[Bug 208169] Review Request: python-twisted-core - An asynchronous networking framework written in Python
Please 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-twisted-core - An asynchronous networking framework written in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208169 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 03:59 EST --- My 2 cents here: if some breakage should happen because of missing pieces, we should start building _only_ to -devel, where breakage is at least tolerated (if not expected ;) ). When the chain is complete, start builds for FC-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 208169] Review Request: python-twisted-core - An asynchronous networking framework written in Python
Please 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-twisted-core - An asynchronous networking framework written in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208169 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 04:51 EST --- There shouldn't be any breakage until the python-twisted metapackage is released; I really don't see there being an issue with the other packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216534] Review Request: gocr - GNU Optical Character Recognition program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gocr - GNU Optical Character Recognition program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216534 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 05:51 EST --- Looking at tkispell on the web it doesn't seems to be maintained, and it is not obvious where upstream is. Looking at the gocr.tcl code, it looks like spellchecking involves putting a file named out01.txt in the current directory which is not cleaned up, and is the same file the output text is saved to in the default case... My opinion would be to disable this functionality. I did it simply by commenting out pack .abar.spell -side left I spotted another issue, the config file is found and written in the current directory, and not in $HOME! This is bad... Maybe we shouldn't ship gocr.tcl? It hasn't really be changed in 4 years. Testing a bit gtk-ocr, I found at least 2 bugs (a crash, and also at another point the files appeared but I couldn't convert them). It is saner with regard with the handling of config file, however the converted file is saved in a file with same name than input file with .txt appended without any possibility to override this, nor any explanation of where the converted file is saved to... The default image viewer here is display from ImageMagick. Looking at the cvs, it seems that it hasn't been changed in 6 years. My personal opinion is that those 2 frontends are too buggy and unmaintained to be shipped. Now regarding the segfault, I think it is problematic since it seems to me that support for widely used image formats (png, eps, jpeg) should be working in a shipped package. For devel it is not problematic, but for FC-6 and below I think this should be a must. Not supporting compressed images is not an issue in my opinion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208420] Review Request: conky - A system monitor for X originally based on the torsmo code
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: conky - A system monitor for X originally based on the torsmo code https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208420 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 06:00 EST --- (In reply to comment #14) am not going to sub package the vim and nano syntax files. I was thinking of including them with the docs and the sample config; how does this sound?? Sounds fine. Patrice, if you think the audacious.pc is buggy maybe I shouldnt build the package to support it?? No, it is not a blocker, building support for audacious is the right thing to do. The only downside of having bogus dependencies on sonames is that if those sonames change you'll have to rebuild conky even though it doesn't depend on those sonames (in that case audacious only depends on those sonames, and audacious only would have to be rebuilt). I am trying to popularise this issue such that there are less bogus dependencies. Unneeded linking is detected by running ldd -u -r on installed apps and libraries. The solution is, in general, to use pkgconfig, and use the Requires.private and Libs.private right. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 09:42 EST --- Paul, many thanks for offering to review this, but it seems it has fallen through the cracks, anytime on a review soon? 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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 11:22 EST --- Now packages are updated. David, thank you for repackaing and improving xtide related packages. All the related srpms/rpms are under http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/packages/xtide/ The following is a copy from the mail sent from David. - I made the following changes. xtide tarball: - To change the user and/or group under which xttpd tries to run (the defaults are nobody/nobody), set the variables xttpd_user and/or xttpd_group for configure. xttpd now exits if it cannot change to the specified user/group. bash-3.1$ xttpd_user=xttpd xttpd_group=xttpd ./configure You can also set the webmaster address for xttpd this way if you like. bash-3.1$ webmasteraddr=[EMAIL PROTECTED] ./configure - Instead of always barfing when HOME is unset, barf only when the need arises to write something to the home directory, and do without any config files that would normally be there. Setting HOME for xttpd thus becomes optional, eliminating a common source of confusion. tideEditor tarball: - Get name of TCD file to edit from command line instead of HFILE_PATH. - Check /etc/xtide.conf for WVS_PATH if environment variable is not set. - Provided icon-64x64.png for use with desktop environments. tcd-utils tarball: - Automaked and cleaned up without tideEditor. I was going to review the RPMs to see if I missed anything (it is not trivial since under Slackware we do not use