[Bug 167147] Review Request: Aqsis - 3D Rendering system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |fedora-package- ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 217350] Review Request: ipw2100-firmwa re - Firmware for Intel® PRO/Wireless 2100 net work adaptors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ipw2100-firmware - Firmware for Intel® PRO/Wireless 2100 network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217350 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 04:57 EST --- Maybe wait for a further comment from Bill? I initially thought he meant that the Intel license was unacceptable, but now I think he might have meant that the current package was unacceptable (probably because the %description didn't indicate that accepting the license was mandatory). Bill, would you care to comment 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 167147] Review Request: Aqsis - 3D Rendering system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 05:05 EST --- About the No URL for Source0: The URL will be provided as soon as aqsis 1.1.0 is released. (we're allmost there) Can you elaborate the Drop shipping static libs comment, please? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 05:28 EST --- hello No activity logged since August 2006. What's is the status of inclusion of Mondo rescue into Fedora Extras ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 167147] Review Request: Aqsis - 3D Rendering system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 05:35 EST --- (In reply to comment #14) About the No URL for Source0: The URL will be provided as soon as aqsis 1.1.0 is released. (we're allmost there) I am not going to review a package based on non-released sources. Either upstream will have to release their source first, or you will have to implement a set of patches, based on older released version. Can you elaborate the Drop shipping static libs comment, please? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/StaticLinkage -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218258] Review Request: audacious-docklet - a docklet plugin for Audacious
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: audacious-docklet - a docklet plugin for Audacious https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218258 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: audacious- |Review Request: audacious- |docklet - a docklet plugin|docklet - a docklet plugin |for Audacious |for Audacious --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 05:41 EST --- First time submitted 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 167147] Review Request: Aqsis - 3D Rendering system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 05:56 EST --- I am not going to review a package based on non-released sources. Either upstream will have to release their source first, or you will have to implement a set of patches, based on older released version. This is a big of a quandary, the build and packaging is part of our source, so either we... 1. Release the source with the RPM packaging not working, then modify it to pass RPM compliance requirements, resulting in the released source and the RPM valid source being out of sync. Not nice, especially as to fit all the RPM requirements it seems will result in changes to the build system, i.e. significant changes from the released source. or 2. Don't release the source until the RPM compliance is met, resulting in the RPM version being in release step with the non-RPM version, which is much more preferable from a management point of view. But the reviewer has stated that they are not prepared to review RPM compliance until the source is released. Chicken and egg. It seems that this policy makes it very difficult to release in a clean and manageable way if your release platforms include FC RPM. Any suggestions welcome. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 167147] Review Request: Aqsis - 3D Rendering system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 06:33 EST --- I believe option 2 should be followed in this case, because, as you said, 1.1.0 is about to be released. Still, you should provide a prerelease snapshot source on your site, even if only for the purpose of this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218020] Review Request: postgrey - Postfix Greylisting Policy 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: postgrey - Postfix Greylisting Policy Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218020 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 06:39 EST --- Spec URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/postgrey.spec SRPM URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/postgrey-1.27-3.src.rpm Updated package with the man page now included. It seems to me that the easiest to get postgrey included in Extras would be if someone reviews this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218022] Review Request: clamsmtp - SMTP filter daemon for anti-virus checking using ClamAV
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clamsmtp - SMTP filter daemon for anti-virus checking using ClamAV https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218022 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 06:42 EST --- Oh, no, I had missed it too (like for postgrey), sorry. I've looked at the selinux issue, and it seems that my package will be suffering from the same inet port problem. I'd be more than happy to have you review my 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 187317] Review Request: mindi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mindi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187317 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||187318 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 07:52 EST --- we have guidelines that need to be followed. the busybox binary has to be removed from the tarball. and you need to use the one provided by Fedora. how is 2.2.0 coming along? