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196591 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 12:29 EST --- Paul: If you are officially reviewing this package, you should reassign it to yourself, and change the blocker from FE-NEW (163776) to FE-REVIEW (163778). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204493] Review Request: perl-Mozilla-DOM - Perl interface to Mozilla DOM
Please 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-Mozilla-DOM - Perl interface to Mozilla DOM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204493 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 12:32 EST --- I can get the build to progress a bit further by patching Makefile.PL to add -I$incdor/necko to the $mozdom-set_inc call. However, it still fails on DOM.xs:12674: error: no matching function for call to 'nsIDOMNSHTMLDocument::Open(nsIDOMDocument**)' /usr/include/firefox-1.5.0.7/dom/nsIDOMNSHTMLDocument.h:67: note: candidates are: virtual nsresult nsIDOMNSHTMLDocument::Open(const nsACString, PRBool, nsIDOMDocument**) Perhaps someone who knows Firefox internals could comment on what's missing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210758] Review Request: aspell-fa - Persian dictionaries for Aspell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aspell-fa - Persian dictionaries for Aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210758 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 12:33 EST --- It looks to me like you went to the account system to apply for sponsorship, but you seem to have skipped a few steps. Or do you actually have a sponsor lined up already? If not, I will deny your request in the account system and you can re-apply when you are actually ready to do so. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210217] Review Request: pygpgme - Python module for working with OpenPGP messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pygpgme - Python module for working with OpenPGP messages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210217 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 12:38 EST --- I'll make a review in a few hours, but as yet package looks fine to me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 169704] Review Request: mosml - Moscow ML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mosml - Moscow ML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169704 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 12:39 EST --- (In reply to comment #22) Perhaps this could be ExcludeArch x86_64? It's ok for me. It is possible for Fedora x64_64 to use i386 repositories, isn't 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 210320] Review Request: perl-File-BaseDir - Use the freedesktop basedir spec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-File-BaseDir - Use the freedesktop basedir spec https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210320 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||210323 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 12:40 EST --- Looks like the dependencies are a bit messed up. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210323] Review Request: perl-File-DesktopEntry - Object to handle .desktop files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-File-DesktopEntry - Object to handle .desktop files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210323 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||210320 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 206838] Review Request: TGFastData - Automatic user interface generation for TurboGears
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: TGFastData - Automatic user interface generation for
TurboGears
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206838
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 12:44 EST ---
The tests don't seem usable during build or even after (without instantiating
the classes and calling the test methods by hand), so I removed the test
directory from the package.
http://people.redhat.com/lmacken/RPMS/python-tgfastdata-0.9a6-4.src.rpm
http://people.redhat.com/lmacken/SPECS/python-tgfastdata.spec
* Tue Oct 14 2006 Luke Macken [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.9a6-4
- Fix Source0
- Own %%{python_sitelib}/%{module}
- Don't install unusable tests
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205929] Review Request: libfreebob - FreeBoB firewire audio driver 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: libfreebob - FreeBoB firewire audio driver library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205929 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 12:54 EST --- I would be happy to review this. Look for a full review in a little while. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205929] Review Request: libfreebob - FreeBoB firewire audio driver 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: libfreebob - FreeBoB firewire audio driver library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205929
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 13:18 EST ---
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
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:
aa550528324a4dfb3cf7c9a90d83c694 libfreebob-1.0.0.tar.bz2
aa550528324a4dfb3cf7c9a90d83c694 libfreebob-1.0.0.tar.bz2.1
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
OK - .so files in -devel subpackage.
OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
OK - .la files are removed.
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
See below - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
See below - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane:
SHOULD Items:
OK - Should build in mock.
i386/x86_64 - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
Issues:
1. You seem to be including the docs in both the main package
and the -devel package. Perhaps just have them in the main package
files?
2. rpmlint says:
W: libfreebob-devel summary-ended-with-dot Libraries, includes etc to develop
with libfreebob.
