[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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 03:19 EST --- Package imported, FC-5 and FC-6 branches requested. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 03:19 EST --- Thanks very much for sponsorship. Package imported, FC-5 and FC-6 branches requested. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 06:35 EST --- You can close this bug as CLOSED NEXTRELEASE when you succeeds in rebuilding this on FE-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 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|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 07:09 EST --- Well, again full review of this package. A. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines : * rpmlint: - rpmlint output is not silent. - 1. E: xl2tpd non-readable /etc/xl2tpd/l2tp-secrets 0600 2. E: xl2tpd non-readable /etc/ppp/chap-secrets.sample 0600 3. W: xl2tpd dangerous-command-in-%post mv 4. E: xl2tpd no-chkconfig-line /etc/rc.d/init.d/xl2tpd - 1. 2. : I don't know well about this package, however, please check if the permisson of these files are correct. 3. : I think that this warnings may ignorable, however: * By the way which is done first, doing %post scriptlet of xl2tpd, or obsoleting (i.e. deleting) xl2tpd? I vaguely remember several case (by yum) that obsoleting a package is done _before_ installing a substitute rpm. I think moving or copying should be done by %triggerun 4. : This error can be suppressed by replacing tab with space in '# chkconfig:- 80 30' line. * Timestamps - Use 'install -p' to keep timestamps. And I recommend that Makefile should be also fixed to use 'install -p'. B. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets : * Initscripts Conventions - Please add the appropriate requirement in Requires(post), etc. C. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines : (Okay). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199679] Review Request: pgpool - Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pgpool - Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199679 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 08:10 EST --- Hi, (In reply to comment #23) Did comment #22 make sense? Or did I miss something? Ok, I think we made it: New spec: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/pgpool/postgresql-pgpool.spec New SRPM: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/pgpool/postgresql-pgpool-3.1.1-7.src.rpm What is left for approval? Regards, Devrim -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 09:16 EST --- Okay. --- This package (idioskopos) is APPROVED by me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188477] Review Request: maildrop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: maildrop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188477 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 10:20 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) Mike, are you going to pursue submitting this to fedora-extras? FYI: A courier-authlib RPM is the review process now #208064 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174377] Review Request: gnu-smalltalk - GNU Smalltalk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnu-smalltalk - GNU Smalltalk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174377 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 11:58 EST --- Now here the RPMs for the new final 2.3 release of gnu-smalltalk: SRPM: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/gnu-smalltalk/gnu-smalltalk-2.3-1.src.rpm SPEC: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/gnu-smalltalk/gnu-smalltalk.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 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 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 12:44 EST --- Some comments from me. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines : * Use rpmlint -- W: gchempaint non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gchempaint-arrows.schemas W: gchempaint macro-in-%changelog files W: gchempaint-devel no-documentation W: gchempaint undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libgchempaint.so.0.6.6 g_printable_get_type W: gchempaint undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libgchempaint.so.0.6.6 gnome_canvas_rich_text_ext_get_type W: gchempaint undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libgchempaint.so.0.6.6 gnome_canvas_rich_text_ext_set_buffer W: gchempaint undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libgchempaint.so.0.6.6 gnome_canvas_rich_text_ext_get_iter_location W: gchempaint undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libgchempaint.so.0.6.6 gnome_canvas_rich_text_ext_get_buffer W: gchempaint undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libgchempaint.so.0.6.6 gnome_canvas_text_ext_get_type W: gchempaint undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libgchempaint.so.0.6.6 gnome_canvas_ellipse_ext_get_type W: gchempaint undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libgchempaint.so.0.6.6 gnome_canvas_bpath_ext_get_type W: gchempaint undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libgchempaint.so.0.6.6 gnome_canvas_rich_text_ext_get_pango_layout W: gchempaint undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libgchempaint.so.0.6.6 g_printable_export_svg W: gchempaint undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libgchempaint.so.0.6.6 gnome_canvas_rich_text_ext_get_iter_at_location W: gchempaint undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libgchempaint.so.0.6.6 gnome_canvas_group_ext_get_type W: gchempaint undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libgchempaint.so.0.6.6 gnome_canvas_rect_ext_get_type W: gchempaint undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libgchempaint.so.0.6.6 gnome_canvas_line_ext_get_type -- - non-conffile-in-etc warning can be ignored. gconf schemas files are not config file. - When you want to use percent in %changelog, please use %%. - Well, for undefined non-weak symbols issue: Some reviewers say this can be ignorable for Review, while some reviewers say they should be fixed before approving the package. For this package, libgchempaint.so is included in -devel package so leaving these undefined symbols causes failure for linking to libgchempaint.so, so this should be fixed before this package is approved. Then: 1. for g_printable_get_type and g_printable_export_svg: This is defined in ./libgcpcanvas/gprintable.c, however gprintable.o is not used in libgchempaint.so.0.6.6 so this is actually wrong (this should cause failure linkage). 2. for gnome_canvas_... : Perhaps linking libgchempaint.so to libgnomecanvas-2.so (in libgnomecanvas-devel) will fix these complaint. * Requires pkgconfig (in -devel) - It seems that -devel package does not includes pkgconfig .pc file. * File and Directory Ownership - /usr/share/omf/gchempaint/ is not owned by any 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 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 13:05 EST --- Can you please clarify whether this package is HylaFAX or HylaFAX+? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199679] Review Request: pgpool - Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pgpool - Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199679 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 13:16 EST --- Everything looks great with the version in comment #24. This package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this review request NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built. Also, consider reviewing another waiting package to help spread out the reviewing load. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 13:26 EST --- Thanks. Here are the updated files: 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-0.0.2-2.src.rpm I normally test them using mock, but sometimes (like now) mock fails. Here on x86_64 it's saying it could not find evolution-plugin-2.8 (despite me manually setting PKG_CONFIG_PATH). Normally the package builds fine on the build server, though. Testing now with a 32-bit mock buildroot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 13:36 EST --- Paul/Darren, Lest we require ourselves to say that x.org and XFree86 are not both X, let us not try to define that HylaFAX+ and even your own company's HylaFAX Professional Edition are not both HylaFAX also. Indeed, as we all (including you) already know, the software being promoted here is the sourceforge flavour of HylaFAX, also known as HylaFAX+. Lee. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177134] Review Request: mkvtoolnix - Matroska container utilites
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mkvtoolnix - Matroska container utilites https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177134 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|182235 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 13:44 EST --- Lifting FE-Legal, after discussion with Max. I was unable to find any patents around the process of muxing/demuxing (not the hardware implementations of muxing/demuxing). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191036] Review Request: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container format https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191036 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|182235 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 13:50 EST --- Lifted FE-Legal here, after discussion with Max. I cannot find any patents on multiplexing/demuxing in software. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-12-05 14:03 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) 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. How you want, now, there are some more for check on review? when should the package be approved? Greetings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 14:34 EST --- Sorry for the long delay. Howard, the new package doesn't work at all, the permissions are completely screwed up. Have you tested the package yourself before you submitted it? $ rpmlint hylafax-5.0.0-1.fc6.i386.rpm | sort E: hylafax executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.daily/hylafax E: hylafax executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.hourly/hylafax E: hylafax executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/hylafax E: hylafax invalid-soname /usr/lib/libfaxserver.so.5.0.0 libfaxserver.so E: hylafax invalid-soname /usr/lib/libfaxutil.so.5.0.0 libfaxutil.so E: hylafax non-executable-script /usr/sbin/edit-faxcover 0444 E: hylafax non-executable-script /usr/sbin/faxaddmodem 0444 E: hylafax non-executable-script /usr/sbin/faxcron 0444 E: hylafax non-executable-script /usr/sbin/faxsetup 0444 E: hylafax non-executable-script /usr/sbin/faxsetup.linux 0644 E: hylafax non-executable-script /usr/sbin/hylafax 0444 E: hylafax non-executable-script /usr/sbin/probemodem 0444 E: hylafax non-executable-script /usr/sbin/recvstats 0444 E: hylafax non-executable-script /usr/sbin/xferfaxstats 0444 E: hylafax non-executable-script /var/spool/hylafax/bin/archive 0444 E: hylafax non-executable-script /var/spool/hylafax/bin/common-functions 0444 E: hylafax non-executable-script /var/spool/hylafax/bin/dictionary 0444 E: hylafax non-executable-script /var/spool/hylafax/bin/faxrcvd 0444 E: hylafax non-executable-script /var/spool/hylafax/bin/mkcover 0444 E: hylafax non-executable-script /var/spool/hylafax/bin/notify 0444 E: hylafax non-executable-script /var/spool/hylafax/bin/pcl2fax 0444 E: hylafax non-executable-script /var/spool/hylafax/bin/pdf2fax.gs 0444 E: hylafax non-executable-script /var/spool/hylafax/bin/pollrcvd 0444 E: hylafax non-executable-script /var/spool/hylafax/bin/ps2fax.gs 0444 E: hylafax non-executable-script /var/spool/hylafax/bin/tiff2fax 0444 E: hylafax non-executable-script /var/spool/hylafax/bin/tiff2pdf 0444 E: hylafax non-executable-script /var/spool/hylafax/bin/wedged 0444 E: hylafax script-without-shebang /usr/sbin/faxsetup.linux W: hylafax devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libfaxserver.so W: hylafax devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libfaxutil.so W: hylafax incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.0.0 5.0.0-1.fc6 W: hylafax non-conffile-in-etc /etc/hylafax/faxcover_example_sgi.ps W: hylafax non-executable-in-bin /usr/sbin/edit-faxcover 0444 W: hylafax non-executable-in-bin /usr/sbin/faxaddmodem 0444 W: hylafax non-executable-in-bin /usr/sbin/faxcron 0444 W: hylafax non-executable-in-bin /usr/sbin/faxsetup 0444 W: hylafax non-executable-in-bin /usr/sbin/faxsetup.linux 0644 W: hylafax non-executable-in-bin /usr/sbin/hylafax 0444 W: hylafax non-executable-in-bin /usr/sbin/probemodem 0444 W: hylafax non-executable-in-bin /usr/sbin/recvstats 0444 W: hylafax non-executable-in-bin /usr/sbin/xferfaxstats 0444 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 14:43 EST --- Christoph, As the proposed package is HylaFAX+, I'd request that it be renamed such. Thanks, Paul -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 14:58 EST --- Have you tested the package yourself before you submitted it? Yes, I've been using it repeatedly. Here's what I see when I run rpmlint on the built RPM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] i386]# rpmlint hylafax-5.0.1-1.i386.rpm W: hylafax incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.0.0 5.0.1-1 E: hylafax invalid-soname /usr/lib/libfaxutil.so.5.0.1 libfaxutil.so E: hylafax invalid-soname /usr/lib/libfaxserver.so.5.0.1 libfaxserver.so E: hylafax non-readable /var/spool/hylafax/etc/hosts.hfaxd 0600 E: hylafax executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.hourly/hylafax E: hylafax script-without-shebang /usr/sbin/faxsetup.linux E: hylafax executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.daily/hylafax E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/archive 0700 W: hylafax devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libfaxutil.so E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/doneq 0700 E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/sendq 0700 E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/tmp 0700 E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/docq 0700 W: hylafax non-conffile-in-etc /etc/hylafax/faxcover_example_sgi.ps W: hylafax devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libfaxserver.so E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/pollq 0700 E: hylafax executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/hylafax -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199679] Review Request: pgpool - Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pgpool - Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199679 [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 177134] Review Request: mkvtoolnix - Matroska container utilites
