[Bug 212909] Review Request: php-pear-HTML-Common - Base class for other HTML classes
Please 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-HTML-Common - Base class for other HTML classes Alias: pear-HTML-Common https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212909 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 03:44 EST --- No test suite, but ones provide by others extensions (HTML_Table and HTML_Quickform) use this one and works well. == REVIEW == * source files match upstream: 3598dd20e3be90ae445501e9c2d59506 HTML_Common-1.2.3.tgz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license (PHP) * license is open source-compatible. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: php-pear(HTML_Common) = 1.2.3 php-pear-HTML-Common = 1.2.3-2.fc7 * %check is not present * owns the directories it creates * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (pear install) * 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 212909] Review Request: php-pear-HTML-Common - Base class for other HTML classes
Please 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-HTML-Common - Base class for other HTML classes Alias: pear-HTML-Common https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212909 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212915] Review Request: php-pear-HTML-Table - Class to easily design HTML tables
Please 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-HTML-Table - Class to easily design HTML tables Alias: pear-HTML-Table https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212915 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 03:55 EST --- == TEST == pear run-tests -p HTML_Table Running 31 tests 31 PASSED TESTS == REVIEW == * source files match upstream: d76f133550d326c33f7fc556afb59555 HTML_Table-1.7.5.tgz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license (BSD) * license is open source-compatible. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: php-pear(HTML_Table) = 1.7.5 php-pear-HTML-Table = 1.7.5-1.fc7 * %check is not present; see comment * owns the directories it creates (HTML own by HTML_Common which is required) * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (pear install) * 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 212915] Review Request: php-pear-HTML-Table - Class to easily design HTML tables
Please 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-HTML-Table - Class to easily design HTML tables Alias: pear-HTML-Table https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212915 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215193] Review Request: VLGothic - Truetype Japanese gothic fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: VLGothic - Truetype Japanese gothic fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215193 [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 215193] Review Request: VLGothic - Truetype Japanese gothic fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: VLGothic - Truetype Japanese gothic fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215193 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 04:14 EST --- I think it would be a good idea to have fonts or font somewhere in the package name - see existing font packages in Fedora for examples. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212912] Review Request: php-pear-HTML-QuickForm - Class for creating, validating, processing HTML forms
Please 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-HTML-QuickForm - Class for creating, validating, processing HTML forms Alias: pear-HTML-QuickForm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212912 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190344] Review Request: vdr-osdteletext - OSD teletext plugin for VDR
Please 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-osdteletext - OSD teletext plugin for VDR https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190344 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 04:24 EST --- Built for devel, owners list and comps updated, FC-5 and FC-6 branches requested. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215200] New: Review Request: php-pear-Services-Weather - This class acts as an interface to various online weather-services
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=215200 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Services-Weather - This class acts as an interface to various online weather-services Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pear-Services-Weather.spec SRPM URL: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pear-Services-Weather-1.4.0-1.fc7.src.rpm Mock Log: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pear-Services-Weather-build.log Description: Services_Weather searches for given locations and retrieves current weather data and, dependent on the used service, also forecasts. Up to now, GlobalWeather from CapeScience, Weather XML from EJSE (US only), a XOAP service from Weather.com and METAR/TAF from NOAA are supported. Further services will get included, if they become available, have a usable API and are properly documented. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 214236] Review Request: php-pear-SOAP - Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) Client/Server for PHP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-SOAP - Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) Client/Server for PHP Alias: php-pear-SOAP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214236 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||215200 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 215200] Review Request: php-pear-Services-Weather - This class acts as an interface to various online weather-services