Might remove the trailing . to make rpmlint happy. ;)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207741] Review Request: colorsvn - subversion output colorizer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: colorsvn - subversion output colorizer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207741 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 13:30 EST --- In reply to comment #3: Note that extras packages should not conflict with core packages. If kdesdk provides /usr/bin/colorsvn (which it does), I fear this package will not be acceptable for extras. What is the diffrence between this version and the one provided by kdesdk? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185845] Review Request: rpld - RPL/RIPL remote boot daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rpld - RPL/RIPL remote boot daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185845 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 13:37 EST --- http://stingr.net/l/fe/rpld-1.8-0.1.beta1.src.rpm and http://stingr.net/l/fe/rpld.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 191175] Review Request: pyserial - Python serial port access 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: pyserial - Python serial port access library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191175 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 13:45 EST --- http://stingr.net/l/fe/pyserial.spec http://stingr.net/l/fe/pyserial-2.2-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210323] Review Request: perl-File-DesktopEntry - Object to handle .desktop files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-File-DesktopEntry - Object to handle .desktop files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210323 [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 210467] Review Request: wallpapoz - Gnome Multi Backgrounds and Wallpapers Configuration Tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wallpapoz - Gnome Multi Backgrounds and Wallpapers Configuration Tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210467 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 13:56 EST --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. 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: 7b3c2189f24f3cee48acb4085944b7c4 wallpapoz-0.3.tar.bz2 7b3c2189f24f3cee48acb4085944b7c4 wallpapoz-0.3.tar.bz2.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. i386/x86_64 - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. The srcurl and icondir macros seem like macro overkill to me, and make the spec harder to read IMHO. Not a blocker, but suggest removing them. 2. Does the install.py script not work? Why are you doing your own install in %install. Could some of these changes get submitted upstream? It looks like they have a custom install.py, perhaps you could get them to switch to a more standard one? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 14:16 EST --- OK - Spec file matches base package name. See below - Spec has consistant macro usage. 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: c1f3a8033a047a7046848833445ed496 luma-2.3.tar.bz2 c1f3a8033a047a7046848833445ed496 luma-2.3.tar.bz2.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. The lumadata, lumalib and plugins macros seem like overkill to me. Not a blocker, but I would prefer if you remove them. It would make the spec more readable, IMHO. 2. On installing and trying to run, I get: Could not read logger settings file. Reason: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/home/kevin/.luma/luma' Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/bin/luma, line 71, in ? startApplication() File /usr/bin/luma, line 44, in startApplication gui.loadPlugins(splash) File /usr/share/luma/lib/base/gui/MainWin.py, line 186, in loadPlugins pluginObject = PluginLoader(self.checkToLoad()) File /usr/share/luma/lib/base/backend/PluginLoader.py, line 53, in __init__ self.importPluginMetas(pluginsToLoad) File /usr/share/luma/lib/base/backend/PluginLoader.py, line 84, in importPluginMetas for x in self.pluginDirList: TypeError: iteration over non-sequence -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210217] Review Request: pygpgme - Python module for working with OpenPGP messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pygpgme - Python module for working with OpenPGP messages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210217 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210217] Review Request: pygpgme - Python module for working with OpenPGP messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pygpgme - Python module for working with OpenPGP messages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210217 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 15:36 EST --- MUST items: * rpmlint output: E: pygpgme unknown-key GPG#cd84ee48 * package is named well * spec file name is good * package meets Packaging Guidelines * package is licensed with an LGPL (?) open-source compatible license * License field in spec file matches (?) actual license * license file isn't included in %doc * md5sums are matching (0878d866b6ee8a98a9003a81934ecee3) * package successfully compiles on x86_64 * BuildRequires look listed well (but I haven't tried to build in mock) * no locales * no need to %post and %postun sections * not relocatable * package owns directories well * no duplicates in %files * every %files section includes %defattr * proper %clean section * macros used well Package looks good, but I'm not sure if rpmlint is a blocker (maybe someone more experienced will express his opinion?). The another problem is lack of license file in %doc, but according to guidelines: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc so that's not a problem. And the last thing is package license. You've written LGPL as license but I couldn't find any information about that (no COPYING, nothing on website) so please show me reliable source where I can find license info. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210323] Review Request: perl-File-DesktopEntry - Object to handle .desktop files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-File-DesktopEntry - Object to handle .desktop files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210323 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 15:56 EST --- Michael, everything on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl is either advisory or contingent on the faulure of some part of RPM's automatic dependency generation. RPM actually does a pretty good job of figuring out most Perl dependencies, and the resulting packages don't generally need much in the way of extraneous bits. * source files match upstream: 9c97efa062c04bcb86a0a6a3707355d1 File-DesktopEntry-0.02.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: perl(File::DesktopEntry) = 0.02 perl-File-DesktopEntry = 0.02-1.