[Bug 221310] Review Request: python-twisted - Twisted is an event-based framework for internet applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-twisted - Twisted is an event-based framework for internet applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221310 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-09 02:10 EST --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (MIT) OK - License field in spec matches OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag Issues: 1. The README.fedora is a bit on the terse side. You might have it list out the other packages that this one pulls in or at least repeat the summary, but thats not a big deal or a blocker. I think the obsoletes and provides are correct here. I tried to upgrade a fc6 python-twisted with this version and it correctly pulled in the packages and installed. I did notice one install on removal of any of the python-twisted-* packages that did the /usr/libexec/twisted-dropin-cache call in postun. If you remove them and python-twisted-core, rpm removes python-twisted-core first, resulting in a failed scriptlet on the other package, ie: rpm -e python-twisted-core python-twisted-words error: %postun(python-twisted-words-0.4.0-3.fc6.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 255 I think those packages need a Requires(postun): python-twisted-core I see no issues with this meta package, so I would be happy to APPROVE it. Don't forget to close this NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built. Also, once it's been pushed to fc6, you should be able to rebuild flumotion there and hopefully fix the broken fc5->fc6 upgrade path in 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 205755] Review Request: elsa - manages group of processes and allows accounting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elsa - manages group of processes and allows accounting https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205755 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-09 01:39 EST --- (In reply to comment #24) > This looks good. Guillaume, have you applied for access to the Extras CVS? Excellent. I will apply for access to Extras CVS today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220888] Review Request: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220888 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-09 01:31 EST --- Okay. Now: This package (fakeroot) is APPROVED by me. INFO: I checked http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/f/fakeroot/ and it seems that 1.5.12 is released YESTERDAY. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221944] Review Request: libofx - A library for supporting Open Financial Exchange (OFX)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libofx - A library for supporting Open Financial Exchange (OFX) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221944 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-09 01:28 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > You're going to comment but not review based on one item? > Yes, it's an item I have on my personal show stopper list. Ok then. Mind you, the buildroot shouldn't even be *IN* the spec file, but that's an issue for a different day. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221944] Review Request: libofx - A library for supporting Open Financial Exchange (OFX)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libofx - A library for supporting Open Financial Exchange (OFX) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221944 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-09 01:27 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) > You're going to comment but not review based on one item? Yes, it's an item I have on my personal show stopper list. > And the point of that is? Fighting guerillias? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221947] New: Review Request: gwenhywfar - utility library
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=221947 Summary: Review Request: gwenhywfar - utility library Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/gwenhywfar.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/gwenhywfar-2.3.0-5.src.rpm Description: gwenhywfar utility library gwenhywfar is a utility library used by aqbanking. This is part of reviewing the gnucash stack. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221944] Review Request: libofx - A library for supporting Open Financial Exchange (OFX)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libofx - A library for supporting Open Financial
Exchange (OFX)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221944
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-09 00:44 EST ---
You're going to comment but not review based on one item? And the point of that
is?
--disable-static added, wee, get to save a few secs.
DESTDIR added.
The Requires is old historical stuff back when the libs were in openjade and it
required that version to run right.
Buildroot tweaked.
Since upstream breaks abi even in minor point releases (0.8.0 -> 0.8.2), not
sure what use pretending it can be built for multiple distros at once is, so no
%{?dist}.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221944] Review Request: libofx - A library for supporting Open Financial Exchange (OFX)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libofx - A library for supporting Open Financial
Exchange (OFX)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221944
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-09 00:17 EST ---
Some remarks:
- Consider disabling building the static libs (%configure --disable-static)
- Consider using "make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install" instead of %makeinstall
- Could you explain the "Requires: openjade". AFAIS, this package only needs a
certain version of libopensp and doesn't actually apply/require openjade.
- Consider using a standard FE BuildRoot and using %{?dist}.