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||187317 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 07:58 EST --- the latest status on my side is available at ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/fedora/5/mondo-2.2.0-2.fc5.src.rpm Not all the previous remarks made on this bug report have been integrated :-( That's why I haven't given feedback till now. Version 2.2.1 should arrive soon (tests running now), and I hope to be able to fix most remaining problems with it. A snapshot is available at ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/fedora/5/mondo-stable-1.fc5.src.rpm I hope that at that point inclusion will be easier. BTW as noted, first point is to fix mindi for inclusion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187317] Review Request: mindi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mindi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187317 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 08:03 EST --- mindi 1.2.0 (version available at ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/fedora/5/mindi-1.2.0-2.fc5.src.rpm) is now delivered without a binary busybox in it. Instead an additional package has been made (Cf: ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/fedora/5/mindi-busybox-1.2.1-2.fc5.src.rpm) I've not checked that all your remarks have been taken in account, even if I tried to. As 1.2.1 is planned to be delivered as soon as my current test are finished, I did not work on that in parallel. Now if you think the current status would allow for easier inclusion, let me know. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215883] Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection 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: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library Alias: idioskopos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 08:23 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) But, the specs are built by autoconf when configure is run. It seems not. - checking for tr1/boost_shared_ptr.h... yes checking tr1/array usability... yes checking tr1/array presence... yes checking for tr1/array... yes checking for i686-redhat-linux-gnu-pkg-config... no checking for pkg-config... /usr/bin/pkg-config checking pkg-config is at least version 0.9.0... yes checking for PROJECT... yes ./configure: line 22376: suse-10.1/idioskopos.spec.in: No such file or directory configure: creating ./config.status config.status: creating fedora-5/idioskopos.spec config.status: creating fedora-6/idioskopos.spec config.status: creating idioskopos-1.0.pc config.status: creating docs/www/site.php config.status: creating Makefile config.status: creating idioskopos/Makefile config.status: creating examples/Makefile - and ... suse-10.1/idioskopos.spec.in is never used. Actually I successfully rebuild this packge without m4 by mockbuild. Anyway, if running configure requires autoconf, it is not correct and should be fixed if so. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 217836] Review Request: vimoutliner - set of vim macros for editing outlines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vimoutliner - set of vim macros for editing outlines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217836 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 08:43 EST --- SPEC (http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/progs/rpms/vimoutliner.spec) should be all right, tested just now. SRPM was updated to new release and it is here http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/progs/rpms/vimoutliner-0.3.4-6.src.rpm (and yes, I can download it through webbrowser as well). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210007] Review Request: libtune - standard API to access the kernel tunables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libtune - standard API to access the kernel tunables https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210007 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 08:47 EST --- While waiting for Dave's answer, here are the new links after your last review (sorry for not reacting fast these days: I'm often out my office): SPEC URL: http://libtune.sourceforge.net/specfiles/FE/FE-11-1/libtune.spec SRPM URL: http://libtune.sourceforge.net/srpms/FE/libtune-0.11-1.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 215569] Review Request: beryl-vidcap - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager video capture 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: beryl-vidcap - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager video capture utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215569 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 10:21 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) On the license front... I see a #define _GNU_SOURCE, but yeah, the license block is a little vague. I'll prod upstream for clarification. Do you mean the files in seom or the plugin itself? capture.c has a standard header just like any other file in beryl-plugins, and the seom files have no header, just a LICENSE file in the root directory. If you require that every file needs to have a GPL header, I can add it, no problem. I would also suggest, if somehow possible, to specify ARCH when building seom, see http://www.neopsis.com/projects/yukon/wiki/YukonCompile - Architecture Optimizations -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 167147] Review Request: Aqsis - 3D Rendering system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 11:06 EST --- Same here, I would recommend to submit an SRPM based on a CVS snapshot, if only for the goal of going through the review process. After the package is approved, you can update it with the official 1.1.0 release. The reason is we can't review a package whose source cannot be verified upstream. I would recommend using a version such as 1.1.0-0.cvsMMDD.1.fc6. The leading '0.' in front of the snapshot date ensures that the version will always be inferior to 1.1.0-1 used when 1.1.0 is officially released. I'm having some problems making this aqsis package with k3d on my system: aqsis doesn't find the correct shaders no matter which one i try, which results in a white object rendered (ERROR: Shader k3d_plank not found), even though this works with my aqsis 1.0.1 package. I'm not sure if this is a k3d problem or not. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 167147] Review Request: Aqsis - 3D Rendering system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 11:23 EST --- The reason is we can't review a package whose source cannot be verified upstream. What exactly do you mean by 'verified upstream'??? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 167147] Review Request: Aqsis - 3D Rendering system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 11:27 EST --- Just a note that the version/release strings to use for snapshots are mandated by the Naming Guidelines and differ from the example above: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#SnapshotPackages -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 167147] Review Request: Aqsis - 3D Rendering system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 11:31 EST --- (In reply to comment #19) The reason is we can't review a package whose source cannot be verified upstream. What exactly do you mean by 'verified upstream'??? We need to use a globally available source for a source tarball, which we can compare the tarball inside of Fedora's buildsystem against. Otherwise arbrary jerks could tar up some files and put them into Fedora, claiming they were yours. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 167147] Review Request: Aqsis - 3D Rendering system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 11:36 EST --- I see, that makes sense, sort of. I'll have to take a look at our build current system and see what we can do. Maybe if we sort out the outstanding issues mentioned above, then freeze 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 217350] Review Request: ipw2100-firmwa re - Firmware for Intel® PRO/Wireless 2100 net work adaptors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ipw2100-firmware - Firmware for Intel® PRO/Wireless 2100 network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217350 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 13:21 EST --- Sure, make all the commentary in the bug I'm *not* originally CC'd on. :P Warning, I'm not fedora-legal, but: 1 - End-users aren't explicitly given distribution or redistribution rights (they aren't disallowed them, either.) As adherence to that is required for ISVs (which Fedora is), that's a problem. 2 - The contractors provision is just weird. There may have been something else I missed. Basically, we don't doubt that the *intent* of Intel is for it to be redistributable. However, the license *text* isn't quite usable in that regards - what we want is a release of the firmware under a clarified license, or under something similar to the ipw3945 license. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 217350] Review Request: ipw2100-firmwa re - Firmware for Intel® PRO/Wireless 2100 net work adaptors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ipw2100-firmware - Firmware for Intel® PRO/Wireless 2100 network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217350 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 13:49 EST --- What do you propose then? That someone should ask Intel to clarify the license text inside the tarballs (same applies to ipw2200-firmware, too - bug #217351). Who should that be? Matthias or someone from fedora-legal? Should I block FE-Legal here until then? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 217350] Review Request: ipw2100-firmwa re - Firmware for Intel® PRO/Wireless 2100 net work adaptors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ipw2100-firmware - Firmware for Intel® PRO/Wireless 2100 network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217350 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 14:27 EST --- Probably FE-Legal, yes. We'd like a clarified license text inside the tarballs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218342] New: Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi
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=218342 Summary: Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi 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://manta.univ.gda.pl/~mgarski/fe/tibetan-machine-uni-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://manta.univ.gda.pl/~mgarski/fe/tibetan-machine-uni-fonts-0.0.20040806-1.src.rpm Description: Tibetan Machine Uni is an OpenType, Unicode font released by THDL project. The font support Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi in dbu can script with full support for the Sanskrit combinations found in chos skad texts. I'm not sure about version number. Archive and web site doesn't provide it, only in file you can find 001.000 version, in this case I've done the same as Debian's packager (date is taken from font file inside archive). For more licensing info see comments from bug #167536 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193898] Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193898 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 14:53 EST --- (In reply to comment #16) I've taken this over from Igor. I made a few changes and updated to 2.2a1. I've also fixed the mock error you were seeing, Anthony, and added a script to fetch the tarball and explain how to do it. Sorry I missed the update on this. I'm rerunning it in mock and will go through the formal review assuming there are no problems. 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 206478] Review Request: Yumdiff - Compares RPMS installed on local and remote systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Yumdiff - Compares RPMS installed on local and remote systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206478 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 15:28 EST --- Good idea. I'll write something up and run it up the flagpole. Thanks. (In reply to comment #17) A suggestion, Considering that most of the discussion so far concerns the basic functionality and not packaging issues, I think it would be worthwhile for you to open up a discussion on fedora-extras-list or on the upstream yum development list and get feedback from the community as to the underlying design and functionality aims, before continuing with a submission request. -jef -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218360] New: Review Request: evolution-plugin-remove-duplicates - Evolution plugin for removing duplicate mails
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=218360 Summary: Review Request: evolution-plugin-remove-duplicates - Evolution plugin for removing duplicate mails 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/evolution-plugin-remove-duplicates/evolution-plugin-remove-duplicates.spec SRPM URL: http://hircus.org/fedora/evolution-plugin-remove-duplicates/evolution-plugin-remove-duplicates-0.0.2-1.src.rpm Description: A plugin that checks selected e-mails for duplicates and remove them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215792] Review Request: wgrib - Manipulate, inventory and decode GRIB files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wgrib - Manipulate, inventory and decode GRIB files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215792 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 15:55 EST --- cvs troubles then I got busy. Checked in and added to owners.list. Building on devel. Will ask for FC-6 and FC-5 branches, but won't build until you rebuilt grads. Let me know... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208396] Review Request: v4l2-tool - Tool to get webcam usage Information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: v4l2-tool - Tool to get webcam usage Information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208396
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 15:56 EST ---
Everything looks good. I'm a bit hesitant about listing %{_datadir}/* instead of
the specific subdirectories, but rpm -qf /usr/share/ shows that other packages
are doing that as well anyway.