Please 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-Services-Weather - This class acts as an interface to various online weather-services https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||214236 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198836] Review Request: freetype1 compatibility FreeType 1.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: freetype1 compatibility FreeType 1.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198836 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 07:29 EST --- I can get on with it later today (just got to get the buildsys working again). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215193] Review Request: VLGothic - Truetype Japanese gothic fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: VLGothic - Truetype Japanese gothic fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215193 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 08:16 EST --- Okay, first review of this package. A. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines : * Use rpmlint - rpmlint is not silent. W: VLGothic non-conffile-in-etc /etc/fonts/conf.d/30-VLGothic.conf Use %config(noreplace) unless you have a reason we should not use this. * Summary and desctiption - The groups of this package should be 'User Interface/X'. - I think that the URL of this package should be: 'http://dicey.org/vlgothic/' - Specify the URL or the location of the source. * Timestamps - Please use 'install -p' to keep timestamps. * Requires/File and Directory Ownership - This package does not own the following directory: A. /etc/fonts/ /etc/fonts/conf.d/ Please add the requirement for this directory like: Requires: /etc/fonts/ or require fontconfig. B. /usr/share/fonts/japanese/ /usr/share/fonts/japanese/TrueType When this package require fonts-japanese, please write so. Otherwise this package should own these directories. B. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines : = Nothing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215193] Review Request: VLGothic - Truetype Japanese gothic fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: VLGothic - Truetype Japanese gothic fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215193 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 08:17 EST --- Oops.. C. Other things I have noticed: * Well, what do you think of the comment fro Ville? Z. Note: * License I read all the licenses included in this package and they meet the policy of Fedora assuming the licenses are all correct (I cannot check what license are really applied for each glyphs). * Would you explain why calling fc-cache is not required? When fc-cache is evoked automatically? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215169] Review Request: xfce4-dict-plugin - A XFCE panel plugin to query a Dict server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xfce4-dict-plugin - A XFCE panel plugin to query a Dict server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215169 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 08:52 EST --- Thanks for reviewing this so quickly. I was to tired yesterday to reply. (In reply to comment #1) 1. Should add a: %defattr(-,root,root,-) to files? Of course. I have no idea how I managed to delete this line... 2. Should the BuildRequire for xfce4-panel-devel 4.3.99.1 be 4.3.99.2, since everything else is requiring that version? No, that's intentional, cause this is what ./configure checks for. checking for libxfcegui4-1.0 = 4.3.90.2... 4.3.99.1 ... checking for libxfce4util-1.0 = 4.3.90.2... 4.3.99.1 ... checking for libxfce4panel-1.0 = 4.3.99.1... 4.3.99.1 I usually make the BuildRequires: as low as possible (to make the packages easier to rebuild) but the Requires: to the version the plugin was compiled for. Updated Package: * Sun Nov 12 2006 Christoph Wickert fedora christoph-wickert de - 0.2.0-2 - Add %%defattr (#215169). SPREC: http://home.arcor.de/christoph.wickert/fedora/extras/review/SPECS/xfce4-dict-plugin.spec SRPM: http://home.arcor.de/christoph.wickert/fedora/extras/review/SRPMS/xfce4-dict-plugin-0.2.0-2.fc7.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 190213] Review Request: gq - Graphical LDAP directory browser and editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gq - Graphical LDAP directory browser and editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190213 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 09:18 EST --- (In reply to comment #12) BTW the gq homepage seems to be down currently, so an updated specfile (and even a review of the current tarball md5sums) is not easy to do. The files _should_ be available at http://dl.sf.net/sourceforge/gqclient/gq-1.2.1.tar.gz and http://dl.sf.net/sourceforge/gqclient/gq-1.2.1-langpack-1.tar.gz but I could not reach dl.sf.net ether and had to use a mirror. So, yes, we have no valid URL for the specfile ATM. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210424] Review Request: fail2ban - scan log files and ban IPs with too many password failures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: fail2ban - scan log files and ban IPs with too many
password failures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210424
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 09:25 EST ---
Interestig package, however, I have to say that there
are not a few issues to be fixed before accepting this
package.
Please read and be familliar with the following URL.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
Especially, please use 'rpmlint' (this is in Fedora Extras
and Maintained by Ville Skyttä) to check if your package
got shaped to Fedora Extras packaging criteria.
For this package, you also have to read the following:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python
Not a full review, however:
A.
For srpm, rpmlint complains about the following.
E: fail2ban no-changelogname-tag
W: fail2ban strange-permission fail2ban.spec 0444
W: fail2ban hardcoded-packager-tag Walter
W: fail2ban prereq-use /sbin/chkconfig /sbin/service
* Add changelog
* Change the permission of spec file to 0644.
* Don't write 'Packager'. This should be written in Changelog.
* Don't use Prereq. The correct usage of requirements are in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets .
Also:
* Don't use hardcoded dist tag to release number.
* pyo bytecompiled python binary are not ghosted any longer
because of SELinux issue.
* Use 'cp -p' or 'install -p' to keep timestamps.
* BuildRoot is not the format recommended by Fedora Extras.
B. For binary rpm, rpmlint complains as following.
E: fail2ban no-changelogname-tag
E: fail2ban only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
W: fail2ban service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/fail2ban
E: fail2ban subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/fail2ban
* No binary files are installed in /usr/lib, which is generally
regarded as wrong. Consider to move all the files in %{_libdir}
to %{_datadir}
NOTE: /usr/bin/fail2ban has a hardcoded directory setting of
/usr/lib/fail2ban and your spec file says some files should be
installed under %{_libdir}/%{name}. This is anyway incorrect
because for x86_64 system, %{_libdir} is /usr/lib64.
* This package enables fail2ban daemon when installed by default
(see init script), which is usually unwilling. Check if this
is the expected behavior (usually it is not).
* fail2ban init script does not use subsys lock file (for this
package, this is usually /var/lock/subsys/fail2ban). Rewrite
the init script to use subsys file.