I am not going to formally reviewing the package because of the %buildroot being
used, sorry.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221944] New: Review Request: libofx - A library for supporting Open Financial Exchange (OFX)
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=221944 Summary: Review Request: libofx - A library for supporting Open Financial Exchange (OFX) Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/notting/libofx/libofx.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/notting/libofx/libofx-0.8.2-2.src.rpm Description: libofx package for OFX support. Starting reviews of the gnucash stack in preparation for the grand merge. Can't actually move until everything is reviewed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187243] Review Request: lazarus : IDE and RAD tool for the free pascal compiler (fpc)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lazarus : IDE and RAD tool for the free pascal compiler (fpc) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187243 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 21:59 EST --- Builds this time, and seems to run. rpmlint to look at: E: lazarus statically-linked-binary /usr/lib64/lazarus/tools/svn2revisioninc Why is this static? E: lazarus-debuginfo empty-debuginfo-package debuginfo package empty, due in part to: W: lazarus unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/lazarus/lazarus W: lazarus unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/lazarus/startlazarus W: lazarus unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/lazarus/lazbuild etc. Are the things in %(libdir)/lazarus/debian needed? Not a lawyer, but the modified LGPL does seem to give additional permission. Seems to be in Debian experimental, for what that's worth. Does this need futher license 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 194027] Review Request: metisse - Experimental X desktop with OpenGL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: metisse - Experimental X desktop with OpenGL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194027 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |201449 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 18:43 EST --- I have placed and xwnc package up for review. xwnc ofcourse is a component of metisse. I'm going to go ahead and block this bug against FE-DEADREVIEW For the xwnc review see bug #221924 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221924] Review Request: xwnc - Mix of Xvnc and XDarwin with improved protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xwnc - Mix of Xvnc and XDarwin with improved protocol Alias: xwnc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221924 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||xwnc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221924] New: Review Request: xwnc - Mix of Xvnc and XDarwin with improved 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=221924 Summary: Review Request: xwnc - Mix of Xvnc and XDarwin with improved 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://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/xwnc.spec SRPM URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/xwnc-0.3.3-1.src.rpm Description: Mix of Xvnc and XDarwin with improved protocol. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221175] Review Request: libisofs - A library to create ISO 9660 disk images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libisofs - A library to create ISO 9660 disk images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221175 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 17:30 EST --- Yeah, I noticed he changed a few things in the tarball, this srpm uses the now upstream one. Dep on libburn is because libisofs can actually make a call to libburn I'm told. Moving the docs to devel. http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/libisofs-0.2.4-2.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 220969] Review Request: isomaster - an easy to use GUI CD image editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: isomaster - an easy to use GUI CD image editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220969
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 17:09 EST ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> * Package doesn't use our global RPM %optflags for compilation.
> It uses a custom -Wall only. Makefile needs a patch to accept
> $RPM_OPT_FLAGS or %{optflags}
I've never used that flag in my builds. I made a patch (hopefully a good one)
and I could also talk with the author about a backport changes to the upstream
version, but I don't know if that has sense, because it seems to be used only in
RPM builds and there should be something like that in a source Makefile:
ifndef OPTFLAGS
#common defined by the author
GLOBALFLAGS = -O2 -Wall ...
else
GLOBALFLAGS = ${OPTFLAGS}
endif
GLOBALFLAGS += flags-speciied-for-program
What do you suggest?
> * Desktop menu category "Application;System;" is debatable. More
> appropriate would be "Application;Utility;" as it is an ordinary
> application that works on files, ISO 9660 image files.
Ok, but it's in Accessories menu now. Grip is in Sound & Video and xcdroast in
System Tools. There are all related with CD (in their own way).
> > %clean
> > rm -fr %{buildroot} %{_builddir}/%{name}
>
> Just "rm -fr %{buildroot}" is sufficient. The extracted tarball is
> removed automatically after a successful build.
Maybe in mock. In my local, custom build directory remains. If it's not a big
problem I would prefer this option to stay (for other test builds).
> > #BuildRequires: gcc-c++
>
> The code is written in C, not C++, anyway.
:)
I took it from my SPEC file to other project.
Btw, project compiled with OPTFLAGS is over 10% larger than the previous one. Is
this normal?
Thanks for your sugestions.