RPMs) but I was unable to access http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/packages/xtide/ when I tried this afternoon. So I downloaded the xttpd rc script from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211626 (attached on 2006-10-26) and put this in the XTide tarball as scripts/Fedora/rc.xttpd. --- Then: * For xttpd xttpd binary is still wrapped so that we change the enviroment needed by xttpd to arguments (which is needed for using 'daemon' function in /etc/rc.d/init.d/functions) * For tideEditor Now tideEditor take a tcd file as a argument, not environment. For launching tideEditor from GNOME Menu, we have to give one argument (tcd file) to tideEditor. So for GNOME/KDE Menu usage only I give a wrapper script for tideEditor (i.e. normally there is no need for tideEditor wrapper script so usually I don't call the script, only for GNOME/KDE menu usage). * Packaging: Now libtcd, xtide, tcd-utils, tideEditor are seperated. xtide, tcd-utils, tideEditor all require libtcd. Still I create small package 'xtide-common' which is required by xtide and tideEditor. xtide/xttpd package are unified. Perhaps at last I have to submit a new review request for libtcd, tcd-utils, tideEditor, however, before doing so I want to have a discussion on this bug report, especially for packaging issue. FILES: http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/packages/xtide/SPECS/libtcd.spec http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/packages/xtide/SPECS/tcd-utils.spec http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/packages/xtide/SPECS/tideEditor.spec http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/packages/xtide/SPECS/xtide.spec http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/packages/xtide/SRPMS/libtcd-2.2-1.fc7.src.rpm http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/packages/xtide/SRPMS/tcd-utils-20061120-1.fc7.src.rpm http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/packages/xtide/SRPMS/tideEditor-1.3.12-1.fc7.src.rpm http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/packages/xtide/SRPMS/xtide-2.9-0.1.date20061122.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 214312] Review Request: xdms - Extracts Amiga DMS archives
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xdms - Extracts Amiga DMS archives Alias: xdms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214312 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| Alias||xdms -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 217066] New: Review Request: python-gpod - A python module to access iPod content
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=217066 Summary: Review Request: python-gpod - A python module to access iPod content 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://pobox.com/~tmz/fedora/python-gpod.spec SRPM URL: http://pobox.com/~tmz/fedora/python-gpod-0.4.0-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: A python module to access iPod content. This module provides bindings to the libgpod library. This is my first package for FE, though I've been building rpms for a while now. Please see BZ 211648 for discussion of why this package is necessary. Note that it depends on libgpod-0.4.0 from development. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 217066] Review Request: python-gpod - A python module to access iPod content
Please 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-gpod - A python module to access iPod content https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217066 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216947] Review Request: perl-Gtk2-Notify - Gtk2::Notify Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Gtk2-Notify - Gtk2::Notify Perl module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216947 [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 216544] Review Request: libdvdread - Simple foundation for reading DVD video disks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libdvdread - Simple foundation for reading DVD video disks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216544 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 12:23 EST --- MUST items: * rpmlint output: W: libdvdread-devel no-documentation * package is named well * spec file name is good * package meets Packaging Guideline * package is licensed with an GPL open-source compatible license * License field in spec file matches actual license * license file is included in %doc * md5sums are matching (078788c9241ae16763529e1235502337) * package successfully compiles on x86_64 * no locales * proper %post and %postun sections * not relocatable * package owns directories well * no duplicates in %files * every %files section includes %defattr * proper %clean section * macros used well * -devel subpackage created and looks good Package can be 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 216734] Review Request: gnome-compiz-manager - compiz configuration utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-compiz-manager - compiz configuration utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216734 [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 216535] Review Request: mp3gain - Lossless MP3 volume adjustment tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mp3gain - Lossless MP3 volume adjustment tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216535 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 12:35 EST --- Ok will take this for review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 214312] Review Request: xdms - Extracts Amiga DMS archives
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xdms - Extracts Amiga DMS archives
Alias: xdms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214312
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 13:02 EST ---
REVIEW CHECKLIST
O rpmlint output:
E: xdms configure-without-libdir-spec
This is because of a non-standard configure script. You should place a
comment in the specfile indicating why you cannot set libdir.