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mkvtoolnix - Matroska container utilites https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177134 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 16:22 EST --- http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/mkvtoolnix-1.8.1-1.src.rpm http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/mkvtoolnix.spec Updated to 1.8.1 + some fixes by Ville and myself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 17:04 EST --- (In reply to comment #35) Christoph, As the proposed package is HylaFAX+, I'd request that it be renamed such. I agree. I think the source should be named hylafax+version.tar.gz, too. (In reply to comment #36) Have you tested the package yourself before you submitted it? Yes, I've been using it repeatedly. How have you been using this package if /usr/sbin/hylafax is not executable? Here's what I see when I run rpmlint on the built RPM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] i386]# rpmlint hylafax-5.0.1-1.i386.rpm This is obviously not the same package, not the same release. It's not even the same version as the package you have submitted in comment #31. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 17:31 EST --- FC-5 and FC-6 builds submitted. Closing.. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 17:38 EST --- This is obviously not the same package, not the same release. It's not even the same version as the package you have submitted in comment #31. The software development is moving much faster than progress on this review request. I apologize for giving you rpmlint output for an RPM that was more conveniently at my disposal. For your benefit, I have downloaded the SRPM given in comment #31, rebuilt it on FC6, and here is the rpmlint output: [EMAIL PROTECTED] i386]# rpmlint hylafax-5.0.0-1.i386.rpm W: hylafax incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.0.0 5.0.0-1 E: hylafax invalid-soname /usr/lib/libfaxutil.so.5.0.0 libfaxutil.so E: hylafax invalid-soname /usr/lib/libfaxserver.so.5.0.0 libfaxserver.so W: hylafax devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libfaxserver.so E: hylafax non-readable /var/spool/hylafax/etc/hosts.hfaxd 0600 E: hylafax executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.hourly/hylafax E: hylafax script-without-shebang /usr/sbin/faxsetup.linux E: hylafax executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.daily/hylafax E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/archive 0700 W: hylafax devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libfaxutil.so E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/doneq 0700 E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/sendq 0700 E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/tmp 0700 E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/docq 0700 W: hylafax non-conffile-in-etc /etc/hylafax/faxcover_example_sgi.ps E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/pollq 0700 E: hylafax executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/hylafax [EMAIL PROTECTED] i386]# I agree. I think the source should be named hylafax+version.tar.gz, too. Apache distributes its webserver in a source repository named httpd-2.2.3.tar.gz. Following the suggestions here, we should petition them to change their package name to something more specific to their version, like apache-httpd. Apache's naming convention makes complete sense to me, and undoubtedly I am not alone in this understanding as they have had it named that way for a very long time. Fedora uses the repository name as the source for the httpd package name. Thus Apache's webserver is found in a package named httpd. However, other distributions of Apache's webserver are found in packages named differently, such as apache-httpd. This also makes complete sense to me because it provides the distribution a means to differentiate between different http servers that it may provide. I do not know if Fedora provides webservers other than Apache's, but assuming it does not, then using the package name of httpd for Fedora makes complete sense as well, since it is the only http server being provided. The upstream repository will remain named as it is. As for the package name, it matters not to me if it is called hylafax or hylafax+. However, my suggestion would follow what I've said above about the Apache http server. The distinction of the + will mean very little to Fedora users (and in-fact may make the package more-difficult to identify) unless there is more than one HylaFAX package being distributed by Fedora (say, for example, separate hylafax+ and hylafax.org 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 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] 2006-12-05 17:51 EST ---
%post
ln -s %{_datadir}/%{name}/MyBashBurn.sh %{_bindir}/mybashburn /dev/null 21
ln -s %{_datadir}/%{name}/MyBashBurn.sh %{_bindir}/bashburn /dev/null 21
%postun
rm -f %{_bindir}/bashburn
rm -f %{_bindir}/mybashburn
Why? This is extremely ugly. The files are not even %ghosted. They
are not tracked in the RPM database. Why not simply create these links
at build-time and include them in the package? That is the way it ought
to be.
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,0755)
%{_datadir}/%{name}/*
Directory %{_datadir}/%{name} is not included. Correct would be:
%{_datadir}/%{name}/
Find one brief explanation in bug 165616 comment 8.
%doc COPYING CREDITS ChangeLog FAQ FILES HOWTO INSTALL README TODO
Is the INSTALL file the typical NLS documentation which is irrelevant
to users of your RPM package? If so, don't include it. It is confusing.
install -d %{buildroot}/usr/lib/debug
What's this?