SPEC: http://timeoff.wsisiz.edu.pl/zrzut/isomaster.spec
SRPC: http://timeoff.wsisiz.edu.pl/zrzut/isomaster-0.6-6.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 196837] Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit3 - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit3 - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests Alias: pear-PHPUnit3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196837 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 16:27 EST --- NOTE: This package is only meant to be built/used on devel/fc7+. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213121] Review Request: fast-user-switch-applet - a panel applet for switching users
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fast-user-switch-applet - a panel applet for switching users https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213121 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 16:25 EST --- built -- 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 196837] Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit3 - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit3 - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests Alias: pear-PHPUnit3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196837 Bug 196837 depends on bug 212887, which changed state. Bug 212887 Summary: PHPUnit3 is going to Obsolete PHPUnit 1 and 2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212887 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219930] Review Request: lxpanel - A lightweight X11 desktop panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lxpanel - A lightweight X11 desktop panel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219930 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 15:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) > So I've uploaded a new version which is the result of the mock build. Could > you > test it for this issue (just to play safe this time)? Looks fine, ACCEPTED. Don't forget to change the default starters patch once we have a pcmanfm 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 221906] New: Review Request: gmediaserver - UPnP compatible media server for the GNU system
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=221906 Summary: Review Request: gmediaserver - UPnP compatible media server for the GNU system 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://karlik.nonlogic.org/gmediaserv/gmediaserver.spec SRPM URL: http://karlik.nonlogic.org/gmediaserv/gmediaserver-0.12.0-1.src.rpm Description: GMediaServer is a UPnP compatible media server for the GNU system. It is part of the GNU project. GMediaServer serves audio and video files to certain network connected media players. Most hardware media players only play music and/or video - they don't provide the media themselves. Those media files have to come from a device on the network. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221873] Review Request: cgdb - A curses-based interface to the GNU Debugger (GDB)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cgdb - A curses-based interface to the GNU Debugger (GDB) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221873 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 15:36 EST --- Spec URL: http://gilboadavara.thecodergeek.com/cgdb.spec SRPM URL: http://gilboadavara.thecodergeek.com/cgdb-0.6.3-3.src.rpm 0.6.3-3: - Fix %doc. - Do not strip debug info; let rpm do 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 213121] Review Request: fast-user-switch-applet - a panel applet for switching users
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fast-user-switch-applet - a panel applet for switching users https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213121 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 15:12 EST --- Buildsystem knows about it, import and build away. Please close when built for dist-fc7 -- 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 219930] Review Request: lxpanel - A lightweight X11 desktop panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: lxpanel - A lightweight X11 desktop panel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219930
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 15:08 EST ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> OK - rpmlint -i lxpanel-0.2.4-3.src.rpm
> W: lxpanel non-coherent-filename lxpanel-0.2.4-3.src.rpm
> The file which contains the package should be named
> --..rpm.
Mhh. Strange. I can't remember which .rpmmacros I have used for this package.
So I've uploaded a new version which is the result of the mock build. Could you
test it for this issue (just to play safe this time)?
> First part is a BSD like license, second GPLv2.
> OK - Since GPL is more restrictive than BSD the whole package becomes GPL. So
> the license field in the spec is ok.
The GPL is also the license at gnomefiles.org:
http://www.gnomefiles.org/app.php/LXPanel
> MINOR NOTE - line warps in long fields like %description are usually done
after
> 79 characters.
Fixed.
> MINOR NOTE - Instead of
> %dir %{_datadir}/lxpanel/
> %{_datadir}/lxpanel/*
> %dir %{_libdir}/lxpanel/
> %{_libdir}/lxpanel/*
> you could simply use
> %{_datadir}/lxpanel/
> %{_libdir}/lxpanel/
Ok. Fixed.
> OK - IMO no desktop file is needed since it's panel and not what I call a
> typical program/standalone application.
Also think so. gnome-panel and kicker also have no desktop file.
> OK - lxpanel works fine, but lxpanelctl is buggy. I can't add more starter
> because the "Select Application"-Dialog doesn't list the files in
> /usr/share/applications. Also hitting return in the location bar doesn't
work.
> Looking at src/plugins/launchbar.c I think this is a known issue (see the
FIXME
> in line 490) and isn't really meant to work atm.
You're right. Seems to be already filed as a bug:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1623222&group_id=180858&atid=894869
SPEC Url: http://deadbabylon.de/fedora/extras/lxpanel/lxpanel.spec
SRPM Url:
http://deadbabylon.de/fedora/extras/lxpanel/lxpanel-0.2.4-4.fc6.src.rpm
Changelog:
* Mon Jan 08 2007 Sebastian Vahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 0.2.4-4
- Fixed some minor issues from the review process (#219930)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213121] Review Request: fast-user-switch-applet - a panel applet for switching users
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fast-user-switch-applet - a panel applet for switching users https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213121 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|188267 |188268 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 14:53 EST --- okie dokie, looks good then. build it! -- 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 213121] Review Request: fast-user-switch-applet - a panel applet for switching users
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fast-user-switch-applet - a panel applet for switching users https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213121 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 14:50 EST --- >From looking at the code, it uses gnome-vfs to monitor the config file, and reloads the gdm configuration if it changes. It does not read the file though, it gets the configuration from gdm. I guess it would be better to get notification on configuration changes from gdm, but thats just an upstream bug to file, not something we need to sort out prior to accepting the package. I don't think versioning the BRs would add a lot. I'd much rather rely on version checks in the configure script. The versioned BRs in the spec file get outdated to easily. rpmlint output was clean when I did the packages. The packaging guidelines don't say anything about requiring an explicit epoch, and that would be just silly. -- 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 221405] Review Request: libdirac - Dirac is an open source video codec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libdirac - Dirac is an open source video codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221405
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 14:40 EST ---
SPEC :
http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/libdirac/libdirac.spec
SRPMS:
http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/libdirac/libdirac-0.6.0-5.cvs20070108.kwizart.fc6.src.rpm
Description:
Dirac is an open source video codec
Build Log: (2> .log)
http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/libdirac/libdirac-0.6.0-5.log
It seems that using configure can disable theses unwanted FLAGs without
autoreconf. I think it is a better solution.