- package named according to package naming guidelines
- spec filename matches %{name}
- package meets packaging guidelines
- package licensed as Public Domain
This is not listed in the open source compatible licenses, but I assume it's
valid for Fedora since rpmlint recognizes it.
- License matches actual license, located in source files
- no license in %doc because it just says Public Domain in the source files
- spec file written in American english
- spec file is legible
- source match upstream
f687a5beba88964ef0afd478efe99849 xdms-1.3.2.tar.bz2
- package successfully compiles and builds on FC6 x86_64
- all dependencies listed in BR
- no locales
- no shared libraries
- package is not relocatable
- package owns all directories it creates
- no duplicates in %files
- file permissions set properly
- package has proper %clean section
O macro usage is consistent
Why not use %{opt_flags} instead of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS since you use %{buildroot}?
- package contains code
- no large documentation
- %doc does not affect runtime
- no header files or static libraries
- no pkgconfig files
- package does not require a devel subpackage
- no .la files
- package is not a GUI app
- package does not own files or directories owned by other packages
** APPROVED **
SHOULD
- Add comment above configure explaining why you cannot set libdir
- Use %{optflags} instead of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS since you use %{buildroot} instead
of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. Not really necessary, but more consistent with your usage.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 Alias: firefox-32 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215256 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| Alias||firefox-32 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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
Alias: firefox-32
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215256
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 13:50 EST ---
REVIEW CHECKLIST
X rpmlint output:
E: firefox-32 description-line-too-long If you have both 32bit /usr/lib and
64bit /usr/lib64 Firefox installed, the standard
E: firefox-32 description-line-too-long /usr/bin/firefox launcher will run only
the 64bit version. This launcher allows you
E: firefox-32 description-line-too-long to choose to run the 32bit browser by
running /usr/bin/firefox-32. Please be sure
W: firefox-32 strange-permission setup-firefox-32.sh 0755
E: firefox-32 hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib
E: firefox-32 description-line-too-long If you have both 32bit /usr/lib and
64bit /usr/lib64 Firefox installed, the standard
E: firefox-32 description-line-too-long /usr/bin/firefox launcher will run only
the 64bit version. This launcher allows you
E: firefox-32 description-line-too-long to choose to run the 32bit browser by
running /usr/bin/firefox-32. Please be sure
E: firefox-32 only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
W: firefox-32 no-documentation
W: firefox-32 one-line-command-in-%trigger
/usr/lib64/firefox-32/setup-firefox-32.sh
/tmp/firefox-32-0.0.1-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm.32469/usr/share/applications/firefox-32.desktop:
warning: boolean key Terminal has value 0, boolean values should be false
or true, although 0 and 1 are allowed in this field for backwards
compatibility
/tmp/firefox-32-0.0.1-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm.32469/usr/share/applications/firefox-32.desktop:
error: invalid characters in value of key StartupNotify, boolean values must
be false or true (found True)
E: firefox-32 invalid-desktopfile
/tmp/firefox-32-0.0.1-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm.32469/usr/share/applications/firefox-32.desktop
I suggest you remove /usr/lib paths from the description and make sure the lines
are 80 chars.