Further, prefer install with option -p (or cp with option -p)
to preserve timestamps wherever it is possible.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] New: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
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=218556 Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities 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://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils.spec?use_mirror=osdn SRPM URL: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils-5-0.src.rpm?use_mirror=osdn Description: eCryptfs is a stacked cryptographic filesystem that ships in Linux kernel versions 2.6.19 and later. This package provides userspace utilities necessary to manage eCryptfs mounts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 18:38 EST --- (In reply to comment #38) The software development is moving much faster than progress on this review request. I am very sorry about that. Please try to see it from my point of view: One reason for this review proceeding so slow is that it's so confusing: Packages don't match the spec file, there was hardly any changelog information at the beginning, lots of rpmlint errors, ... I apologize for giving you rpmlint output for an RPM that was more conveniently at my disposal. For your benefit, I have downloaded the SRPM given in comment #31, rebuilt it on FC6, and here is the rpmlint output: [EMAIL PROTECTED] i386]# rpmlint hylafax-5.0.0-1.i386.rpm W: hylafax incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.0.0 5.0.0-1 This is an easy one. Why not fix it _before_ submitting the package? As I already said: Keeping the changelog up to date makes it easier for me to follow the changes. E: hylafax invalid-soname /usr/lib/libfaxutil.so.5.0.0 libfaxutil.so E: hylafax invalid-soname /usr/lib/libfaxserver.so.5.0.0 libfaxserver.so W: hylafax devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libfaxserver.so E: hylafax non-readable /var/spool/hylafax/etc/hosts.hfaxd 0600 E: hylafax executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.hourly/hylafax E: hylafax script-without-shebang /usr/sbin/faxsetup.linux E: hylafax executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.daily/hylafax E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/archive 0700 W: hylafax devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libfaxutil.so E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/doneq 0700 E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/sendq 0700 E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/tmp 0700 E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/docq 0700 W: hylafax non-conffile-in-etc /etc/hylafax/faxcover_example_sgi.ps E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/pollq 0700 E: hylafax executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/hylafax [EMAIL PROTECTED] i386]# Strange. Mine looks different, see comment #34. I have been building this package several times locally and in mock, always with the same results: Files under /usr/sbin are not executable. Can you upload your binaries somewhere? I agree. I think the source should be named hylafax+version.tar.gz, too. Apache distributes its webserver in a source repository named httpd-2.2.3.tar.gz. Following the suggestions here, we should petition them to change their package name to something more specific to their version, like apache-httpd. Apache's naming convention makes complete sense to me, and undoubtedly I am not alone in this understanding as they have had it named that way for a very long time. Fedora uses the repository name as the source for the httpd package name. This is Core, not Extras. Packages in Core don't necessarily follow the FE Packaging and Naming Guidelines and haven't got through a review. The apache package doesn't follow the naming guidelines. It not on me to judge if it makes sense or doesn't, but picking out an exception from the rule is not a good reason for making more exceptions from that rule. The upstream repository will remain named as it is. I don't have to judge on this too, but IMO this is bad: Having two source archives with the same name and potentially even the same version, but with different content inside is confusing. Once downloaded it is very hard for people to distinguish which version they have. As for the package name, it matters not to me if it is called hylafax or hylafax+. However, my suggestion would follow what I've said above about the Apache http server. The distinction of the + will mean very little to Fedora users (and in-fact may make the package more-difficult to identify) unless there is more than one HylaFAX package being distributed by Fedora (say, for example, separate hylafax+ and hylafax.org packages). Maybe someone else one day will submit another review for hylafax(.org). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 19:23 EST --- Christoph, I understand the confusion on this review. I am truly sorry for it, and I wish that I could have somehow known ahead of time how to prevent the confusion... because I certainly would have. The mismatches between packages and specs and such has to do with the development pace and my focus on software development rather than RPM packaging, so I guess it's a chicken-and-egg kind of problem. I've uploaded the hylafax-5.0.0-1.i386.rpm file that I was using to here: http://superb-east.