I wonder why the src.rpm has grown up. Since i was using make tag, the produced
release dirac-0.6.0.tar.gz was bundled with the sources but no used.
The only thing that wasn't bundled in this version was the qt4 gui encoder. But
anyway it can be renabled later...
I should have : (but since it is not release...)
provides: dirac-qt4
obsolete: dirac-qt4 < %{version}-5.cvs20070108
The only rpmlint error i have is :
E: libdirac configure-without-libdir-spec
A configure script is run without specifying the libdir. configure
options must be augmented with something like --libdir=%{_libdir}.
But the %configure script bundle it so i wonder if it is not a problem with the
./configure in the snapshot step
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213121] Review Request: fast-user-switch-applet - a panel applet for switching users
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fast-user-switch-applet - a panel applet for switching users https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213121 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 14:27 EST --- spec file looks clean and shiny. I always forget our policy of Epoch handling though. It might be a good idea to explicitly put an epoch of 0. should we version the buildrequires? What's --with-gdm-config=/etc/gdm/custom.conf do? Remember for most people custom.conf is just an empty stub file. Will that cause a problem for the applet? is rpmlint output clean? -- 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 221873] Review Request: cgdb - A curses-based interface to the GNU Debugger (GDB)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: cgdb - A curses-based interface to the GNU Debugger
(GDB)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221873
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||177841
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 14:24 EST ---
You should add the FE-NEEDSPONSOR block (177841) in all Your request (before You
are sponsored), but in this request I added it.
I can make a official review, but I can advise you:
"strip $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir}/cgdb" probably is not needed, because (if I
have good information) the rpmbuild does standard stripping.
In %doc You must include:
-AUTHORS
-ChangeLog
-COPYING
-NEWS
-README
-TODO
Now, You are including only REAME.
I did not checked all "MUST/SHOULD", but it was not an official review.
And the last:
E: cgdb-debuginfo empty-debuginfo-package
Empty debuginfo is useless
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213121] Review Request: fast-user-switch-applet - a panel applet for switching users
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fast-user-switch-applet - a panel applet for switching users https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213121 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|188265 |188267 nThis|| -- 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 221884] Review Request: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup 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: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221884 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 14:11 EST --- *** Bug 168690 has been marked as a duplicate of this 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 168690] Review Request: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup 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: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=168690 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WONTFIX |DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 14:11 EST --- You need to apply for fedorabugs group access in the Fedora Account system to be able to change bug status. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/AccountSystem I have done it for you now. I was able to access the spec file and packages now in the new review you have submitted so I believe that your hosting problems are solved but if you need help, feel free to drop me a mail anytime. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 221884 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 168690] Review Request: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup 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: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=168690 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 13:58 EST --- I've opened a new review request at bug 221884. I can't see a way to mark this one as a duplicate though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221873] Review Request: cgdb - A curses-based interface to the GNU Debugger (GDB)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cgdb - A curses-based interface to the GNU Debugger (GDB) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221873 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 13:53 EST --- Oops rpmlint ran on the binary package. My bad. $ rpmlint -i cgdb-0.6.3-1.src.rpm W: cgdb mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 12) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. Cleared the spaces. Spec URL: http://gilboadavara.thecodergeek.com/cgdb.spec SRPM URL: http://gilboadavara.thecodergeek.com/cgdb-0.6.3-2.src.rpm After fix: $ rpmlint -i cgdb-0.6.3-2.src.rpm $ - Gilboa -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221873] Review Request: cgdb - A curses-based interface to the GNU Debugger (GDB)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cgdb - A curses-based interface to the GNU Debugger (GDB) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221873 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 13:44 EST --- Oh... forgot to add. First submission to -extras. Be gentle ;) rpmlint output: $ rpmlint -i cgdb-0.6.3-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm W: cgdb non-coherent-filename cgdb-0.6.3-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm The file which contains the package should be named --..rpm. 0.6.3 is the version. -1 is the release. fc6 is the... well, fc6. x86_64 is the arch. What am I missing? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220922] Review Request: geany - a lightweight gtk2 based IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: geany - a lightweight gtk2 based IDE
Alias: geany
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220922
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 13:38 EST ---
REVIEW CHECKLIST
- rpmlint output
W: geany devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/geany/filetypes.c
Okay, see comment #7