(Usually this is done correctly by using 'daemon' function
in /etc/rc.d/init.d/function. Init scripts in other rpms are
good examples.)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212003] Review Request: mugshot - Companion software for mugshot.org
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mugshot - Companion software for mugshot.org https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212003 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 10:10 EST --- http://devel.mugshot.org/download/sources/fedora-core-6/mugshot-1.1.24-1.fc6.src.rpm Is the current SRPM, which includes the improvements from the spec file above. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215193] Review Request: VLGothic - Truetype Japanese gothic fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: VLGothic - Truetype Japanese gothic fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215193 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 10:16 EST --- A. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines : * Use rpmlint - rpmlint is not silent. Strange. I've got no message from rpmlint. :( Anyway, I'll fix them. C. Other things I have noticed: * Well, what do you think of the comment fro Ville? I think it's right. I'll change the package name later. Z. Note: * Would you explain why calling fc-cache is not required? When fc-cache is evoked automatically? Fontconfig will do it automatically when the fontlist is required. I've forgot the document from which I know this, but it seems it's right. Please uninstall VLGothic and fc-cache, then reinstal VLGothic without fc-caching. I bet you won't have any problem at all. :) Talking about xfs, it also rebuild the cache everytime it starts. So you can use VLGothic on xfs after restarting it. (Please read /etc/rd.d/init.d/xfs) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215193] Review Request: VLGothic - Truetype Japanese gothic fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: VLGothic - Truetype Japanese gothic fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215193 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 10:26 EST --- I've fixed these problems. You can get the new package from the follows: Spec URL: http://homepage2.nifty.com/shibatama/garage/VLGothic-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://homepage2.nifty.com/shibatama/garage/VLGothic-fonts-20061026-2.noarch.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 215193] Review Request: VLGothic-fonts - Truetype Japanese gothic fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: VLGothic-fonts - Truetype Japanese gothic fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215193 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: VLGothic - |Review Request: VLGothic- |Truetype Japanese gothic|fonts - Truetype Japanese |fonts |gothic fonts -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215193] Review Request: VLGothic-fonts - Truetype Japanese gothic fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: VLGothic-fonts - Truetype Japanese gothic fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215193
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 10:49 EST ---
Well,
* /usr/share/fonts/japanese is owned only by fonts-japanese so
this package should also own this directory.
* Do you have some reason not to use noreplace option of config
file, i.e. not to use
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d/30-VLGothic.conf ?
-
rpmlint still complain about:
W: VLGothic-fonts conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/fonts/conf.d/30-VLGothic.conf
* For src.rpm:
W: VLGothic-fonts unversioned-explicit-obsoletes VLGothic
W: VLGothic-fonts unversioned-explicit-provides VLGothic
Usually, obsoletes/provides are done like following:
--
Obsoletes: VLGothic = %{version}-%{release}
Provides: VLGothic = %{version}-%{release}
* Cosmetic issue:
%dir /usr/share/fonts/japanese/TrueType
This should be %dir %{_datadir}/fonts/japanese/TrueType as
you use %{_datadir} below.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212003] Review Request: mugshot - Companion software for mugshot.org
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mugshot - Companion software for mugshot.org https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 215224] New: Review Request: gtk-murrine-engine - Murrine GTK2 engine
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=215224 Summary: Review Request: gtk-murrine-engine - Murrine GTK2 engine 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.srcf.ucam.org/~sl392/fedora/SRPMs/gtk-murrine-engine.spec SRPM URL: http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~sl392/fedora/SRPMs/gtk-murrine-engine-0.31-1.leofc5.src.rpm Description: Murrine is a cairo-based fast gtk2 theme engine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190345] Review Request: vdr-femon - DVB frontend status monitor plugin for VDR
Please 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-femon - DVB frontend status monitor plugin for VDR https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190345 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 11:53 EST --- Updated URLs, no changes to package: http://cachalot.mine.nu/6/SRPMS/vdr-femon.spec http://cachalot.mine.nu/6/SRPMS/vdr-femon-1.1.0-1.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 193106] Review Request: gtkmozembedmm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtkmozembedmm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 13:17 EST --- - new spec http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SPECS/gtkmozembedmm.spec - new srpm http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SRPMS/gtkmozembedmm-1.4.2.cvs20060817-5.src.rpm I finally someone for testing the build on x86_64, it seems to build now. It still build under Mock. - rpmlint output $ rpmlint -i gtkmozembedmm-1.4.2.cvs20060817-5.fc7.i386.rpm $ rpmlint -i gtkmozembedmm-devel-1.4.2.cvs20060817-5.fc7.i386.rpm W: gtkmozembedmm-devel no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 214150] Review Request: flight-of-the-amazon-queen-cd - Flight of the Amazon Queen - Adventure Game - CD version
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: flight-of-the-amazon-queen-cd - Flight of the Amazon Queen - Adventure Game - CD version Alias: scumm-amazon-CD https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214150 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 13:40 EST --- Thanks! Imported and build, closing. About the Provides shorthands, I understand the idea, but I concider this Provides / Requires namespace polution. Think what would happen if all packages would provide 2 or 3 names to make yum install easier -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 211433] Review Request: wdm - WINGs Display 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: wdm - WINGs Display Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211433 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 13:42 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) Humm... I'm not able to build in mock. I seem to be getting (for both fc6 and devel): In file included from src/wdm/access.c:36: ./include/dm.h:49:27: error: X11/Intrinsic.h: No such file or directory There is the error. I'll investigate a bit to understand whether it is really in wdm or in WindowMaker-devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193106] Review Request: gtkmozembedmm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtkmozembedmm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 13:51 EST --- You mix firefox-devel and gecko-devel in a questionable way. The first provides the latter. Please verify your BuildRequires. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200700] Review Request: clipsmm - A C++ interface to the CLIPS library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clipsmm - A C++ interface to the CLIPS library Alias: clipsmm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200700 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 14:29 EST --- Spec URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/clipsmm.spec SRPM URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/clipsmm-0.0.7-1.src.rpm I still haven't finished the new 0.1.0 release (probably December or so for it), so I went ahead and made an 0.0.7 release that cleans up some stuff... mainly the smart pointers. As for the spec, no changes except the new release updates. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 214150] Review Request: flight-of-the-amazon-queen-cd - Flight of the Amazon Queen - Adventure Game - CD version