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 193898] Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193898 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 15:59 EST --- Andrew - the package naming goes against current package naming rules... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/JavaPackageNaming I've simply been removing the jpp part from my packages (see itext, for instance). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218367] New: Review Request: compat-guile - Guile compatibility package
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=218367 Summary: Review Request: compat-guile - Guile compatibility package 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://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/spec/compat-guile.spec SRPM URL: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/6/i386/SRPMS.gemi/compat-guile-1.6.7-1.src.rpm Description: The is a compatibility package for guile 1.6 needed to compile TeXmacs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215792] Review Request: wgrib - Manipulate, inventory and decode GRIB files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wgrib - Manipulate, inventory and decode GRIB files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215792 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 16:30 EST --- I have rebuilt grads without wgrib. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 217351] Review Request: ipw2200-firmwa re - Firmware for Intel® PRO/Wireless 2200 net work adaptors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ipw2200-firmware - Firmware for Intel® PRO/Wireless 2200 network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217351 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||182235 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 17:56 EST --- Blocking FE-Legal, see bug #217350 for the discussion leading up to 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 215883] Review Request: idioskopos - C++ Introspection 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: idioskopos - C++ Introspection Library
Alias: idioskopos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215883
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 20:37 EST ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
But, the specs are built by autoconf when configure is run.
Sorry about that. I meant to say, the specs are built by m4 when configure is
run.
This is the section in configure that requires m4:
#
# build spec.in files
#
for distro in fedora-5 FEDORA 5 fedora-6 FEDORA 6; do
original_params=($@)
set -- $distro
mkdir ${1}
m4 -D DISTRO=${2} \
-D DISTRO_LIB_GROUP=${2}_${3}_LIB_GROUP \
-D DISTRO_BUILD_REQUIRES=${2}_${3}_BUILD_REQUIRES \
-D DISTRO_DEVEL_GROUP=${2}_${3}_DEVEL_GROUP \
-D DISTRO_DEVEL_REQUIRES=${2}_${3}_DEVEL_REQUIRES \
spec.m4 ${1}/${PACKAGE_NAME}.spec.in
set -- $original_params
done
And then, later on in configure.in I have the spec.in that was built above in
AC_OUTPUT().
./configure: line 22376: suse-10.1/idioskopos.spec.in: No such file or
directory
I thought I removed the suse-10.1 directories for the 0.3.3 release, but I must
have done it after I pushed the release. That's the m4 command failing because
the 0.3.3 release didn't have the 'mkdir ${1}'.
Actually I successfully rebuild this packge without m4
by mockbuild.
Now that I think about it, the m4 command will probably silently fail without m4
installed. I don't have a problem removing the m4 build-requires. I just want to
make sure it's 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 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 Alias: python-gpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217066 [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 218210] Review Request: chemical-mime-data - Support for chemical/* MIME types
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: chemical-mime-data - Support for chemical/* MIME types https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218210 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 20:55 EST --- Removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR, now I am sponsoring. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218172] Review Request: gnome-chemistry-utils - A set of chemical utilities
Please 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-chemistry-utils - A set of chemical utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218172 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 20:55 EST --- Removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR (bug 218210) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218176] Review Request: gchempaint - A 2D chemical formulae drawing 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: gchempaint - A 2D chemical formulae drawing tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218176 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 20:57 EST --- Removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR (bug 218210) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 211729] Review Request: museek+ - Soulseek network filesharing client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: museek+ - Soulseek network filesharing client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211729 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 20:58 EST --- Removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR (bug 218210) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 211729] Review Request: museek+ - Soulseek network filesharing client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: museek+ - Soulseek network filesharing client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211729 [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 211729] Review Request: museek+ - Soulseek network filesharing client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: museek+ - Soulseek network filesharing client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211729 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC|[EMAIL PROTECTED] | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 21:05 EST --- Good. I'll review this in a few days then. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 211729] Review Request: museek+ - Soulseek network filesharing client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: museek+ - Soulseek network filesharing client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211729 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 21:06 EST --- Julian: is there any reason why this bug is filed agains fc6 and not 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 218342] Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218342 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||i18n -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 217232] Review Request: keyTouch