- package meets package naming guidelines
- spec filename matches %{name}
- package meets packaging guidelines
- package licensed with open source compatible license
- license matches actual license
- license file included in %doc
- spec written in American english
- spec file is legible
- sources match upstream
2ffaae9b0fa807bdd4be0e6ec0f4a2e5 geany-0.10.tar.bz2
- package successfully compiles and builds on x86_64 FC6
- all build dependencies listed in BR
- locales handled properly
- no shared libraries
- package is not relocatable
- package owns all directories it creates
- directories it does not create owned by default packages
- no duplicates in %files
- file permissions set properly
- contains proper %clean section
- macro usage consistent
- package contains code
- no large documentation
- files in %doc do not affect runtime
- no header files or static libraries
- no pkgconfig files
- no library files with suffix
- no need for devel subpackage
- no .la files
- contains proper .desktop file
- package does not own files or directories owned by other packages
*** APPROVED ***
Since you are not yet sponsered, I want to see a couple package reviews from you
before blocking FE-ACCEPT.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221884] New: Review Request: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup tool)
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=221884 Summary: Review Request: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup tool) Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://projects.sucs.org/projects/pybackpack OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com I'm opening this second review request as per bug 168690. pyBackPack - A GTK+ application written in Python to back up and restore files onto CDR, USB stick or SSH host, aimed at less technical users. The project was started for Google Summer of Code 2005 but I took over development when the original maintainer no longer wanted it. I aim to improve it considerably from its current state. Current version: 0.4.5 Spec: http://andrewprice.me.uk/projects/pybackpack/download/pybackpack.spec SRPM: http://andrewprice.me.uk/projects/pybackpack/download/pybackpack-0.4.5-1.src.rpm RPM: http://andrewprice.me.uk/projects/pybackpack/download/pybackpack-0.4.5-1.noarch.rpm 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 220888] Review Request: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220888 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 13:06 EST --- Last comment had a typo in the src.rpm's URL, it's SRPM URL: http://dl.atrpms.net/all/fakeroot-1.5.10-13.at.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 221717] Review Request: agg - C++ rendering framework, move from core to shared
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: agg - C++ rendering framework, move from core to shared https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221717 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 12:57 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) > The substantive issue is gpc, and in that case we're building with > --disable-gpc > to disable building and including gpc in the final rpm It isn't enough, the srpm should not contain non free or legally problematic code. This should be reported upstream anyway, upstream is violating gpc license and/or the GPL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174063] Review Request: cssed - css editor and validator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cssed - css editor and validator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174063 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|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 220888] Review Request: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220888 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 12:46 EST --- I had already fixed the above topics and I thought you'd probably prefer to remove the empty README, so it's gone now. Spec URL: http://dl.atrpms.net/all/fakeroot.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.atrpms.net/all/fakeroot-1.5.13-9.at.src.rpm * Sun Jan 7 2007 Axel Thimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 1.5.10-13 - po4a currently not need as a BR. - remove empty README, add debian/changelog. The problem with parallel makes is that they are not really testable. Every invocation can have different ordering and results (it depends on the runtime needed per parallel target). In principle ony would haveto review the Makefile structure to be sure and this has to be done each time. So I rather play it safe than be sorry. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221873] New: Review Request: cgdb - A curses-based interface to the GNU Debugger (GDB)
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=221873 Summary: Review Request: cgdb - A curses-based interface to the GNU Debugger (GDB) 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://gilboadavara.thecodergeek.com/cgdb.spec SRPM URL: http://gilboadavara.thecodergeek.com/cgdb-0.6.3-1.src.rpm Description: CGDB is a curses-based interface to the GNU Debugger (GDB). The goal of CGDB is to be lightweight and responsive; not encumbered with unnecessary features. The interface is designed to deliver the familiar GDB text interface, with a split screen showing the source as it executes. The UI is modeled on the classic Unix text editor, vi. Those familiar with vi should feel right at home using CGDB. Many thanks to Mr. Peter Gordon for hosting the files. - Gilboa -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219071] Review Request: pyfribidi - A Python binding for GNU FriBidi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pyfribidi - A Python binding for GNU FriBidi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219071 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE |NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 12:23 EST --- (Just changing to NEXTRELEASE for tracability) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221698] Review Request: compat-guile-16 - Guile 1.6 compatibility package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: compat-guile-16 - Guile 1.6 compatibility package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221698
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: compat-guile|Review Request: compat-
|- Guile 1.6 compatibility |guile-16 - Guile 1.6
|package |compatibility package
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 12:02 EST ---
= Well, from my eye inspection, i.e.
