[Bug 222072] Review Request: libdockapp - DockApp Development Standard Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libdockapp - DockApp Development Standard Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222072 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 04:30 EST --- I removed the unusefull empty fonts.alias file here: http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/libdockapp-0.6.1-2.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 222072] Review Request: libdockapp - DockApp Development Standard Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libdockapp - DockApp Development Standard Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222072 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 04:55 EST --- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPMS. + source files match upstream. ec1219c355516d63b6e2ee1e4cb10c30 libdockapp-0.6.1.tar.bz2 + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. + %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required. + %doc does not affect runtime. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code as well as content(fonts). + no static libraries present. + no .pc file present. + -devel subpackage exists + included %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig + no .la files. + no translations are available + Dose owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + fonts scriptlets used. + file permissions are appropriate. 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 221769] Review Request: libcgi - CGI easy as C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libcgi - CGI easy as C https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221769 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 05:15 EST --- Remove .a files from installation from -devel 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 222072] Review Request: libdockapp - DockApp Development Standard Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libdockapp - DockApp Development Standard Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222072 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 05:16 EST --- imported, owners edited, built in devel, branches requested. Thanks for the 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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 07:39 EST --- I see that Twisted 2.5.0 is out now, and claims to support python 2.5 (the release notes say that previous versions were broken with python 2.5). Given that Rawhide has python 2.5, I think that 2.5.0 should be pushed at least for 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 220891] Review Request: greylistd - Greylisting 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: greylistd - Greylisting daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220891
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 07:57 EST ---
MUST
- rpmlint checks return:
on greylistd-0.8.3.2-7.at.src.rpm
W: greylistd no-url-tag
E: greylistd unknown-key GPG#66534c2b
As explained in comment #2 the warning is due to lack of homepage for the
project, second one can be safey ignored. However I suggest using
ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/g/greylistd/ as URL. Second one can safely
be ignored.
on generated binary:
W: greylistd no-url-tag
E: greylistd non-standard-uid /var/run/greylistd/socket greylistd
E: greylistd non-standard-gid /var/run/greylistd/socket greylistd
E: greylistd non-standard-uid /var/run/greylistd greylistd
E: greylistd non-standard-gid /var/run/greylistd greylistd
E: greylistd non-standard-uid /var/lib/greylistd greylistd
E: greylistd non-standard-gid /var/lib/greylistd greylistd
E: greylistd non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/greylistd 0750
E: greylistd non-standard-uid /var/lib/greylistd/states greylistd
E: greylistd non-standard-gid /var/lib/greylistd/states greylistd
E: greylistd non-readable /var/lib/greylistd/states 0640
E: greylistd non-standard-uid /var/lib/greylistd/triplets greylistd
E: greylistd non-standard-gid /var/lib/greylistd/triplets greylistd
E: greylistd non-readable /var/lib/greylistd/triplets 0640
All these can be ignored since the package creates its own user to run as and
makes some files available just to said user
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license ( GPL ) is OK and matches source (based on examining the man pages)
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream, sha1sum c634919b301f9d34c7609bf8fbf236362fc54295
greylistd_0.8.3.2.tar.gz
- package compiles and builds on FC6 and devel (i386)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- duplicate file: %{_initdir}/greylistd
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
- no static, headers or libtool files
SHOULD
- compiles and builds in mock for FC6/i386; result is noarch (the whole lot
consists of some python scripts) so no reason to not build on other archs
- pre/post are sane
- no sacrifice box to test the scripts on , I can only assume they work as
intended :(
This package is APPROVED but please do not forget to remove the duplicate entry
for %{_initdir}/greylistd before importing. And you should also bug upstream to
include the license in the tar file.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177841 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 08:27 EST --- You should have access now with me as your sponsor. Moving to FE-ACCEPT. Have fun and thanks for packaging for Fedora! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220891] Review Request: greylistd - Greylisting 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: greylistd - Greylisting daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220891 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [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 220891] Review Request: greylistd - Greylisting 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: greylistd - Greylisting daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220891 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 08:56 EST --- Thanks for the review! I contacted upstream on including the license and removed the duplicate: * Wed Jan 10 2007 Axel Thimm [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.8.3.2-8 - Remove double initfile in %%files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222043] Review Request: gnomescan - Gnome Scanner 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: gnomescan - Gnome Scanner Utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222043 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 09:08 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) However, I found that you don't need pkgconfig as BR for main package. Maybe not explicitly (probably some other dependencies pulled it in inside mock for you), if you check the configure log you'll see that it checks for the presence of pkgconfig, so its needed for building. Also, do we really need libtool as BR and all other make LIBTOOL? I removed them and did mock test and it went fine. Did you run rpmlint on the resulting binary? If you did, you will have found out it has some rpath issues caused by using the libtool script bundled with the package. That's the reason for the libtool as BR and all other make LIBTOOL. (See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/RpathCheckBuildsys?highlight=%28rpath%29) As for your other comment on separate package for gimp-plugin, I don't think its necessary just for a single file. Or is there some technical reason(s) for it to be a separate package? Can you check that with testing application?? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221947] 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. Summary: Review Request: gwenhywfar - utility library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221947 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 09:35 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) W: gwenhywfar non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gwen-public-ca.crt It's not really a configuration file, it's a data file. It's a CA certificate bundle, much like /etc/pki/tls/certs/ca-bundle.crt. However, that is also marked %config, so I'll change this. (Ideally it just uses the openssl CA bundle.) E: gwenhywfar-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share. This is a mis-error from rpmlint. It's a architecture-specific include, so it can't be in /usr/include, and needs to be in an architecture specific directory. See glib2, dbus, gcc, qt for other examples of this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 [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 221947] 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. Summary: Review Request: gwenhywfar - utility library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221947 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 10:28 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) (In reply to comment #1) W: gwenhywfar non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gwen-public-ca.crt It's not really a configuration file, it's a data file. It's a CA certificate bundle, much like /etc/pki/tls/certs/ca-bundle.crt. However, that is also marked %config, so I'll change this. Perhaps it should live in /etc/pki/tls/certs too? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction 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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 11:25 EST --- Well, I guess whom ever tried to get the EPSG license changed didn't try very hard. I sent an e-mail to the contact on the website and they responsed right away and explicitly said it was not there intention to limit derived works and would like to change the wording to reflect that. They are asking for suggested wording. I would like to get someone more familar with the legal issues to work with them. Is there a contact (maybe at Red Hat?) that I can forward their response to? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 11:37 EST --- Thanks, I will update the spec file and upload the src package this friday. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top
command
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 11:43 EST ---
Well, let's start again.
Well, for 3.2-7:
* Conditional dependencies:
- Mockbuild log (on FC-devel i386) says:
checking security/pam_appl.h usability... no
checking security/pam_appl.h presence... no
These are included in pam-devel.
***
*
* WARNING: One or more items required for the xmldump plugin are
* missing:
*
* libxml2.so or libxml2.a...yes
* gdome.h...yes
* libgdome.so or libgdome.a...yes
* glib.h...yes
* libglib.so or libglib.a...no
* glibconfig.h...yes
*
* (yes means it was found, no means it was not found)
*
* ntop will run just fine without this plugin.
*
*If you want to use the xmldump plugin,
*
*??? 1. Install the necessary headers and libraries.
*???and rerun ./configure
*
***
libglib.so is included in glib-devel.
* BuildRequires:
redundant package = package which requires it
tcp_wrappers net-snmp-devel
autoconf automake
automake libtool
(However, I don't mind if you want to write automake
explicitly)
pkgconfigglib2-devel
glib2-devel gdome2-devel
* Encoding:
-
/usr/share/doc/ntop-3.2/ChangeLog: ISO-8859 English text
-
- Please change the encoding to UTF-8.
* For SEGV issue Patrice saw:
Oh, I got SEGV, too! However, not completely reproducible,
however, for me this happens at the same point at last.
One example:
--
Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
[Switching to Thread -1273857136 (LWP 20547)]
0x00f58402 in __kernel_vsyscall ()
(gdb) bt
#0 0x00f58402 in __kernel_vsyscall ()
#1 0x00bd8c70 in *__GI_raise (sig=6) at
../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:64
#2 0x00bda4c1 in *__GI_abort () at abort.c:88
#3 0x00c0e29b in __libc_message (do_abort=2,
fmt=0xcd21c4 *** glibc detected *** %s: %s: 0x%s ***\n)
at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/libc_fatal.c:170
#4 0x00c15e29 in _int_free (av=0xcfc120, mem=0x82e67a0) at malloc.c:5774
#5 0x00c19650 in *__GI___libc_free (mem=0x82e67a0) at malloc.c:3552
#6 0x00f726cc in ntop_safefree (ptr=0x81d6154, file=0xfaa9fc util.c,
line=2601) at leaks.c:188
#7 0x00f964b9 in traceEvent (eventTraceLevel=3, file=0xfa73fd ntop.c,
line=136,
format=0xfa7d40 THREADMGMT[t%lu]: NPS(%d,%s): pcapDispatch thread
terminated [p%d])
at util.c:2601
#8 0x00f75a62 in pcapDispatch (_i=0x0) at ntop.c:136
#9 0x00d382db in start_thread (arg=0xb4127b90) at pthread_create.c:296
#10 0x00c7d24e in clone () from /lib/libc.so.6
--
And.. in util.c:
--
2598}
2599
2600if (myGlobals.logView[myGlobals.logViewNext] != NULL)
2601 free(myGlobals.logView[myGlobals.logViewNext]); - PROBLEM
HAPPENED HERE!!