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: keyTouch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217232 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 23:12 EST --- Switching to NEEDINFO from reporter. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 217197] Review Request: MyBashBurn 1.0-1 - burn data and songs.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: MyBashBurn 1.0-1 - burn data and songs. Alias: MyBashBurn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217197 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 23:24 EST --- Kindly remove my name from changelog its at all not necessary. If you got from somebody modified SPEC then you write your own name in Chnagelog. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208396] Review Request: v4l2-tool - Tool to get webcam usage Information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: v4l2-tool - Tool to get webcam usage Information https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208396 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 23:43 EST --- Thanks built for devel only successfully. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208398] Review Request: luvcview - Webcam Viewer Application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luvcview - Webcam Viewer Application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208398 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 23:52 EST --- Ping for any watchers. Do we really need kmod as BR for this package. I don't think becuase even if user installed it and he don't have webcam then he will get only errors as uvcview version 0.1.7 Video driver: x11 A window manager is available video /dev/video0 ERROR opening V4L interface : No such file or directory So i don't think gspca kmod should be blocker for this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218360] Review Request: evolution-plugin-remove-duplicates - Evolution plugin for removing duplicate mails
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: evolution-plugin-remove-duplicates - Evolution plugin for removing duplicate mails https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218360 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 23:59 EST --- You need to Add perl-XML-Parser as BR in SPEC. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218408] New: Review Request: xl2tpd - replacement of l2tpd
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=218408 Summary: Review Request: xl2tpd - replacement of l2tpd 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://ftp.xelerance.com/xl2tpd/xl2tpd.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/xl2tpd/xl2tpd-1.1.06-1.src.rpm Description: xl2tpd is an implementation of the Layer 2 Tunnelling Protocol (RFC 2661). L2TP allows you to tunnel PPP over UDP. Some ISPs use L2TP to tunnel user sessions from dial-in servers (modem banks, ADSL DSLAMs) to back-end PPP servers. Another important application is Virtual Private Networks where the IPsec protocol is used to secure the L2TP connection (L2TP/IPsec, RFC 3193). The L2TP/IPsec protocol is mainly used by Windows and Mac OS X clients. On Linux, xl2tpd can be used in combination with IPsec implementations such as Openswan. Example configuration files for such a setup are included in this RPM. xl2tpd works by opening a pseudo-tty for communicating with pppd. It runs completely in userspace. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218408] Review Request: xl2tpd - replacement of l2tpd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xl2tpd - replacement of l2tpd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218408 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 00:37 EST --- I will review this after I go back from shopping -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218408] Review Request: xl2tpd - replacement of l2tpd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xl2tpd - replacement of l2tpd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218408 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 00:49 EST --- Well, before I go out for shopping: I tried to rebuild in mockbuild and rpmlint complains about: --- E: xl2tpd tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: xl2tpd obsolete-not-provided l2tpd E: xl2tpd non-readable /etc/xl2tpd/l2tp-secrets 0600 E: xl2tpd non-readable /etc/ppp/chap-secrets.sample 0600 W: xl2tpd dangerous-command-in-%post mv E: xl2tpd no-chkconfig-line /etc/rc.d/init.d/xl2tpd E: xl2tpd tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: xl2tpd non-utf8-spec-file xl2tpd.spec W: xl2tpd unversioned-explicit-obsoletes l2tpd W: xl2tpd mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 65, tab: line 52) E: xl2tpd-debuginfo tag-not-utf8 %changelog Please fix these or explain the reason when these rpmlint message can be ignored. Also, please add %?dist tag (I have not yet checked this package, I only rebuilt 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 218408] Review Request: xl2tpd - replacement of l2tpd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xl2tpd - replacement of l2tpd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218408 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163776 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 01:09 EST --- * Tue Dec 5 2006 Paul Wouters [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.1.06-2 - Changed Mr. Karlsen's name to not be a utf8 problem - Fixed Obosoletes/Provides to be more specific wrt l2tpd. Spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/xl2tpd/xl2tpd.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/xl2tpd/xl2tpd-1.1.06-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218408] Review Request: xl2tpd - replacement of l2tpd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xl2tpd - replacement of l2tpd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218408 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218408] Review Request: xl2tpd - replacement of l2tpd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xl2tpd - replacement of l2tpd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218408 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163776 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 02:11 EST --- two comments of me got lost, and i think two of you :( I aded the dist tag. fixes the spaces, and the obsolete/provides issue in the above srpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 211729] Review Request: museek+ - Soulseek network filesharing client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: museek+ - Soulseek network filesharing client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211729 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|fc6 |devel --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 02:15 EST --- Well, only the one I'm running fc6 here and not rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