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(File::Spec) perl(strict) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=2, Tests=10, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.06 cusr + 0.03 csys = 0.09 CPU) * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210320] Review Request: perl-File-BaseDir - Use the freedesktop basedir spec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-File-BaseDir - Use the freedesktop basedir spec https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210320 [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 200422] Review Request: international-time (first package, seeking sponsor)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: international-time (first package, seeking sponsor) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200422 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210464] Review Request: anjuta-2 - A very capable IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: anjuta-2 - A very capable IDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210464 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 16:41 EST --- 6. I'm very well aware of the packaging guidelines. When I say something is not a problem it is actually just the way I say very trivial to fix. 2. I think I've weeded most of them out now :-) Spec URL: http://nodoid.homelinux.org/fedora/anjuta-2.0.2-6.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://nodoid.homelinux.org/fedora/anjuta2.spec The only thing rpmlint objects to is the devel and empty files in the main package, but there is nothing I can really do about them as they're supposed to be in there -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210320] Review Request: perl-File-BaseDir - Use the freedesktop basedir spec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-File-BaseDir - Use the freedesktop basedir spec https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210320 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 16:43 EST --- I put perl-File-DesktopEntry in a local repo so I could get through this faster. * source files match upstream: 00e2729f364d430350355250cb9007e0 File-BaseDir-0.02.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: perl(File::BaseDir) = 0.02 perl-File-BaseDir = 0.02-1.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(Exporter) perl(File::Spec) perl(strict) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=5, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.01 cusr + 0.02 csys = 0.03 CPU) * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210322] Review Request: perl-File-MimeInfo - Determine file type
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-File-MimeInfo - Determine file type https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210322 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 16:51 EST --- I have placed the two build dependencies in a local repo in order to build this. * source files match upstream: f87b07e1608f4380bb3f53154ac671bb File-MimeInfo-0.13.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: perl(File::MimeInfo) = 0.13 perl(File::MimeInfo::Applications) = 0.02 perl(File::MimeInfo::Magic) = 0.12 perl(File::MimeInfo::Rox) = 0.2 perl-File-MimeInfo = 0.13-1.fc6 = /usr/bin/perl perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(Exporter) perl(Fcntl) perl(File::BaseDir) perl(File::DesktopEntry) perl(File::MimeInfo) perl(File::Spec) perl(strict) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=5, Tests=58, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.18 cusr + 0.08 csys = 0.26 CPU) * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190144] Review Request: hevea - LaTeX to HTML translator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hevea - LaTeX to HTML translator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190144 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 16:55 EST --- Documentation license sent to FSF for feedback. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210775] New: Review Request: Eternal Lands - a free MMORPG
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=210775 Summary: Review Request: Eternal Lands - a free MMORPG 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.daughtersoftiresias.org/progs/el/eternallands.spec Spec URL: http://www.daughtersoftiresias.org/progs/el/eternallands-music.spec SRPM URL: http://www.daughtersoftiresias.org/progs/el/eternallands-1.3.2.0-1.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://www.daughtersoftiresias.org/progs/el/eternallands-music-1.3.2.0-1.src.rpm Description: Eternal Lands is a free MMORPG (massively multiplayer online role playing game) currently under development. The game is now in beta stage, and is fully playable. We are constantly adding more things to do, more items to make, monsters to fight, and improving the systems. Build notes: Eternal Lands has a somewhat nonstandard build process, in that there are few fixed releases, and some of the files have no tarball that contains them. Rather, there is a base, and changes (models, textures, etc) are pushed through updates or special update packages that don't contain the whole base. As such, I had to set up my own tar-building process that takes a recent binary dir and a recent source tree and combines them into a tarball that can be distributed. You'll also note that the permissions in directories that can have content pushed to them are less restrictive. No binaries or libraries are ever pushed. As the music is so large, as is common with games, eternallands is split up into binary and music packages. The music package is optional. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libgeotiff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178162 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|182235 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 17:01 EST --- This is a clear-cut blocker. If it has a end-user restriction (cannot sell data files) and we are forced to include the data files, then the EPSG Tables are clearly non-free. Either we remove the EPSG Tables under that bad license, or we get the Tables relicensed without the restrictions (terms 1 and 3 are the bad ones), or this is not going in. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210758] Review Request: aspell-fa - Persian dictionaries for Aspell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aspell-fa - Persian dictionaries for Aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210758 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 17:06 EST --- hmm what step i forgot ? fedora account , add cvsextras group add 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 210758] Review Request: aspell-fa - Persian dictionaries for Aspell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aspell-fa - Persian dictionaries for Aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210758 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 17:08 EST --- like this page http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208208] Review Request: MegaMek - a portable, network-enabled BattleTech engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: MegaMek - a portable, network-enabled BattleTech engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208208 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 17:17 EST --- Andrew, is there any chance you'd like to co-maintain this with Thomas? I'm willing to vouch for your review and do the sponsor dance. As an aside: this works with libgcj and GNU classpath? Wow. Truly free java really is getting there, isn't 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 204166] Review Request: xeuphoric - an X based Oric emulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xeuphoric - an X based Oric emulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204166 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 17:30 EST --- All of these entities have been legally defunct for almost twenty years (Tangerine Computer Systems is Oric International, died in 1988, no one purchased their assets.) I'm lifting the legal hold on this one, but I'd advise you to put the ROMS in a subpackage, in the unlikely event that a copyright holder emerges from the depths. Also, they're being openly distributed by another high-profile site (oric.org), so there is no risk here. Lifting FE-LEGAL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204166] Review Request: xeuphoric - an X based Oric emulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xeuphoric - an X based Oric emulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204166 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|182235 | nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210775] Review Request: Eternal Lands - a free MMORPG
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: Eternal Lands - a free MMORPG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210775
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 17:32 EST ---
Maybe I'll make a review tommorow (but I'm not sure), but I see a few faults
here, in spec file.
1) Why do you use -n eternallands-%{version} parameter to %setup macro?
By default, rpm tries to change directory to %{name}-%{version}.
2) I think that inclusion wrapper as an another source would be better than
creating it in spec file (only imho).
3) data files shouldn't go into %{_datadir}/games/%{name}, but
%{_datadir}/%{name}. Read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Games
for further information.
4) post scripts look wrongly (read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/
PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets)
And the last thing: creation of your own tarball may be a problem to a reviewer.
I think you should include all tarballs as sources and make any required
modifictions in %prep section and/or patches.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210758] Review Request: aspell-fa - Persian dictionaries for Aspell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aspell-fa - Persian dictionaries for Aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210758 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 17:40 EST --- You seem to have skipped over the Watch for Feedback and Get Sponsored steps from the document you cite. Your package needs to be reviewed by a sponsor first, and then, if acceptable it will be approved and then you can apply for cvsextras access. But please note the following, quoted from the Contributors document you mention above: However, please note that sponsorship is not automatic and may require that you participate in the process of reviewing other packages in order to demonstrate your understanding of the packaging guidelines. See Extras/HowToGetSponsored for more information on the process of finding a sponsor. The HowToGetSponsored page is the one I directed you to in comment #1. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190343] Review Request: VDR - Video Disk Recorder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: VDR - Video Disk Recorder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190343 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|182235 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 17:40 EST --- I don't see a reason for FE-Legal here. VDR isn't encoding or decoding MPEG data. If the ability to parse/save an MPEG file is illegal, we have much bigger legal concerns than VDR. Lifting FE-Legal, unless you really want a lawyer to look at 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 210775] Review Request: Eternal Lands - a free MMORPG
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Eternal Lands - a free MMORPG https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210775 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 17:41 EST --- Uh... Well it looks like this package cannot be approved in Extras. I have read the license and it doesn't look like a license might be approved in Extras. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191036] Review Request: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container format https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191036 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|182235 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 17:45 EST --- Without the codec functionality, and with the id3lib precedence, I think this is OK. Lifted FE-Legal. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210775] Review Request: Eternal Lands - a free MMORPG
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Eternal Lands - a free MMORPG https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210775 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |201449 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 17:57 EST --- Now, I am sure. Sorry, but this package cannot be approved. Its license is bad. I wanted to make me sure on irc channel: tibbs Clause 4 is definitely bad. tibbs Freedom to modify is essential so that you can do things like fix security issues. tibbs Clause 3 is probably bad as well. So I have 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 191175] Review Request: pyserial - Python serial port access 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: pyserial - Python serial port access library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191175
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 18:01 EST ---
rpmlint results:
E: pyserial non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/serial/serialposix.py 0644
E: pyserial wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/serial/serialwin32.py python
E: pyserial non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/serial/serialwin32.py 0644
E: pyserial non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/serial/__init__.py 0644
E: pyserial wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/serial/serialutil.py python
E: pyserial non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/serial/serialutil.py 0644
E: pyserial wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/serial/serialjava.py jython
E: pyserial non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/serial/serialjava.py 0644
These are harmless, I believe. These files are not really scripts.