2602
2603myGlobals.logView[myGlobals.logViewNext] = strdup(buf);
2604
2605myGlobals.logViewNext = (myGlobals.logViewNext + 1) %
CONST_LOG_VIEW_BUFFER_SIZE;
2606
2607if(myGlobals.logViewMutex.isInitialized) {
--
It seems that myGlobals.logView is not initialized correctly
by NULL.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction 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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 12:01 EST --- Well, as long as we discussed on bug 178162 , unless * EPSG declares explicitly that they changed their license written on http://www.epsg.org/CurrentDB.html to be free enough to meet Fedora guidelines * and explicitly declare that the new license can be applied to the old database already used we cannot accept libgeotiff (then gdal), as Tom spot Callaway says this is not accepted. Well, would you attach here the content of mail which the EPSG upstream sent to you? Then we may be able to ask Tom to check it 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 221947] 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. Summary: Review Request: gwenhywfar - utility library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221947 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 12:03 EST --- It's not easily modifiable without patching, and if I'm going to do that, I'd rather just patch it to *use* the openssl one. Currently discussing that w/upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221947] 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. Summary: Review Request: gwenhywfar - utility library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221947 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 12:12 EST --- FWIW, curl uses the openssl one rather than the one shipped in the curl tarball... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 214830] Review Request: Limph - PHP network host monitor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Limph - PHP network host monitor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214830 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 12:23 EST --- So I'm sponsored in cvsextras (thank you!), I've got the various certs, CVS and plague set up. However: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cvs]$ cvs co common Permission denied (publickey,keyboard-interactive). cvs [checkout aborted]: end of file from server (consult above messages if any) Any thoughts? I'm using limb as the username in my cvsroot env entry in .bash_profile, and not [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've tried both, however. I'm guessing limb is correct due to syntax (I'm a Subversion user and emarrasingly new to CVS). Has my new permission status just not propagated yet? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221065] Review Request: warzone2100 - Innovative 3D real-time strategy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: warzone2100 - Innovative 3D real-time strategy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221065 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 12:47 EST --- Created an attachment (id=145270) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=145270action=view) Log file for failed build on FC5/x86_64 after modifying BuildRequires I've managed to get access to a x86_64 box running FC5... The build fails *much* earlier for me on this machine, during configure, with the following output: snip checking for SDL - version = 1.1.4... yes checking for presence of SDL_net... Found SDL_net in path checking SDL/SDL_opengl.h usability... no checking SDL/SDL_opengl.h presence... no checking for SDL/SDL_opengl.h... no checking for main in -lGL... yes checking for main in -lGLU... no checking for main in -lglu32... no checking OpenGL... no configure: error: OpenGL is currently mandatory error: Bad exit status from /home/francois/redhat/tmp/rpm-tmp.38734 (%build) --Adding mesa-libGLU-devel to the BuildRequires fixes this. However, the build still fails, but differently than in comment #6. I haven't got round to debugging this, but have attached the build log if anyone else wants to take a look. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215224] Review Request: gtk-murrine-engine - Murrine GTK2 engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtk-murrine-engine - Murrine GTK2 engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 12:52 EST --- (In reply to comment #30) gtk-murrine-engine 0.40.1 RPM for fc6 http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~sl392/fedora/zod/gtk-murrine-engine-0.40.1-1.leof6.i386.rpm Please tell me the place for srpm... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222043] Review Request: gnomescan - Gnome Scanner 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: gnomescan - Gnome Scanner Utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222043 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 12:56 EST --- My argument for maybe packaging libgnomescan separately is that if someone produces another scanning application, and depends on gnomescan-devel we suddenly have two different scanning applications installed, since gnomescan-devel depends on gnomescan. It is probably a minor detail at this, and is all depends on how you expect libgnomescan to be used by other applications. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215224] Review Request: gtk-murrine-engine - Murrine GTK2 engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtk-murrine-engine - Murrine GTK2 engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 13:02 EST --- (In reply to comment #31) (In reply to comment #30) gtk-murrine-engine 0.40.1 RPM for fc6 http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~sl392/fedora/zod/gtk-murrine-engine-0.40.1-1.leof6.i386.rpm Please tell me the place for srpm... http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~sl392/fedora/SRPMs/gtk-murrine-engine-0.40.1-1.leof6.