Definately remove the warren togami rant in the description, it does not belong
there, let's keep this professional.
rpmlint is saying setup-firefox-32.sh should be in /usr/share not /usr/lib64
move this to /usr/share or else add a comment in spec file indicating why it
should be in /usr/lib64
Fix desktop files so rpmlint likes them
Single line trigger files seem okay to me, not sure why rpmlint warns about them
- package named according to package naming guidelines
- spec filename matches %{name}
- package meets packaging guidelines
- package licensed with open source compatible license
O spec file matches actual license. I'm assuming since you are both the
upstream author and packager this is the case.
- license not packaged with source or included in %doc
- written in American english
- spec file legible
O There is no upstream so I cannot verify source match, but since packager *is*
upstream this is okay
- package successfully compiles and builds on FC6 x86_64
X all build dependencies listed in BR (missing desktop-file-utils for Requires)
- no locales
- no shared libraries
- package is not relocatable
X package does not own all directories it creates
- no duplicates in %files
- file permissions set properly
- package contains proper %clean section
- macro usage consistent
- contains code
- no large documentation
- no header files or static libraries
- no pkgconfig files
- package does not require a devel subpackage
- does not contain .la files
X .desktop file is not installed using desktop-file-install
- package does not own files or directories owned by other packages
MUST
- shorten description to 80 chars in length
- remove 2nd paragraph in description, instead place a comment in the spec file
pointing to bug #214100
- investigate rpmlint strange permissions warning, consider using 775 instead of
rpmlint likes that better
- move shell script to /usr/share as rpmlint suggests, or if it must be in
/usr/lib64 then add a comment in spec file indicating why
- make rpmlint happy with .desktop file
- install desktop files with desktop-file-install in %install
- packages with .desktop files should Requires: desktop-file-utils
- package must own the /usr/lib64/firefox-32/ directory if this is where the .sh
files ultimately goes (see rpmlint warning indicating this file should go in
/usr/share)
SHOULD
- remove paths /usr/lib etc. from description, it confuses rpmlint and they are
not needed for the description
- place comment above Source0 URL indicating that this is a shell script written
by packager and there is no web location to find the script
- Include copy of GPL license in %doc
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
[Bug 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 Alias: firefox-32 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215256 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 14:56 EST --- - Why not use the firefox icon if firefox is a requirement? I think firefox.png would be better than redhat-web-browser.png - Why not use mozilla-firefox-32.desktop as the filename to be consistent with the firefox package? - Consider also using the mozilla-firefox.desktop file's Name, Generic Name and Comment fields to use as a template for the firefox32 .desktop file. I think the 32 bit version should have the same icon/description as the 64 bit version in order to make it consistent and easier to find. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216354] Review Request: liquidwar - Multiplayer wargame with liquid armies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: liquidwar - Multiplayer wargame with liquid armies https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216354 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 15:23 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) Thanks for review and the good feedback! SHOULD == * Consider adding the README file to %doc. It contains the address of the package's mailing list which doesn't appear elsewhere. Done * 'make dep' gets run as part of the build, and generates the following harmless warning: gmake[1]: Entering directory `/space/rpmbuild/BUILD/liquidwar-5.6.3/src' find: .-name: No such file or directory find: *.c: No such file or directory cc: no input files gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/space/rpmbuild/BUILD/liquidwar-5.6.3/src' It seems there is a missing space after the '.' in src/Makefile.in line 256: @find .\ -name '*.c' | \ Harmless indeed, ignored. * The man page refers the reader to /usr/share/doc/liquidwar for more documentation. This path should be updated to point to the files in the -doc subpackage. Fixed * The URL: tag points to a page with a better home page link: http://www.ufoot.org/liquidwar/v5 Done * The metaserver URL in the man page is wrong. It should be: http://www.ufoot.org/liquidwar/v5/metaserver Fixed * An init.d script for starting a liquidwar server at boot time would be nice. Perhaps if I find some extra time I'll write one for you. I wouldn't mind receiving this, together with a patch to split out the server in its own subpackage, as I think if we add an init script the server really should be in its own subpackage (and we need to think about wether to start it by default or not) None of these issues are serious enough to