One more thing for the specfile: since you are building a noarch package, you
don't need the %{!?python_sitearch... line. (Just python_sitelib.) Also, I don't
think you should be doing export libdirname=%{_lib}. Take out these 3 lines, and
you should be 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 204166] Review Request: xeuphoric - an X based Oric emulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xeuphoric - an X based Oric emulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204166 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 18:07 EST --- New SRPMS and SPEC file (creates the roms subpackage) SPEC : http://nodoid.homelinux.org/fedora/xeuphoric.spec SRPM : http://nodoid.homelinux.org/fedora/xeuphoric-0.18.2-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210776] New: Review Request: monotools - access to monodoc without using monodevelop
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=210776 Summary: Review Request: monotools - access to monodoc without using monodevelop 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://nodoid.homelinux.org/fedora/monotools.spec SRPM URL: http://nodoid.homelinux.org/fedora/monotools-0.17-1.src.rpm Description: mono-tools allows user access to the monodoc package as a normal application rather than having to fire up monodevelop all of the time -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210776] Review Request: monotools - access to monodoc without using monodevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: monotools - access to monodoc without using monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210776 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 18:12 EST --- Spec URL: http://nodoid.homelinux.org/fedora/monotools.spec SRPM URL: http://nodoid.homelinux.org/fedora/monotools-1.1.17-1.src.rpm Dammit - version number was wrong! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189892] Review Request: dssi - Disposable Soft Synth 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: dssi - Disposable Soft Synth Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189892 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|182235 | nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 182941] Review Request: nessus-core Network vulnerability scanner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nessus-core Network vulnerability scanner https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182941 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|185799 | 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 185799] Review Request: nessus-plugins-GPL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nessus-plugins-GPL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185799 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|182941 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204166] Review Request: xeuphoric - an X based Oric emulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xeuphoric - an X based Oric emulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204166 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 185799] Review Request: nessus-plugins-GPL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nessus-plugins-GPL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185799 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|182235 |201449 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 18:16 EST --- Sorry for the spam; I'm trying to clear the FE-Legal blocker since this ticket is no longer open, but instead I'm just a bonehead. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191036] Review Request: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container format https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191036 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||182235 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 18:33 EST --- Scratch that. It's demultiplexing (and multiplexing) the mp4 format. This might be patented, setting back to FE-Legal for a Patent lawyer to check. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210781] New: Review Request: libctl - Guile-based support for flexible control files
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=210781 Summary: Review Request: libctl - Guile-based support for flexible control files 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://mitgcm.org/eh3/fedora_misc/libctl.spec SRPM URL: http://mitgcm.org/eh3/fedora_misc/libctl-3.0.2-3.fc5.src.rpm Description: The libctl package is a Guile-based library that provides support for flexible control files in scientific simulations. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208208] Review Request: MegaMek - a portable, network-enabled BattleTech engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: MegaMek - a portable, network-enabled BattleTech engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208208 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 18:53 EST --- Are you sure you don't want to split out all those jars? Yes, it means more work for you as a packager of megamek, but it's less work the next time anyone needs any of those packages. Aside from this, based on comment #1 and comment #4, I don't really see any other problem that symlinks would not solve. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210781] Review Request: libctl - Guile-based support for flexible control files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libctl - Guile-based support for flexible control files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210781 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 18:59 EST --- Please note that the patch in the above SRPM has already been submitted to the upstream folks. I hope to remove it and the resulting autotools dependency from future versions. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207846] Review Request: perl-Finance-YahooQuote - Perl interface to get stock quotes from Yahoo! Finance
Please 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-Finance-YahooQuote - Perl interface to get stock quotes from Yahoo! Finance Alias: finance-YahooQuote https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207846 Bug 207846 depends on bug 208348, which changed state. Bug 208348 Summary: mod_perl should not provide perl(HTTP::Request::Common) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208348 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||DUPLICATE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207846] Review Request: perl-Finance-YahooQuote - Perl interface to get stock quotes from Yahoo! Finance
Please 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-Finance-YahooQuote - Perl interface to get stock quotes from Yahoo! Finance Alias: finance-YahooQuote https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207846 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|208348 |197841 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210784] New: Review Request: php-pear-XML-Util - XML utility class
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=210784 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-XML-Util - XML utility class 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://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-XML-Util.spec SRPM URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-XML-Util-1.1.1-1.src.rpm Description: XML_Util is a utility class that helps you working with (and especially creating) XML documents. All methods of XML_Util can be called statically, that means you do not have to instantiate an XML_Util object to use the provided methods. The funcionality of XML_Util ranges from validating an XML tag name (as there are strict rules for tag and attribute names) to the creation of namespaced XML tags. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210784] Review Request: php-pear-XML-Util - XML utility class
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-XML-Util - XML utility class Alias: pear-XML-Util https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210784 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||pear-XML-Util -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210775] Review Request: Eternal Lands - a free MMORPG
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: Eternal Lands - a free MMORPG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210775
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 19:58 EST ---
Now this is frustrating. Because, according to this page:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community to build a
complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from open source
software. In accordance with that, all packages included in Fedora must be
covered under an open source license.