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: flight-of-the-amazon-queen-cd - Flight of the Amazon Queen - Adventure Game - CD version Alias: scumm-amazon-CD https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214150 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208737] Review Request: ivman - Generic handler for HAL events
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ivman - Generic handler for HAL events https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208737 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 14:52 EST --- Not yet. I'll reask some time in the future... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215241] Review Request: thunar-archive-plugin - Archive plugin for the Thunar file 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: thunar-archive-plugin - Archive plugin for the Thunar file manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215241 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||214032 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 188400] Review Request: ssmtp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ssmtp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188400 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 15:05 EST --- (In reply to comment #33) Given the above, could you please let me know what modifications are still needed,in order to get in shape for inclusion in FE ? none, it is APPROVED. Look like those patches are not needed on FE, if you really want an advice on a specific issue, ask, otherwise I trust your choices. Sorry, I completely forgot to respond here :/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198098] Review Request: xarchiver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xarchiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198098 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO||215241 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 15:24 EST --- I'd like to take over this package, since there has benn no feedback from Damien for more then 4 months now and I really would like to see this package in Extras soon. Could someone please review these files? http://home.arcor.de/christoph.wickert/fedora/extras/review/SPECS/xarchiver.spec http://home.arcor.de/christoph.wickert/fedora/extras/review/SRPMS/xarchiver-0.4.2-0.1.rc2.fc7.src.rpm I have packaged xarchiver for a while now (I had not seen this review), but my package looks quite different. I have split the package into xarchiver and xarchiver-thunar-archive-plugin. The latter contains only one file /usr/libexec/fedora-xarchiver.tap, a wrapper script for thunar-archive-plugin (see bug #215241). I don't want xarchiver depend on Thunar. Maybe it's easier to drop the sub-package, but then we'll have to include fedora-xarchiver.tap in thunar-archive-plugin. Simply leaving it in the xarchiver main package (without a dependency on the archive plugin) would lead to an unowned /usr/libexec/thunar-archive-plugin/ if thunar(-archive-plugin) is not installed. If the archive plugin is installed, this dir would be owned by two packages. Bad Idea. Opinions? Drop the sub-package and move the file over to thunar-archive-plugin? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215241] Review Request: thunar-archive-plugin - Archive plugin for the Thunar file 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: thunar-archive-plugin - Archive plugin for the Thunar file manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215241 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||198098 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215241] Review Request: thunar-archive-plugin - Archive plugin for the Thunar file 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: thunar-archive-plugin - Archive plugin for the Thunar file manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215241 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 15:26 EST --- It seems to me that 'and File Roller is no longer hardcoded.' could be removed from %description. It doesn't really work for me. Icons have appeared, but 'extract to...' fails with a pop-up window Failed to extract files. No suitable archive manager found. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215241] Review Request: thunar-archive-plugin - Archive plugin for the Thunar file 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: thunar-archive-plugin - Archive plugin for the Thunar file manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215241 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 15:46 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) Works fine here with file-manager of course i meant file-roller. Another thing I forgot to mention: the mime type has tp be registered to file-roller, this is why ark is not working ATM. Does file-roller show up in the menu when you right click on an archive in Thunar or nautilus? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193106] Review Request: gtkmozembedmm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtkmozembedmm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 15:58 EST --- I had uploaded the wrong src.rpm (and the same for the spec), they have been re-uploaded (same links as above) For BR, it will depend on mozilla-devel for FC5 and gecko-devel for FC6+, no more firefox-devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 211214] Review Request: mod_revocator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mod_revocator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211214 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 16:08 EST --- Source URL fixed. /usr/lib/librevocation.so.0 is linked to the binary ldapget which is why ldconfig is run. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215241] Review Request: thunar-archive-plugin - Archive plugin for the Thunar file 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: thunar-archive-plugin - Archive plugin for the Thunar file manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215241 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 16:21 EST --- I don't have file-roller installed. Maybe a Requires 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 215241] Review Request: thunar-archive-plugin - Archive plugin for the Thunar file 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: thunar-archive-plugin - Archive plugin for the Thunar file manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215241 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 16:28 EST --- In fact the default Requires should certainly be xarchiver, it is more xfce-like. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 211433] Review Request: wdm - WINGs Display 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: wdm - WINGs Display Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211433 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 16:33 EST --- Ok, builds in mock now - add BR libXt-devel and libXmu-devel Available now here: http://www.lmd.jussieu.fr/~pdlmd/wdm.spec http://www.lmd.jussieu.fr/~pdlmd/wdm-1.28-4.