block approval: APPROVED Imported and build, closing. Thanks 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 216354] Review Request: liquidwar - Multiplayer wargame with liquid armies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: liquidwar - Multiplayer wargame with liquid armies https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216354 [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 201418] Review Request: widelands - GPL Settlers II clone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: widelands - GPL Settlers II clone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201418 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 15:36 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) The glob2 package is currently unbuildable due to changes on the freetype-devel package on FC6. It looks like it now doesn't include the '/usr/include/freetype2/freetype/internal' directory like it did before, and I don't know how to fix that on the code to make a patch. Filed a bug report on glob2's bugzilla since it shouldn't be using an internal header. I just tried with upstreams latest release 0.8.21 and that builds fine with the new freetype! Also please put glob2 commments in the glob2 review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210553] Review Request: xerces-c - Validating XML Parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xerces-c - Validating XML Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210553 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 16:06 EST --- Added samples, finally. http://lemenkov.newmail.ru/SPECS/xerces-c.spec http://lemenkov.newmail.ru/SRPMS/xerces-c-2.7.0-4.src.rpm Unfortunately. rpmlint isn't silent now: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ppc]$ rpmlint * W: xerces-c-devel no-documentation E: xerces-c-doc script-without-shebang /usr/share/doc/xerces-c-doc-2.7.0/samples/configure.in E: xerces-c-doc script-without-shebang /usr/share/doc/xerces-c-doc-2.7.0/samples/config.h.in W: xerces-c-doc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/xerces-c-doc-2.7.0/samples/config.guess /bin/sh W: xerces-c-doc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/xerces-c-doc-2.7.0/samples/config.sub /bin/sh W: xerces-c-doc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/xerces-c-doc-2.7.0/samples/configure /bin/sh W: xerces-c-doc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/xerces-c-doc-2.7.0/samples/install-sh /bin/sh W: xerces-c-doc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/xerces-c-doc-2.7.0/samples/runConfigure /bin/sh [EMAIL PROTECTED] ppc]$ We can simply remove all these executable scripts from docs, but it complicates building them (if anyone will). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201418] Review Request: widelands - GPL Settlers II clone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: widelands - GPL Settlers II clone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201418 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 16:10 EST --- Created an attachment (id=142021) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=142021action=view) PATCH: compile + 64 bit fixes for latest CVS About widelands, according to upstream a stable release is expected soon, so I would expect cvs to be in pretty good shape, maybe you just picked a bad date todo a checkout? I've taken a look at CVS from today and that needs the attached patch to compile and the patch also fixes some 64 bit issues. Please send this patch upstream. With this patch applied the checkmate and eleven forests maps both load fine, so I guess the crahs bug is fixed now. Please make a new srpm available for review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210553] Review Request: xerces-c - Validating XML Parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xerces-c - Validating XML Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210553
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 16:13 EST ---
(In reply to comment #14)
E: xerces-c-doc script-without-shebang
/usr/share/doc/xerces-c-doc-2.7.0/samples/configure.in
E: xerces-c-doc script-without-shebang
/usr/share/doc/xerces-c-doc-2.7.0/samples/config.h.in
These should be trivially fixed with something like
chmod -x samples/{config.h,configure}.in
in %prep.
We can simply remove all these executable scripts from docs
A dependency on /bin/sh is not really a problem here IMO.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216519] Review Request: sdparm - List or change SCSI disk parameters
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: sdparm - List or change SCSI disk parameters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216519
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 17:13 EST ---
Okey dokey. Apologies for not getting to this sooner. Mock was being really
weird last night. Let's get this party started (as the saying goes)...
** MUST items **
GOOD: rpmlint is silent on the source and binary RPMs.
GOOD: Package name and version follows the Naming Guidelines
GOOD: The spec file matches the base package name: %{name}.spec
GOOD: The package has an open-source compatible license (BSD) and meets the
legal criteria for Fedora. The License tag in the spec file properly reflects
this.