We clarify an open source license in three ways:
* OSI-approved license. You can find the list of OSI approved licenses here:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
So, I went to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/, and I see this:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/qtpl.php
What is up with this? I just spent a couple hours packaging this because it
looked like this license was acceptable. Now you tell me that it isn't?
Looking into it more, it seems you're talking about the restrictions to the
license as opposed to the license itself. For number 4, this RPM is a piece
of client software. Just because a server choses not to allow modified
clients to connect doesn't mean that you can't modify the client. You can
modify this client to your heart's content -- you'll just need your own server
if you want to connect legally. Any security changes that don't go straight
into the EL tree or have EL permission should, responsibly, change the address
that the server points to, just to make sure that users realize that it's a
modified client. If this is unacceptable to Fedora, then Fedora will *never*
be able to have a MMORPG in with it, because modified clients are the bane of
MMORPGs, as they allow botting. EL is actually nicer than most -- you can use
modified clients, so long as you register them and they're not obscenely
cheating, and they're very good about accepting patches.
As for #3, the first part is implicit in all licensing agreements. You're
never allowed to use other peoples' trademarks without their approval, whether
their code is Open Source or not. Is the second part a problem? Right now,
I'm looking at the LGPL, and it's little different: You must cause the files
modified to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the
date of any change.
Oy. Is there a way to get preapproval or anything so that this doesn't happen
again in the future?
Anyways, as to the other stuff:
I1) Why do you use -n eternallands-%{version} parameter to %setup macro?
By default, rpm tries to change directory to %{name}-%{version}./I
I based this on the nethack-vultures specfile, which Ville built the framework
of.
I2) I think that inclusion wrapper as an another source would be better than
creating it in spec file (only imho)./I
If you'll notice, part of the wrapper depends on the installation directory.
Since it's so short, I figured this was cleaner than having a separate source
that I'd have to sed to customize.
I3) data files shouldn't go into %{_datadir}/games/%{name}, but
%{_datadir}/%{name}. Read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Games
for further information./I
Can do. Once again, however, the nethack-vultures spec installed in there.
So it must be wrong as well.
I4) post scripts look wrongly (read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/
PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets)/I
This is also straight from nethack-vultures, and is code I was given from
Ville. What is the issue with what you see, out of curiosity -- is it the
lack of an if?