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215241] Review Request: thunar-archive-plugin - Archive plugin for the Thunar file 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: thunar-archive-plugin - Archive plugin for the Thunar file manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215241 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 16:38 EST --- This is another case of require foo or bar... ATM you need ether file-roller or xarchiver (or you can use both) but I don't want to force people to install file-roller. xarchiver would be ok for me, but I don't really like it. One can easily add his own program to the plugin, a wrapper template is included in the docs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215241] Review Request: thunar-archive-plugin - Archive plugin for the Thunar file 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: thunar-archive-plugin - Archive plugin for the Thunar file manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215241 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 16:50 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) This is another case of require foo or bar... ATM you need ether file-roller or xarchiver (or you can use both) but I don't want to force people to install file-roller. xarchiver would be ok for me, but I don't really like it. One can easily add his own program to the plugin, a wrapper template is included in the docs. This is something for end-users, we shouldn't force them to do anything to have it working. In my opinion using xarchiver should be the best. A virtual provides would be the cleanest, but I don't think it is really necessary in that case since there is an xfce-like application. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190213] Review Request: gq - Graphical LDAP directory browser and editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gq - Graphical LDAP directory browser and editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190213 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 17:00 EST --- Updated to gq-1.2.1, I did this some time ago, but something is this version broke the install of po files. I was waiting for upstream do a new release. Anyway, new version with some improvements is available here: SPEC: http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~terjeros/rpms/gq/gq.spec SRPMS: http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~terjeros/rpms/gq/gq-1.2.1-2.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 215241] Review Request: thunar-archive-plugin - Archive plugin for the Thunar file 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: thunar-archive-plugin - Archive plugin for the Thunar file manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215241 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 17:01 EST --- Ok, I will update the package, wait a moment. The changes so far are: - Require xarchiver. - Shorten %description. (comment #1) - Fix Source0 URL. - Use thunarver macro. - Include template.tap to %%doc. (the one from comment #6) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 211763] Review Request: jikes - Java source to bytecode compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jikes - Java source to bytecode compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211763 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 17:09 EST --- Paul, would you submit the original src rpm? I will look it over quickly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213511] Review Request: gxine - Gnome frontend for the xine multimedia 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: gxine - Gnome frontend for the xine multimedia library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213511 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 17:30 EST --- Hi, about a week ago I also made a package for gxine and now I go through this thread... I want to help you if I could with your package, so I took a rough look and I saw some differences between our packages. The most notable is that I include gxine browser plug-in (though I have there an error - subpackage gxine-mozplugin should have Group: Applications/Multimedia instead of Group: Video). There is also a little difference between our BR sections (I looked for BR in configure.in)... Also I use %find_lang (combined with echo and cat you can handle it) and update desktop database in %post and %postun sections. I saw that you don't handle the desktop file at all. The rest of your package is handled better than mine I think. Well, one another thought, I don't know if it is needed, but I think you should remove non-free mime types (like audio/x-mp3). My source package (gziped) is here: http://forums.fedoraforum.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=10272 My second though for your package review is possible bug in gxine. It crashes to me randomly (when starting to play a video; using my package, yours I did not tried yet). Terminal output is this: CDROMREADTOCHDR: Chyba vstupu/výstupu WARN: error in ioctl CDROMREADTOCHDR: Chyba vstupu/výstupu WARN: error reading PVD sector (16) error -1 CDROMREADTOCHDR: Input/Output error WARN: error in ioctl CDROMREADTOCHDR: Chyba vstupu/výstupu WARN: error reading PVD sector (16) error -1 Unauthorized access to memory (SIGSEGV) I should say that I have livna's xine-lib-extras-nonfree installed and I, at first, thought that it might be caused by wrongly implemented non-free codec, but in kaffeine (too using xine-lib) all is fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213511] Review Request: gxine - Gnome frontend for the xine multimedia 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: gxine - Gnome frontend for the xine multimedia library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213511 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 17:36 EST --- Well, I see I did not translated whole output. Where is 'Chyba vstupu/výstupu' you should have 'Intput/Output error'. So the WHOLLY translated output should look like this: CDROMREADTOCHDR: Input/Output error WARN: error in ioctl CDROMREADTOCHDR: Input/Output error WARN: error reading PVD sector (16) error -1 CDROMREADTOCHDR: Input/Output error WARN: error in ioctl CDROMREADTOCHDR: Input/Output error WARN: error reading PVD sector (16) error -1 Unauthorized access to memory (SIGSEGV) Sorry for that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215241] Review Request: thunar-archive-plugin - Archive plugin for the Thunar file 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: thunar-archive-plugin - Archive plugin for the Thunar file manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215241 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 17:55 EST --- Here are the updated files: SPEC: http://home.arcor.de/christoph.wickert/fedora/extras/review/SPECS/thunar-archive-plugin.spec SRPM: http://home.arcor.de/christoph.wickert/fedora/extras/review/SRPMS/thunar-archive-plugin-0.2.2-2.fc7.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 177747] Review Request: glade3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: glade3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177747 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 17:55 EST --- I think you should split up the package. I see there three (or two depends on point of view) independent parts: glade3, libgladeui and libgladeui-devel. I have one good reason for such division - for anjuta2 glade3 plug-in you need only libgladeui(-devel), not whole glade3. I think that glade3 is front-end for libgladeui, from a development point of view. You can compare my package with yours; the specfile is here: http://forums.fedoraforum.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=10171 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188400] Review Request: ssmtp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ssmtp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188400 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 18:37 EST --- Thank you, Patrice. Succesfully built the devel branch, submitted branch requests for FC5 and FC6. Will close this bug as soon as those branches are built, too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215256] New: Review Request: firefox-32 - Alternate Launcher for 32bit Firefox