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/hylafax/hylafax-5.0.0-1test.i386.rpm Yes, I know the filename is different - that could not be avoided. But the file data is the same. As far as package/repository naming goes... I understand the httpd naming manner, and I completely understand why it is named that way. Certainly it may not meet the Extras criteria naming rules - neverless, it still makes sense to me and is not confusing, and in fact I probably would have followed the same naming convention in their shoes. I do not see it as an exception to common-sense - although, yes, it may be an exception according to Extras naming rules. Certainly the Extras rules can be a subset of common-sense. For other examples - not of package naming, specifically - but for naming in general... postfix and sendmail both have sendmail executables (among other competing executable names). Similarly, mgetty-sendfax has a sendfax executable that competes with an identically named executable from HylaFAX (which is why HylaFAX isn't in Core in the first place, as the RedHat 5.2/6.0 maintainers decided to favor mgetty-sendfax and do away with HylaFAX rather than implement a switching mechanism as they have done for sendmail/postfix). All of this makes sense to me - and indeed I can see why it would confuse some - but if one understands that, realistically, the purpose in the naming conflicts is a perfect manner of clue-sticking the user that they're looking at conflicting packages, just the same as if they were looking at two packages from the same repository but of different versions. The HylaFAX+ repository is aptly named hylafax because it is, after all, HylaFAX. HylaFAX+ version numbers have always been different from the version numbers at HylaFAX.org. Certainly it is not the only HylaFAX repository, but realize that the hylafax.org repository is, itself, a fork - there almost always have been different repositories (even among the earliest contributors). To say that HylaFAX+ is not HylaFAX is to say that when Alan Cox patches the Linux kernel for RedHat that it no longer is Linux. The sourceforge HylaFAX project is known as HylaFAX+ for those people that have a tough time understanding the issues that I am discussing, and certainly it makes it easier than always saying Sourceforge HylaFAX project. That said, you really won't find anyone out there desireous to run both HylaFAX+ and HylaFAX.org for practical reasons. Realize that Darren's (Paul's) purpose here isn't really to assist the users who will be using HylaFAX (in that they may become upset to find themselves using HylaFAX+ instead of HylaFAX.org software). Rather, his purpose here is to take measures to prevent users from seeing, as I do, that HylaFAX+ is as much HylaFAX as the software found at HylaFAX.org or SGI-HylaFAX or his own commercial HylaFAX Enterprise Edition. If he really, truly, believed what he is trying to say here then he wouldn't have named his own product with HylaFAX. My suggestion, Christoph, would be to see the HylaFAX+ vs. HylaFAX.org thing for what it is, the usual forking arguments, and move past it so that we can get this into Extras ... whether the ultimate package name be hylafax or hylafax+. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-12-05 22:12 EST --- It seems this package was added incorrectly to owners.list... Fedora Extras|firefox|firefox browser|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| Should be 'firefox-32' ? Although there is a (very old) firefox module available for some reason. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207676] Review Request: SDL_Pango - Rendering of internationalized text for SDL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: SDL_Pango - Rendering of internationalized text for SDL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207676 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 22:14 EST --- I think the summary was fine (with the capital P in Pango), what you need to fix is the owners.list file... it has SDL_pango, but the package is SDL_Pango... I think both the owners.list and this review summary should use SDL_Pango since thats the module in CVS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212045] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212045 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 22:23 EST --- Hey Andrew... any news on getting this built? I see that it hasn't been added to the owners.list... can you do that please? See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors#head-f6f080b4c48fe519c98a29364a740953f90179e7 (Without that step, there is no bugzilla component for the package and people can't report bugs... ) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207676] Review Request: SDL_Pango - Rendering of internationalized text for SDL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: SDL_Pango - Rendering of internationalized text for SDL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207676 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 22:27 EST --- Matthias, I fixed owners.list of SDL_'p'ango to SDL_'P'ango. If you meet some trouble by this change, please 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 205300] Review Request: gtk-sharp - a set of mono bindings for gtk1.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtk-sharp - a set of mono bindings for gtk1.2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205300 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 22:27 EST --- Hey Paul. I don't see gtk-sharp in the owners.list. Can you please add it? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors#head-f6f080b4c48fe519c98a29364a740953f90179e7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206398] Review Request: php-pecl-Fileinfo - libmagic bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pecl-Fileinfo - libmagic bindings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206398 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 22:29 EST --- Brandon: I don't see this package in owners.list, can you please add it? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors#head-f6f080b4c48fe519c98a29364a740953f90179e7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210217] Review Request: pygpgme - Python module for working with OpenPGP messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pygpgme - Python module for working with OpenPGP messages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210217 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 22:33 EST --- Toshio: I don't see this package in owners.list. Can you please add it? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors#head-f6f080b4c48fe519c98a29364a740953f90179e7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 214730] Review Request: pungi - Distribution compose 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: pungi - Distribution compose tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214730 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 22:35 EST --- Jesse: I don't see this package in owners.list. Can you please add it? See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors#head-f6f080b4c48fe519c98a29364a740953f90179e7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207782] Review Request: itpp - C++ library for math, signal/speech processing, and communications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: itpp - C++ library for math, signal/speech processing, and communications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207782 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 22:38 EST --- Hey Ed: I don't see this package in owners.list. Can you please add it? See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors#head-f6f080b4c48fe519c98a29364a740953f90179e7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 180092] Review Request: NRPE - Monitoring agent for Nagios
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: NRPE - Monitoring agent for Nagios https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180092 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 22:40 EST --- Hey Mike. I don't see this package in owners.list. Can you please add it? See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors#head-f6f080b4c48fe519c98a29364a740953f90179e7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 182678] Review Request: libopts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libopts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182678 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 22:47 EST --- Paul: I still don't see the package in owners.list... did you forget to check it back in? Please re-add it... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215256] Review Request: firefox-32 - Alternate Launcher for 32bit Firefox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: firefox-32 - Alternate Launcher for 32bit Firefox Alias: firefox-32 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215256 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 22:51 EST --- Oops, good catch. I forgot to add firefox-32 to owners.list. The firefox there is the *OLD* firefox that was in fedora.us, before firefox became part of Fedora Core. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs 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: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 22:58 EST --- Hey Michael. From a quick look, it looks like this is your first package, so you will need a sponsor. I am going to add the FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker here so sponsors can see your package. You may want to take a look at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 22:58 EST --- spec URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/xl2tpd/xl2tpd.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/xl2tpd/xl2tpd-1.1.06-3.src.rpm * Tue Dec 5 2006 Paul Wouters [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.1.06-3 - Added Requires(post) / Requires(preun) - changed init file to create /var/run/xl2tpd, fixed a tab/space - changed control file to be within /var/run/xl2tpd/ 1/2 is correct. The secrets should only be readable by root 3 I've tested migration and the order is correct. the orignally installed xl2tpd configs are kept as rmpsave files, the ones from /etc/l2tpd/ are migrated into /etc/xl2tpd/, and then l2tpd gets uninstalled, and creates its own rpmsave files if needed. 4 done Timestamps: I am not sure why we don't want to show the timestamps of the package build? B: done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202334] Review Request: jetty5 - The Jetty Webserver and Servlet Container
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jetty5 - The Jetty Webserver and Servlet Container https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202334 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 23:02 EST --- Hey Anthony. Any further word on a jetty5 package without jpp tags? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 167525] Review Request: cpptasks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cpptasks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167525 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|fedora-extras- | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | CC||fedora-package- ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 23:12 EST --- FYI, it seems that at least currently, the jpp tag isn't allowed in the Release tag in extras packages. Can you remove the jpp and update? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 180092] Review Request: NRPE - Monitoring agent for Nagios
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: NRPE - Monitoring agent for Nagios https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180092 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 23:23 EST --- I'm terrible about that, its added now. Also imported and build. Closing bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218574] New: Review Request: perl-Net-SNPP - Perl modules for the Simple Network Pager Protocol