IAnd the last thing: creation of your own tarball may be a problem to a
reviewer. I think you should include all tarballs as sources and make any
required modifictions in %prep section and/or patches./I
But there are no tarballs except the initial and one update, which has been
heavily modified over time by additional files (they're zips, not tarballs,
but that's not important). There are no up-to-date original tarballs, so
there is no option but to create a new one each time.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210775] Review Request: Eternal Lands - a free MMORPG
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Eternal Lands - a free MMORPG https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210775 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Keywords||Reopened Resolution|NOTABUG | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 20:00 EST --- In short, what I'm saying is: tell me what needs to happen to make this approvable, and I'll work on getting those things 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 175168] Review Request: gideon - GUI designer for GTK/C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gideon - GUI designer for GTK/C++ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175168 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 20:04 EST --- Packaging-wise it's only missing Requires: pkgconfig in the -devel package. Although it loads quickly, it could be enhanced with startup notification in the desktop file. At run-time, I stumbled into a NULL-pointer related segfault in Save As while building a tiny test-GUI. It was too easy to make it crash, but not reproducible afterwards. Anyway, after a crash, I feel approval would be premature, so somebody else would need to take over in order to accept v2.8.0 as is. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210785] New: Review Request: php-pear-XML-Beautifier - Class to format XML documents
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=210785 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-XML-Beautifier - Class to format XML documents 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://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-XML-Beautifier.spec SRPM URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-XML-Beautifier-1.1-1.src.rpm Description: XML_Beautifier is a package, that helps you making XML documents easier to read for human beings. It is able to add line-breaks, indentation, sorts attributes, convert tag cases and wraps long comments. It recognizes tags, character data, comments, XML declarations, processing instructions and external entities and is able to format these tokens nicely. The document is split into these tokens using the XML_Beautifier_Tokenizer class and the expat parser. Then a renderer is used to create the string representation of the document and formats it using the specified options. Currently only one renderer is available, but as XML_Beautifier uses a driver-based architecture, other renderers (like syntax-highlighting) will follow soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210785] Review Request: php-pear-XML-Beautifier - Class to format XML documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-XML-Beautifier - Class to format XML documents Alias: pear-XML-Beautifier https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210785 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||pear-XML-Beautifier -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210775] Review Request: Eternal Lands - a free MMORPG
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Eternal Lands - a free MMORPG https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210775 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 20:13 EST --- I'm sure there is a lot of interest in this game. Please be very certain the license is not acceptable before closing the bug. If this is the case, we can always package it for Livna or Dribble. But most of us would prefer it in Extras if possible. The license looks okay to be, but I am not a lawyer. Perhaps we can bring it up on the fedora extras mailing list if there is a question. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210775] Review Request: Eternal Lands - a free MMORPG
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Eternal Lands - a free MMORPG https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210775 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 20:14 EST --- Karen: You might want to list this bug on the Games SIG page: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Games -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177584] Review Request: zaptel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zaptel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177584 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 20:24 EST --- I believe it's part of the GPL'd Oactasic API but I'm not sure... I say get rid of it until we can find out for sure the license on 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 210775] Review Request: Eternal Lands - a free MMORPG
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Eternal Lands - a free MMORPG https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210775 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 20:26 EST --- 4. If you want to [re]distribute this game, you are NOT allowed to modify anything. You can, however, distribute some txt/doc/etc file, with information about you, etc. Okay, this definately is no good for Fedora. Please submit package to Livna or Dribble. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204166] Review Request: xeuphoric - an X based Oric emulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xeuphoric - an X based Oric emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204166
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 20:32 EST ---
That typo in the URL is still there.
rpmlint has some complaints:
W: xeuphoric file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man1/xeuphoric.1.gz
Indeed it isn't, probably due to a single character in the author's name.
W: xeuphoric non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xeuphoric/0.18.2/xeuphoricrc
This needs to be marked %config.
E: xeuphoric configure-without-libdir-spec
This is bogus; the configure script was not generated by autotools.
W: xeuphoric-roms no-documentation
Not a problem.
So two valid complaints there.
The flags passed to the compiler seem to be -DX11 -g -Wall -O3, which are
incorrect. This is fixable by changing the make line to:
make CFLAGS=-DX11 %{optflags} %{?_smp_mflags}
The resulting executable seems to work fine.
I wonder if the base package shouldn't require the roms package, instead of the
other way around. Normally you'd just install xeuphoric and have it pull in the
roms; currently if you do that you get something that doesn't work too well.
Review:
* source files match upstream:
4a2469ee45d6476350ffc0a92d165990 xeuphoric-0.18.2.tar.gz
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
X compiler flags are not appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, i386).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint has valid complaints.