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=215256 Summary: Review Request: firefox-32 - Alternate Launcher for 32bit Firefox 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 http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/firefox-32-0.0.1-1.src.rpm http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/firefox-32.spec Description: Alternate Launcher for 32bit Firefox on Multilib Systems If you have both 32bit /usr/lib and 64bit /usr/lib64 Firefox installed, the standard /usr/bin/firefox launcher will run only the 64bit version. This launcher allows you to choose to run the 32bit browser by running /usr/bin/firefox-32. Please be sure that all Firefox instances are closed before running this launcher. Warren Togami thinks the necessity of this package is sad, given that a tiny change to the standard /usr/bin/firefox script could obviate the need for this package to exist. POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS: 1) It could be made prettier with a custom icon. 2) Better name? I dunno. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215256] Review Request: firefox-32 - Alternate Launcher for 32bit Firefox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: firefox-32 - Alternate Launcher for 32bit Firefox https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215256 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 19:05 EST --- (In reply to comment #0) Warren Togami thinks the necessity of this package is sad, given that a tiny change to the standard /usr/bin/firefox script could obviate the need for this package to exist. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the situtation; but if that's the case, why not file a bug against Firefox so that this is added? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215258] New: Review Request: clucene - A C++ port of Lucene
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=215258 Summary: Review Request: clucene - A C++ port of Lucene Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/clucene/clucene.spec SRPM URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/clucene/clucene-0.9.15-1.src.rpm Description: CLucene is a C++ port of Lucene. It is a high-performance, full-featured text search engine written in C++. CLucene is faster than lucene as it is written in C++ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 211626] Review Request: xtide - Calculate tide all over the world
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xtide - Calculate tide all over the world https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211626 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 20:38 EST --- Upstream here. I was AFK for two weeks. In a message dated 2006-11-02 19:47+0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: A. Well, currently libtcd library are packaged in XTide tarball and only static archive are provided. libtcd is used not only for XTide, but also some utilities in tcd-utils and others, so I think providing libtcd seperately is a good idea. The reason things are packaged the way they are is that 99% of users are only interested in running XTide to get tide predictions. They have no interest in nor any need for an ability to generate or edit the tide data, and anything I do to make that possible for them just adds complexity, hurts performance, and makes them yell at me. I have been there and done that, and it was a mistake. tcd-utils is for the other 1% who actually do know enough to edit tide data in a meaningful way and have reason to do it. It was never cleaned up for the 99% market. The people who use it (counted on one hand) have never complained about having to compile it from ugly source snapshots. The inclusion of tcd-utils in Fedora was perhaps motivated by some policy that discouraged shipping binary files? For the legacy harmonics data (still distributed by Bob Kenney, but not maintained), the TCD was in fact built from text and XML source, so building a TCD using tcd-utils might have made sense. But that is all ancient history. harmonics-dwf now starts with scraping web pages from the NOAA web site using software that has to be updated every year as their web site changes, then these are processed into an SQL database where they merge with other countries' data, then manual fixes are made as needed to correct upstream errors, then eventually the whole mess is exported directly to TCD. The closest you could get to what you want is to start with the SQL dump, but then you would need to have PostgreSql running, and harmbase2, and ... just don't go there. 99% of users will not benefit from this approach. They just want the tide prediction part of the program to install easily and run easily. I don't advise use of the legacy data. harmonics-dwf from http://www.flaterco.com/xtide/files.html is maintained by me. The legalese for harmonics-dwf is at http://www.flaterco.com/xtide/harmonics_boilerplate.txt. See http://www.flaterco.com/xtide/faq.html#60 for background on why there is so much of it. A-1: How do you think of providing libtcd shared dynamic library seperately? This makes sense if you really do want to deliver tideEditor or other extras in Fedora. But do you *really* want to do that? A-2: If you agree with provide libtcd.so, how should we determine soname? Deferred pending answers to previous. A-3: Related to A-2, should we provide libtcd.so (if you agree) with COMPAT114 defined or undefined? (Note: tcd-utils 2005-08-11 can _NOT_ be compiled with COMPAT114 _defined_). Do not define COMPAT114. AFAIK only the Naval Oceanographic Office ever used this, and they might not even still use it. A-4: Do you have any plan to provide seperate libtcd tarball? Deferred pending answers to previous. Separate maintenance of libtcd would help me in case libtcd needs maintenance when XTide doesn't, but for the 99% of users it would be an annoyance to have to do two installs instead of just one. FYI, the libtcd bundled in XTide 2.9 DEVELOPMENT incorporates bug fixes that are important ONLY to tideEditor, but for tideEditor they are serious. If Fedora wants to ship tideEditor as part of its distribution, then we (including me) need to do whatever is necessary to enable tideEditor to be linked with the newest libtcd, rather than the one that is bundled with the stable XTide 2.8.3. B. Another issue of packaging are tideEditor issue. The reviewers of XTide says that tideEditor should belong to XTide package as: * the other binaries in tcd-utils (build_tide_db and restore_tide_db) are only command line conversion tools and have less dependency. * on the other hand XTide, tideEditor is a graphical viewer (tideEditor is also a viewer) and have a lot of dependency (especially tideEditor depends on Qt). So, B-1: how do you think of moving tideEditor to XTide tarball? It would make sense if it were used by more than 1% of users. But I don't think that it is, or would be, even if it were installed for them automagically. It is only potentially useful if an end user manages to find some
[Bug 215169] Review Request: xfce4-dict-plugin - A XFCE panel plugin to query a Dict server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xfce4-dict-plugin - A XFCE panel plugin to query a Dict server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215169 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 20:48 EST --- ok. Looks good to me.The blockers look all solved... this package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this package NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built. Also, consider doing a review of a waiting package to help spread out the reviewing load. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 214669] Review Request: logserial