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=218574 Summary: Review Request: perl-Net-SNPP - Perl modules for the Simple Network Pager Protocol 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://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/perl-Net-SNPP-1.17-1.fc6.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/perl-Net-SNPP-1.17-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: Perl client and server modules for the Simple Network Pager Protocol, as described in RFC 1861. (Annoyed Grunt) Misspelled modules in the summary - will fix upon import or the next package rev, whichever comes first... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212045] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212045 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 23:45 EST --- I've got a build going now. When that finishes, I'll add to the owners list. Sorry for the delay - I was working on the Eclipse SDK update a bit and wanted that to get out first. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208678] Review Request: SimGear - Simulation library components
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: SimGear - Simulation library components https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208678 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 23:47 EST --- Hey Tom. I was going to take a look at reviewing vamos (bug #208679), but it requires this package and I don't see it in yet. Is there anything holding back this package from being imported and built? It looks accepted to me... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210217] Review Request: pygpgme - Python module for working with OpenPGP messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pygpgme - Python module for working with OpenPGP messages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210217 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-05 23:58 EST --- Oops. Fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218577] New: Review Request: glump - A small web application to glue files from multiple sources
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=218577 Summary: Review Request: glump - A small web application to glue files from multiple sources 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://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/glump-0.9.11-1.fc6.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/glump-0.9.11-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: Glump is a simple web application that glues files from various pieces, based on the hostname that makes the request. This is useful for large installations that want to send different files to different hosts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200600] Review Request: phpPgAdmin - web based PostgreSQL administration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: phpPgAdmin - web based PostgreSQL administration https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200600 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-06 01:18 EST --- What is left for the approval of this package? Regards, Devrim -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200630] Review Request: postgresql_autodoc - PostgreSQL AutoDoc 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: postgresql_autodoc - PostgreSQL AutoDoc Utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200630 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-06 01:20 EST --- (Hi Toshio, In reply to comment #9) As communicated on IRC, this looks good except for having to specify the password on the commandline. Can you poke upstream to see if they can provide a way to prompt for the password interactively? I will poke upstream, but if we call this as a feature, not a bug, what else is needed for approval? Regards, Devrim -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-12-06 01:42 EST ---
(In reply to comment #11)
%post
ln -s %{_datadir}/%{name}/MyBashBurn.sh %{_bindir}/mybashburn /dev/null
21
ln -s %{_datadir}/%{name}/MyBashBurn.sh %{_bindir}/bashburn /dev/null 21
%postun
rm -f %{_bindir}/bashburn
rm -f %{_bindir}/mybashburn
Why? This is extremely ugly. The files are not even %ghosted. They
are not tracked in the RPM database. Why not simply create these links
at build-time and include them in the package? That is the way it ought
to be.
yeah, It sound kickass, better and more appropriate, I've added it in
build-time.
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,0755)
%{_datadir}/%{name}/*
Directory %{_datadir}/%{name} is not included. Correct would be:
%{_datadir}/%{name}/
Unknown that the contents would be recursive, now the directory trailing use is
fixed.
%doc COPYING CREDITS ChangeLog FAQ FILES HOWTO INSTALL README TODO
Is the INSTALL file the typical NLS documentation which is irrelevant
to users of your RPM package? If so, don't include it. It is confusing.
Exactly. INSTALL file not is appropiate for users except for possible developers
of MyBashBurn only, it content troubleshooting section and installation's
instruction for tar file, neverthless, just i exclude the INSTALL file. Fixed.
install -d %{buildroot}/usr/lib/debug
What's this?
Really i don't know, i think that may be strictly needed for %build section, if
ommited it to get the next error:
find: /var/tmp/mybashburn-1.0-1-root-k0k/usr/lib/debug: No such file or
directory
If create the directory %{buildroot}/usr/lib/debug issue fixed.
Please, remember that this package is a couple of ShellScripts written to make
cd burning in the console easier, just not is a program written in C/C++ or some
similar, for this i can't see why must be include %build section for this
package?.
Further, prefer install with option -p (or cp with option -p)
to preserve timestamps wherever it is possible.
Okay. I should adjusted the install -p for which components: files or
directories or both?
Please let me know what more i need to do, Thanks in advance for your response.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-12-06 02:51 EST --- New package ready, the same URL, please check this time and report any problems. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 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 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 Bug 218172 depends on bug 218210, which changed state. Bug 218210 Summary: Review Request: chemical-mime-data - Support for chemical/* MIME types https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218210 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