-
( for f in `rpm -ql compat-guile-16-devel compat-guile-16 | sort` ; do if file
$f | grep -q text ; then echo $f ; fi ; done ) | xargs grep guile16
-
all "guile16" words included in
the texts in compat-guile-16(-devel) are correctly changed
to guile16 (if needed).
Then:
**
-
- Added automake in BR
-
Well, I didn't mean by that. What I meant is -devel package should have
-
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}, automake
-
because -devel package includes %{_datadir}/aclocal/guile16.m4.
Actually automake is not needed for BuildRequires as you don't call
automake in build process.
** Source0:
must be: ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/guile/guile-1.6.7.tar.gz
(md5sum coincides)
** %{buildroot} vs $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Please choose one.
Please fix the issues marked as **.
Other things are okay.
This package (compat-guile-16) is APPROVED by me.
Note:
It seems that the newest guile of 1.6 series is 1.6.8 .
Please check 1.6.8 after you first import 1.6.7 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 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778, 177841 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 11:28 EST --- OK, so vim maintainer agrees to add it in future vim updates. For now it is added in %post script. Final rewiew: Package conforms to all MUST items, spec file is fine, rpmlint is silent. Package builds fine here and seems to work as intended. 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 209224] Review Request: prelude-manager - Prelude Management 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: prelude-manager - Prelude Management server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209224 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 11:19 EST --- fixed and closed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219071] Review Request: pyfribidi - A Python binding for GNU FriBidi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pyfribidi - A Python binding for GNU FriBidi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219071 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version||0.6.0-3 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 11:07 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) > Ping? I can see that this package (pyfribidi) is already > imported into FE-5, so I think you can close this bug. Ah, sorry. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219873] Review Request: kio_sword - lightweight Sword front-end for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kio_sword - lightweight Sword front-end for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219873 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 10:51 EST --- (In reply to comment #0) > This is my first package - I am seeking a sponsor. (Just noticing that now I am sponsoring and currently this bug does not block FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209224] Review Request: prelude-manager - Prelude Management 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: prelude-manager - Prelude Management server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209224
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 10:44 EST ---
Well, one issue.
As I said in comment #11, activating TCP wrapper support needs
* For FC-devel: tcp_wrappers-devel
* For FC5/6: tcp_wrappers
for BuildRequires.
You can change the BuildRequies according to FC-devel <-> FC 5/6 by
BuildRequires: libpreludedb-devel, libxml2-devel
%if 0%{?fedora} > 6
BuildRequires: tcp_wrappers-devel
%else
BuildRequires: tcp_wrappers
%endif
Other things are all okay.
This package (prelude-manager) 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 211740] Review Request: perl-YAML-Syck - CPAN module provides Perl interface to the libsyck data serialization 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: perl-YAML-Syck - CPAN module provides Perl interface to the libsyck data serialization library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211740 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 10:37 EST --- What is the status of that review? Anyway I have spotted that this package uses an internal syck library. I think it is bad, the external one should be used instead - except if there is a good reason not to do so. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208113] Review Request: freepops - a tool to get html mail through a pop daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: freepops - a tool to get html mail through a pop daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG OtherBugsDependingO|163778, 177841 |201449 nThis|| Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |il.com) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 10:34 EST --- Closing as NOTABUG, blocking FE-DEADREVIEW. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2007-01-08 10:21 EST --- Does not work without filetype plugin on to /etc/vimrc (or ~/.vimrc). The way how to add this to vim needs to be discussed with vim maintainer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220888] Review Request: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220888
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 10:16 EST ---
Well, then please check if %{_smp_mflags} is okay?
If adding this bears no problem, please add this.
(In reply to comment #21)
> > zero-length [...]/README [...] debian/changelog
>
> What do you say? I wouldn't really object, if you insist on removing it.