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: logserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214669 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 21:01 EST --- ok. Issue 1 isn't a blocker, just nice to have. Humm...on issue #2, I am not seeing the rpm opt flags being used... In my build.log I see: + make -j2 gcc -Wall -D_POSIX -D_SYSV -D_SELECT -D_HAVE_MACROS -c -o logserial.o logserial.c ... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215169] Review Request: xfce4-dict-plugin - A XFCE panel plugin to query a Dict server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xfce4-dict-plugin - A XFCE panel plugin to query a Dict server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215169 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 21:19 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) Also, consider doing a review of a waiting package to help spread out the reviewing load. I have allready assigned bug #190213 and bug #188542 to me. Will see what I can do after that. Imported and built for devel, cvs-sync for FE6 is requested. Closing -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193106] Review Request: gtkmozembedmm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtkmozembedmm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 21:30 EST --- The BR's look ok to me with the re-uploaded version... Is the Requires correct though? Requires: gecko-libs = 1.5.0.8 Why hardcoding the version there? This causes it to break on devel, since devel has firefox 2.0 in it, which doesn't provide that version of gecko-libs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200700] Review Request: clipsmm - A C++ interface to the CLIPS library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clipsmm - A C++ interface to the CLIPS library Alias: clipsmm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200700 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 21:38 EST --- Odd. The md5sum still doesn't match... could be something in the way you make your src.rpm? Or some problem with sourceforge? 9ec1cf1e393c2a8637a13a3e4bec55b7 clipsmm-0.0.7.tar.bz2 462cad31023799926ab67f78b628e719 clipsmm-0.0.7.tar.bz2.1 The size is different as well: -rw-r--r-- 1 kevin mock 446966 Nov 12 19:25 clipsmm-0.0.7.tar.bz2 -rw-r--r-- 1 kevin mock 446707 Nov 12 11:55 clipsmm-0.0.7.tar.bz2.1 It looks like the version in your src.rpm was generated at 11:17am today, and the one on sourceforge was generated 11:55am? drwxr-xr-x 8 kevin mock 1024 Nov 12 11:55 clipsmm-0.0.7-from-sourceforge drwxr-xr-x 8 kevin mock 1024 Nov 12 11:17 clipsmm-0.0.7-from-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 198098] Review Request: xarchiver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xarchiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198098 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 21:46 EST --- I'd like to see this package in as well... According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Policy/StalledReviews we should add a comment that this review is considered stalled, and will be closed in 1 week if there is no response. Consider this that comment. ;) Christoph: Can you wait a week and if no response submit your package in a new review request (after closing this 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 211214] Review Request: mod_revocator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mod_revocator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211214 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 21:51 EST --- ok, the Source url works for me now... The md5sum matches: 07307d8972e3442fd81d84e3852611c5 mod_revocator-1.0.2.tar.gz 07307d8972e3442fd81d84e3852611c5 mod_revocator-1.0.2.tar.gz.1 That was the last blocker I see, so this package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built. Also, consider reviewing another waiting package to help spread out the reviewing load. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198098] Review Request: xarchiver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xarchiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198098 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 22:46 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) Christoph: Can you wait a week and if no response submit your package in a new review request (after closing this one)? Sure, will do. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215267] New: Review Request: Django - A high-level Python Web framework
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=215267 Summary: Review Request: Django - A high-level Python Web framework 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://hircus.org/fedora/Django/Django.spec SRPM URL: http://hircus.org/fedora/Django/Django-0.95-1.src.rpm Description: Django is a high-level Python Web framework that encourages rapid development and a clean, pragmatic design. It focuses on automating as much as possible and adhering to the DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213192] Review Request: python-nltk_lite - Natural Language Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-nltk_lite - Natural Language Toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213192 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-13 00:28 EST --- CFLAGS removed. Thanks for noticing - I guess I got it from the default Python template and forgot to remove 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 215256] Review Request: firefox-32 - Alternate Launcher for 32bit Firefox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: firefox-32 - Alternate Launcher for 32bit Firefox https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215256 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-13 00:35 EST --- Bug #214100 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213511] Review Request: gxine - Gnome frontend for the xine multimedia 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: gxine - Gnome frontend for the xine multimedia library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213511 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-13 00:41 EST --- It's probably not necessary to remove the non-free MIME types, otherwise, when xine-lib-extras-nonfree is installed gxine would still not be used to open MP3s etc. Back when Red Hat/Fedora still ships XMMS, it still would be set up to open MP3s, it would just display a message informing the user that MP3 playback is disabled. The latest .spec I posted as part of the review did have the BRs to have the browser plugin built. I agree with Martin though that it probably should be split into a subpackage. %find_lang is also used (Martin, check out /usr/lib/rpm/find-lang.sh - it has a --all-name option that the version called by %find_lang does not have). I just realized I forgot about the desktop file. Good call. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207472] Review Request: ruby-activesupport - Utility classes and extension to Ruby's standard 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: ruby-activesupport - Utility classes and extension to Ruby's standard library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207472 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-13 01:09 EST --- I believe that while reviewing ruby-activerecord I've found that this package needs a runtime dependency on ruby-irb, or else inclusion of breakpoint.rb fails. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207473] Review Request: ruby-activerecord - Implements the ActiveRecord pattern for ORM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-activerecord - Implements the ActiveRecord
pattern for ORM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207473
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-13 01:15 EST ---
I noted the presence of a nice test suite, and realized that it should actually
be possible to run at least some of it because sqlite doesn't need a configured
database server. So I set out to get the test suite to run with:
%check
cd test
ruby -I connections/native_sqlite3 base_test.rb
In order to get this to work, it's necessary to add some BRs:
ruby(active_support), ruby(sqlite3), ruby-irb
The first two are pretty obvious, but the third was not. It looks like the
ruby-activesupport package needs a runtime dependency on ruby-irb.