? final provides and requires are sane:
xeuphoric-0.18.2-3.fc5.i386.rpm
xeuphoric = 0.18.2-3.fc5
=
libX11.so.6
libXext.so.6
libartsc.so.0
xeuphoric-roms-0.18.2-3.fc5.i386.rpm
xeuphoric-roms = 0.18.2-3.fc5
=
xeuphoric = 0.18.2-3.fc5
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream. Package manually tested and
found to be OK.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
X GUI app, but no desktop 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 210787] New: Review Request: php-pear-XML-Serializer - Swiss-army knife for reading and writing XML files
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=210787 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-XML-Serializer - Swiss-army knife for reading and writing XML files 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://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-XML-Serializer.spec SRPM URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-XML-Serializer-0.18.0-1.src.rpm Description: XML_Serializer serializes complex data structures like arrays or object as XML documents. This class helps you generating any XML document you require without the need for DOM. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210787] Review Request: php-pear-XML-Serializer - Swiss-army knife for reading and writing XML files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-XML-Serializer - Swiss-army knife for reading and writing XML files Alias: pear-XML-Serializer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210787 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||210784 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210788] New: Review Request: php-pear-Date-Holidays - Driver based class to calculate holidays
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=210788 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Date-Holidays - Driver based class to calculate holidays 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://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-Date-Holidays.spec SRPM URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-Date-Holidays-0.16.1-1.src.rpm Description: Date_Holidays helps you calculating the dates and titles of holidays and other special celebrations. The calculation is driver-based so it is easy to add new drivers that calculate a country's holidays. The methods of the class can be used to get a holiday's date and title in various languages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210788] Review Request: php-pear-Date-Holidays - Driver based class to calculate holidays
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Date-Holidays - Driver based class to calculate holidays Alias: pear-Date-Holidays https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210788 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||210787 Alias||pear-Date-Holidays -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210787] Review Request: php-pear-XML-Serializer - Swiss-army knife for reading and writing XML files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-XML-Serializer - Swiss-army knife for reading and writing XML files Alias: pear-XML-Serializer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210787 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||210788 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 210423] Review Request: snitch - a powerful packet-shaping utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: snitch - a powerful packet-shaping utility Alias: volp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210423 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 21:23 EST --- Hi Walter, I'm afraid this package needs a lot of work before it is of acceptable quality for Fedora Extras. If you are serious about FE and would like to continue the process then please do the following: 1) Please carefully read ALL of these two pages: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines and verify and (where necessary) fix your package so that it follows all of the rules, guidelines, etc. 2) Please look at some successful past submissions and see what their spec files currently resemble. There are a large number of them in CVS which you can see on-line at: http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/?root=extras and it is a good idea to study and emulate them -- especially those that might be similar in type/function. 3) Please consider packing something else for your first attempt. The home page for snitch says: Snitch is not really functional and is not under active development. which is not an encouraging statement! Also, I noticed that you requested sponsorship. According to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors you should send the request only after your first package has been approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210781] Review Request: libctl - Guile-based support for flexible control files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libctl - Guile-based support for flexible control files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210781 [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 210775] Review Request: Eternal Lands - a free MMORPG
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Eternal Lands - a free MMORPG https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210775 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 22:03 EST --- Hmm, I see it: the plain language license differs strongly with the real license. I'll point out the contradiction to the developers. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210775] Review Request: Eternal Lands - a free MMORPG
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Eternal Lands - a free MMORPG https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210775 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 22:27 EST --- Karen: That's good news about the license. I think the license that actually comes with the software would override the one on the web site. We should definately confirm with upstream developers, but this is good news! I added this bug to the Games SIG page for you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210790] New: Review Request: dar - Collection of scripts for making/restoring CD/DVD backups
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=210790 Summary: Review Request: dar - Collection of scripts for making/restoring CD/DVD backups 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://rpm.forevermore.net/dar/dar.spec SRPM URL: http://rpm.forevermore.net/dar/dar-2.3.1-1.src.rpm Description: DAR is a command line tool to backup a directory tree and files. DAR is able to make differential backups, split them over a set of disks or files of a given size, use compression, filter files or subtrees to be saved or not saved, directly access and restore given files. DAR is also able to handle extented attributes, and can make remote backups through an ssh session for example. Finally, DAR handles save and restore of hard and symbolic links. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208208] Review Request: MegaMek - a portable, network-enabled BattleTech engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: MegaMek - a portable, network-enabled BattleTech engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208208 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 23:13 EST --- (In reply to comment #22) Andrew, is there any chance you'd like to co-maintain this with Thomas? I'm willing to vouch for your review and do the sponsor dance. OK, sounds good. As an aside: this works with libgcj and GNU classpath? Wow. Truly free java really is getting there, isn't it? Yes, it works on FC-6 libgcj. We're making good progress on our AWT and Swing implementations. (In reply to comment #23) Are you sure you don't want to split out all those jars? Yes, it means more work for you as a packager of megamek, but it's less work the next time anyone needs any of those packages. I'd prefer to wait until a need for these jars as separate packages is discovered. They're all tiny bits of code; introducing five new packages for them seems heavy-handed. If you can show me another upstream project that needs any of these bits of code, I'll separate them out, but I've looked and I can't find any. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