Well, then I don't force to remove it.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 168690] Review Request: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup 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: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=168690 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 09:21 EST --- If you have a problem with hosting, you can get someone in #fedora-extras channel to temporarily provide you with a anonymous host. You can upload it to fedoraproject.org wiki too. Otherwise mail me the packages and spec files and I will host them till you get past the review. I dont want good packages struck in review just because of this. Yes, Please open a new review and mark this one as a duplicate of the new one. It helps in our tracking process since we are going through a major revamp of infrastructure and repository merges within Fedora. 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 220969] Review Request: isomaster - an easy to use GUI CD image editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: isomaster - an easy to use GUI CD image editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220969
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 09:21 EST ---
* Package doesn't use our global RPM %optflags for compilation.
It uses a custom -Wall only. Makefile needs a patch to accept
$RPM_OPT_FLAGS or %{optflags}
* Desktop menu category "Application;System;" is debatable. More
appropriate would be "Application;Utility;" as it is an ordinary
application that works on files, ISO 9660 image files.
> %clean
> rm -fr %{buildroot} %{_builddir}/%{name}
Just "rm -fr %{buildroot}" is sufficient. The extracted tarball is
removed automatically after a successful build.
> #BuildRequires: gcc-c++
The code is written in C, not C++, anyway.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221727] Review Request: cssed - CSS editor and validator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cssed - CSS editor and validator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221727 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 09:18 EST --- Okay, all I pointed out is now fixed and I can say that this package can be imported to 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 209222] Review Request: prelude-lml - Prelude log analyzer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: prelude-lml - Prelude log analyzer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209222 [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 219872] Review Request: curlftpfs - user-space FTP filesystem using libcurl and FUSE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curlftpfs - user-space FTP filesystem using libcurl and FUSE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219872 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 09:17 EST --- All done - closing NEXTRELEASE. Thanks to all those who commented (Mamoru, Manuel, Paul). I have one other package waiting review (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219873) - it's been reviewed once and a couple of minor tweaks made... kio_sword, a light-weight KDE front-end to SWORD. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219872] Review Request: curlftpfs - user-space FTP filesystem using libcurl and FUSE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curlftpfs - user-space FTP filesystem using libcurl and FUSE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219872 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 09:14 EST --- Thanks for the tip 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 219071] Review Request: pyfribidi - A Python binding for GNU FriBidi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pyfribidi - A Python binding for GNU FriBidi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219071 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 09:08 EST --- Ping? I can see that this package (pyfribidi) is already imported into FE-5, so I think you can close this 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 219872] Review Request: curlftpfs - user-space FTP filesystem using libcurl and FUSE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curlftpfs - user-space FTP filesystem using libcurl and FUSE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219872 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 09:06 EST --- devel should never be "rpm-older" than FC-6, which should never be "rpm-older" than FC-5 etc. You'll get nagmails about it if they are, so it's worth fixing even for trivial changes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209222] Review Request: prelude-lml - Prelude log analyzer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: prelude-lml - Prelude log analyzer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209222 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 09:06 EST --- Please close this bug when rebuilding is 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 219872] Review Request: curlftpfs - user-space FTP filesystem using libcurl and FUSE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curlftpfs - user-space FTP filesystem using libcurl and FUSE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219872 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 08:58 EST --- Thanks Paul... I don't understand too well (I'm a CVS newbie), but it seems to work. Should I update the release numbers on the FC6 and devel versions too? (Otherwise FC5 will be newer than FC6+devel - is that a problem when the change is only trivial?) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219872] Review Request: curlftpfs - user-space FTP filesystem using libcurl and FUSE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curlftpfs - user-space FTP filesystem using libcurl and FUSE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219872 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 08:44 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) > As per the instructions at > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors#head-e2f7f3048aae892d69bba2b1d1563aed5c63a1ff > I cd-ed into the "FC-5" directory and ran "make tag", but I got this error: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] FC-5]$ make tag > cvs tag -c curlftpfs-0_9-1_fc5 > ERROR: The tag curlftpfs-0_9-1_fc5 is already applied on a different branch > ERROR: You can not forcibly move tags between branches > curlftpfs-0_9-1_fc5:devel:anderson:1168092696 > cvs tag: Pre-tag check failed > cvs [tag aborted]: correct the above errors first! > make: *** [tag] Error 1 > > I know nothing about CVS... but it seems to be saying that the _fc5 tag is > already applied to the devel branch? How could that have happened? (I hadn't > run any previous tag commands). How do I undo it? I tried "cvs tag -d > curlftpfs-0_9-1_fc5" but I got an error saying this wasn't allowed: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] devel]$ cvs tag -d curlftpfs-0_9-1_fc5 > ERROR: Tag removal not allowed for tag curlftpfs-0_9-1_fc5 > cvs tag: Pre-tag check failed > cvs [tag aborted]: correct the above errors first! Was the SRPM you imported using cvs-import.sh built using mock for an FC5 target? That would explain the tag being set as shown above. To fix the problem, increase the package's release number in CVS and try tagging again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210758] Review Request: aspell-fa - Persian dictionaries for Aspell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: aspell-fa - Persian dictionaries for Aspell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210758
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 08:27 EST ---
Just some comments and hints:
* Also run rpmlint on the built rpms:
$ rpmlint ~/tmp/rpm/RPMS/aspell6-fa-0.10-0.i386.rpm
W: aspell6-fa incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.10 0.10-0
E: aspell6-fa no-binary
E: aspell6-fa only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
W: aspell6-fa no-documentation
At least the two "W"arnings are helpful. The "E"errors can be ignored
with this package.