In any case, the test suite unfortunately fails:
Using native SQLite3
SQLite3 database not found at
/builddir/build/BUILD/activerecord-1.14.4/test/fixtures/fixture_database.sqlite3.
Rebuilding it.
Executing 'sqlite3
/builddir/build/BUILD/activerecord-1.14.4/test/fixtures/fixture_database.sqlite3
create table a (a integer); drop table a;'
SQLite3 database not found at
/builddir/build/BUILD/activerecord-1.14.4/test/fixtures/fixture_database_2.sqlite3.
Rebuilding it.
Executing 'sqlite3
/builddir/build/BUILD/activerecord-1.14.4/test/fixtures/fixture_database_2.sqlite3
create table a (a integer); drop table a;'
-- create_table(:taggings, {:force=true})
- 0.0158s
-- create_table(:tags, {:force=true})
- 0.0160s
-- create_table(:categorizations, {:force=true})
- 0.0158s
-- add_column(:posts, :taggings_count, :integer, {:default=0})
- 0.0182s
-- add_column(:authors, :author_address_id, :integer)
- 0.0162s
-- create_table(:author_addresses, {:force=true})
- 0.0173s
-- create_table(:author_favorites, {:force=true})
- 0.0240s
Loaded suite base_test
Started
...F.
Finished in 0.519048 seconds.
1) Failure:
test_to_xml_including_multiple_associations(BasicsTest) [base_test.rb:1248]:
false is not true.
117 tests, 297 assertions, 1 failures, 0 errors
It would be good to figure out what's going wrong here just in case there is an
actual problem with the code on this platform.
Review:
* source files match upstream:
ce66299a7fe99fdaf2c9747e850560b6 activerecord-1.14.4.tgz
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
ruby(active_record) = 1.14.4
ruby-activerecord = 1.14.4-1.fc7
=
ruby(abi) = 1.8
ruby(active_support)
? Not sure about %check.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213511] Review Request: gxine - Gnome frontend for the xine multimedia 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: gxine - Gnome frontend for the xine multimedia library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213511 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-13 01:21 EST --- Update Spec : http://www.c100c.com/fedora/gxine.spec Rrpm : http://www.c100c.com/fedora/gxine-0.5.8-4.src.rpm Add libXtst-devel in build requires -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184011] Review Request: nickle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nickle https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184011 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-13 01:25 EST --- Rawhide build done. Thanks for reviewing! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212909] Review Request: php-pear-HTML-Common - Base class for other HTML classes
Please 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-HTML-Common - Base class for other HTML classes Alias: pear-HTML-Common https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212909 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212915] Review Request: php-pear-HTML-Table - Class to easily design HTML tables
Please 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-HTML-Table - Class to easily design HTML tables Alias: pear-HTML-Table https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212915 Bug 212915 depends on bug 212909, which changed state. Bug 212909 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-HTML-Common - Base class for other HTML classes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212909 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE 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 212912] Review Request: php-pear-HTML-QuickForm - Class for creating, validating, processing HTML forms
Please 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-HTML-QuickForm - Class for creating, validating, processing HTML forms Alias: pear-HTML-QuickForm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212912 Bug 212912 depends on bug 212909, which changed state. Bug 212909 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-HTML-Common - Base class for other HTML classes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212909 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE 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 212715] Review Request: openvrml - VRML/X3D runtime 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: openvrml - VRML/X3D runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212715
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-13 02:32 EST ---
Sorry for not having responded earlier, but ... I couldn't manage to look into
this earlier.
There still are some issues needing to be addressed:
* Please '%%' instead of '%' in references to rpm-tags in %changelog entries.
This is to work around rpm bogusly expanding '%' in %changelogs
* Please add a blank line at the end of each %post*/%pre block. Some versions of
rpm suffer from a bug which bogusly concatenate %post*/%pre otherwise.
* openvrml-gl-devel and openvrml-devel contain *.pc's
= each of them must
Requires: pkgconfig
* Building in mock fails:
...
error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/usr/share/info/dir
= Add
rm -f %{_infodir}/dir
near to the end of %install
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212915] Review Request: php-pear-HTML-Table - Class to easily design HTML tables
Please 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-HTML-Table - Class to easily design HTML tables Alias: pear-HTML-Table https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212915 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212916] Review Request: php-pear-DB-DataObject-FormBuilder - Automatically build HTML_QuickForm objects
Please 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-DB-DataObject-FormBuilder - Automatically build HTML_QuickForm objects Alias: DataObj-FormBuilder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212916 Bug 212916 depends on bug 212915, which changed state. Bug 212915 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-HTML-Table - Class to easily design HTML tables https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212915 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE 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 212704] Review Request: manedit - UNIX Manual Page Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: manedit - UNIX Manual Page Editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212704 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-13 02:57 EST --- ok. APPROVED. Don't Forget to CLOSE this bug once you finish building 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