GOOD: Spec file is written in American English and is legible (though I would
align the tags at the top with spaces or tabs, but that's merely personal
preference AFAIK, and definitely not a blocker in any way).
GOOD: Source matches that of upstream.
$ md5sum sdparm-1.00-*.tgz
1d46f85ed07e697f64fc40ddad31ddb5 sdparm-1.00-srpm.tgz
1d46f85ed07e697f64fc40ddad31ddb5 sdparm-1.00-upstream.tgz
GOOD: Package successfully builds into binary RPMs on FC6/x86.
GOOD: BuildRequires and Requires are correct.(The fact that they are not needed
probably makes this a bit simpler. ^_^)
GOOD: The %files section is okay. File and directory ownership does not conflict
with system packages; and no duplicates are listed. The %defattr call is
correct.
GOOD: Package contains a %clean section, which consists of 'rm -rf
%{buildroot}'
GOOD: Macro usage is consistent.
GOOD: Package contains code and permissible content.
GOOD: %doc files do not affect runtime of program.
** SHOULD items **
GOOD: A copy of the license is included in the tarball as %doc (COPYING).
GOOD: Package successfully builds in Mock for FC6 and Devel (both x86).
GOOD: Packaged utility functions with no apparent errors or segfaults (tested
with a WD Raptor SATA hard disk).
** Blockers **
BAD: The %changelog entries of those modifications before yours need to be made
consistent with the Packaging Guidelines. See
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-b7d622f4bb245300199c6a33128acce5fb453213
for more information.
BAD: The INSTALL file should not be packaged as %doc. Refer to
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
for more info.
** Not Applicable **
N/A: The package does not require ExcludeArch semantics.
N/A: The package does not require %find_lang semantics, since it installs no
locales.
N/A: The package does not require %post/%postun calls to /sbin/ldconfig, since
it installs no shared libraries.
N/A: Package is not relocatable.
N/A: There is no large documentation, so a -doc subpackage is not needed.
N/A: No header files, shared or static library files, so no -devel subpackage is
needed. Package installs no libtool archives.
N/A: The package contains no pkgconfig (.pc) files.
N/A: Not a GUI application, so no .desktop file needed.
N/A: The package does not use translations, so no translated %description or
Summary tag is available.
N/A: No scriplets are used.
N/A: No subpackages exist, so worries about fully-versioned Requires for those
are not present.
I cannot sponsor you, but looking through other review requests you've posted
for eterm and such, I see that Ed Hill sponsored you in bug #182175; so I am
able to APPROVE this once you fix these two blockers (assuming that his
sponsorship still stands).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206238] Review Request: qdbm - Quick Database 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: qdbm - Quick Database Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206238 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 17:57 EST --- Again ping? I wait for one week before I close this bug as CLOSED FE-DEADREVIEW. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202528] Review Request: rt2x00-kmod
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rt2x00-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202528 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 19:48 EST --- Which command sould I use to grab the same version of the d80211 than the one you used in the jwl testing kernel? i grab the whole wireless-dev tree when trying to made a snapshot with a script... The main command was: git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git wireless-dev-$git Can i grab only d80211, bcm43xx(if your version is d80211 based not soft_mac!) and then rt2x00 witch is currently not in the wireless-dev tree for now! Maybe others ones are fine to be built with the d80211 stack (hostap, atmel or others?) I will try to take the tree last d80211 patches; and then see if i can replace the d80211 stack version included from rt2x00 with this one... does it sounds good? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216354] Review Request: liquidwar - Multiplayer wargame with liquid armies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: liquidwar - Multiplayer wargame with liquid armies https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216354 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 21:35 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) * An init.d script for starting a liquidwar server at boot time would be nice. Perhaps if I find some extra time I'll write one for you. I wouldn't mind receiving this, together with a patch to split out the server in its own subpackage, as I think if we add an init script the server really should be in its own subpackage (and we need to think about wether to start it by default or not) It most definitely should not be started by default. The server admin should have to run 'chkconfig liquidwar on' manually or use the gui service tools to enable the service to run at boot time. Certain system applications (like sshd) should be started by default, but games should not. I've got the necessary init/sysconfig/logrotate scripts for liquid war. Would you prefer that I attach them to a new bug report, or just check them into cvs (without requesting a build, of course)? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202528] Review Request: rt2x00-kmod