* Why is the package called "aspell6-fa" when all other aspell language
packages are called "aspell-*"?
* The defined %lang macro is not used in "Source0" everywhere.
* Creating a macro for the Aspell "0.60" version is highly recommended.
* Summary says "Farsi" only, description says "Persian" only. For
consistency and better results when searching package summaries,
I would use the name "Farsi" also in the description.
* Licence file COPYING is not included as %doc.
* Don't include the aspell home directory, because it belongs into
the aspell mother package already, and you require that package.
$ rpmls -p aspell6-fa-0.10-0.i386.rpm |grep ^d
drwxr-xr-x /usr/lib/aspell-0.60
Only include the files below that directory with this entry in the
%files section:
%{_libdir}/aspell-0.60/*
* In your spec %changelog, specify the package version as full
version-release, not just its version. Packages usually start with
release 1, not 0.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-01-08 08:25 EST --- Updated spec is available on http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/progs/rpms/vim-vimoutliner.spec, SRPM on http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/progs/rpms/vim-vimoutliner-0.3.4-8.src.rpm, and RPM on http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/progs/rpms/vim-vimoutliner-0.3.4-8.noarch.rpm (small changes related to change of name). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219872] Review Request: curlftpfs - user-space FTP filesystem using libcurl and FUSE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curlftpfs - user-space FTP filesystem using libcurl and FUSE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219872 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 05:08 EST --- WRT comment 12: Quoting the second paragraph of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/CVSSyncNeeded Add CVS administrative requests by editing this wiki page. You must register a wiki account to edit this page, but you do not need to be a member of the EditGroup. So either you are wrong, or policy has changed and this page has not been updated. The EditGroup contains the people which are allowed to change any page in the wiki, but this specific page has (had?) a special ACL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219872] Review Request: curlftpfs - user-space FTP filesystem using libcurl and FUSE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curlftpfs - user-space FTP filesystem using libcurl and FUSE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219872 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 04:56 EST --- As per the instructions at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors#head-e2f7f3048aae892d69bba2b1d1563aed5c63a1ff I cd-ed into the "FC-5" directory and ran "make tag", but I got this error: [EMAIL PROTECTED] FC-5]$ make tag cvs tag -c curlftpfs-0_9-1_fc5 ERROR: The tag curlftpfs-0_9-1_fc5 is already applied on a different branch ERROR: You can not forcibly move tags between branches curlftpfs-0_9-1_fc5:devel:anderson:1168092696 cvs tag: Pre-tag check failed cvs [tag aborted]: correct the above errors first! make: *** [tag] Error 1 I know nothing about CVS... but it seems to be saying that the _fc5 tag is already applied to the devel branch? How could that have happened? (I hadn't run any previous tag commands). How do I undo it? I tried "cvs tag -d curlftpfs-0_9-1_fc5" but I got an error saying this wasn't allowed: [EMAIL PROTECTED] devel]$ cvs tag -d curlftpfs-0_9-1_fc5 ERROR: Tag removal not allowed for tag curlftpfs-0_9-1_fc5 cvs tag: Pre-tag check failed cvs [tag aborted]: correct the above errors 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 168690] Review Request: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup 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: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=168690 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 04:43 EST --- Sorry about that Rahul, my university's network (which my website lies behind) has been inaccessible all weekend and it's still dropping packets. Hopefully it'll get fixed soon. Re: the review - let me know if I do need to open it or a new one. Cheers. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219872] Review Request: curlftpfs - user-space FTP filesystem using libcurl and FUSE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curlftpfs - user-space FTP filesystem using libcurl and FUSE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219872 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-08 04:40 EST --- Manuel - maybe it was in the past, but now it requires you to be in "EditGroup" (which now I am). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