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rt2x00-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202528 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 21:36 EST --- The last commit before generating that patch: 39d58f9228dee66c22ce1b1d314c8012b892ea4d FWIW, the raw patch needed a little massaging before it would build on FC6. You may want to look at the patches from the fc6.jwltest kernels for inspiration. The d80211 tree has a number of drivers available, including bcm43xx, rt2x00 (look closer!), adm8211, and p54. Intel is supposed to make an ipw3945 driver available for d80211 soon as well. I would be happy to discuss a tagging regime for wireless-dev if that would facilitate packaging. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 217100] New: Fn hotkey combinations do not function on Panasonic Toughbook CF-51
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=217100 Summary: Fn hotkey combinations do not function on Panasonic Toughbook CF-51 Product: Fedora Extras Version: fc6 Platform: i686 URL: http://www.netlab.cs.tsukuba.ac.jp/~yokota/izumi/panason ic_acpi/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: low Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Description of problem: The function keys on the Panasonic Toughbook CF-51 are labeled for the following hotkeys, which in Fedora Core 6 have no effect: Fn-F1: increase screen brightness Fn-F2: decrease screen brightness Fn-F3: switch LCD or external monitor Fn-F4: mute sound Fn-F5: volume down Fn-F6: volume up Fn-F7: suspend to RAM Fn-F10: suspend to disk There is a kernel driver to turn these hotkeys into ACPI events, as well as a script to do the actual functions at http://www.netlab.cs.tsukuba.ac.jp/~yokota/izumi/panasonic_acpi/. There is an alternate version at http://www.da-cha.org/letsnote/. As of Nov. 23, 2006, there is no package in Fedora Core or Extras containing this driver or the utilities. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Fedora Core 6 (i386) How reproducible: Attempt to use any of the Fn hotkey sequences Steps to Reproduce: 1. Press Fn-F1 (decrease screen brightness) Actual results: Nothing happens Expected results: Decreased screen brightness Additional info: The driver is labeled for Panasonic Let's Note laptops, but also works with the Toughbook (CF-51 at least). Resolution: Package request for pcc-acpi kernel module and associated utilities. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [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 216947] Review Request: perl-Gtk2-Notify - Gtk2::Notify Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Gtk2-Notify - Gtk2::Notify Perl module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216947 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 23:21 EST --- I just had a look for Source URL and found given source download link is not working. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200722] Review Request: GraphicsMagick
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: GraphicsMagick https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200722 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 23:24 EST --- Ping -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216535] Review Request: mp3gain - Lossless MP3 volume adjustment tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mp3gain - Lossless MP3 volume adjustment tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216535 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 23:26 EST --- err but did you dicuss this package inclusion on Fedora-extras list? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216535] Review Request: mp3gain - Lossless MP3 volume adjustment tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mp3gain - Lossless MP3 volume adjustment tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216535 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-23 23:35 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) I suggest you better discuss on fedora-extras mailing list. Another idea is marking this bug as blocking FE-Legal (bug 182235) and asking Tom spot Callaway about this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216947] Review Request: perl-Gtk2-Notify - Gtk2::Notify Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Gtk2-Notify - Gtk2::Notify Perl module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216947 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-24 01:14 EST --- Ok, that's weird. It is working from the by-authors perspective; I'll update the spec to use this one. http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/F/FL/FLORA/Gtk2-Notify-0.02.tar.gz -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216354] Review Request: liquidwar - Multiplayer wargame with liquid armies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: liquidwar - Multiplayer wargame with liquid armies https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216354 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-24 01:36 EST --- Just dropping them in CVS will be fine, a specfile update for this would be very welcome 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