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 221065] Review Request: warzone2100 - Innovative 3D real-time strategy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: warzone2100 - Innovative 3D real-time strategy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221065 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 13:03 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) --Adding mesa-libGLU-devel to the BuildRequires fixes this. However, the build still fails, but differently than in comment #6. I haven't got round to debugging this, but have attached the build log if anyone else wants to take a look. I can not fix it, because author forces flag -m32 and in the same time there are set -m32 and -m64. I can remove it from makefile, but if author think that code is not prepared for x86_64 (yet?), so removing does not make any sense. When I get the access to ppc, I will describe build/work errors on architectures ppc and x86_64 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198836] Review Request: freetype1 compatibility FreeType 1.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: freetype1 compatibility FreeType 1.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198836 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|163779 | OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198836] Review Request: freetype1 compatibility FreeType 1.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: freetype1 compatibility FreeType 1.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198836 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|163779 | OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 172869] Review Request: nss-mdns
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nss-mdns https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=172869 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 13:18 EST --- -- begin dump -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# wget http://www.hadess.net/tmp/nss-mdns/nss-mdns-0.8-2.i386.rpm --23:42:08-- http://www.hadess.net/tmp/nss-mdns/nss-mdns-0.8-2.i386.rpm Resolving www.hadess.net... 216.243.209.211 Connecting to www.hadess.net|216.243.209.211|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 26115 (26K) [application/x-rpm] Saving to: `nss-mdns-0.8-2.i386.rpm' 100%[===] 26,115 13.1K/s in 1.9s 23:42:11 (13.1 KB/s) - `nss-mdns-0.8-2.i386.rpm' saved [26115/26115] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# rpm -ivvv nss-mdns-0.8-2.i386.rpm D: == nss-mdns-0.8-2.i386.rpm D: Expected size:26115 = lead(96)+sigs(180)+pad(4)+data(25835) D: Actual size:26115 D: nss-mdns-0.8-2.i386.rpm: Header SHA1 digest: OK (2af72aea32fdac6af75793ad98824d0e916d8a17) D: added binary package [0] D: found 0 source and 1 binary packages D: opening db environment /var/lib/rpm/Packages joinenv D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Packages rdonly mode=0x0 D: locked db index /var/lib/rpm/Packages D: == +++ nss-mdns-0.8-2 i386/linux 0x1 D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Depends create mode=0x0 D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Basenames rdonly mode=0x0 D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Pubkeys rdonly mode=0x0 D: read h# 35 Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 4f2a6fd2 D: Requires: /bin/sh YES (db files) D: Requires: /bin/sh YES (cached) D: Requires: /bin/sh YES (cached) D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Providename rdonly mode=0x0 D: read h# 18 Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 4f2a6fd2 D: Requires: libc.so.6 YES (db provides) D: read h# 18 Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 4f2a6fd2 D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) YES (db provides) D: read h# 18 Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 4f2a6fd2 D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) YES (db provides) D: read h# 18 Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 4f2a6fd2 D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)YES (db provides) D: read h# 18 Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 4f2a6fd2 D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)YES (db provides) D: read h# 18 Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 4f2a6fd2 D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) YES (db provides) D: read h# 117 Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 4f2a6fd2 D: Requires: perl YES (db provides) D: Requires: rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1YES (rpmlib provides) D: Requires: rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 YES (rpmlib provides) D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Conflictname rdonly mode=0x0 D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Pubkeys D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Depends D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Conflictname D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Providename D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Basenames D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Packages D: closed db environment /var/lib/rpm/Packages D: == recording tsort relations D: == tsorting packages (order, #predecessors, #succesors, tree, depth, breadth) D: 000010 +nss-mdns-0.8-2.i386 D: installing binary packages D: opening db environment /var/lib/rpm/Packages joinenv D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Packages create mode=0x42 D: mounted filesystems: D: idevbsize bavail iavail mount point D: 0 0x0302 4096 4089983 5546087 / D: 1 0x0003 40960 -1 /proc D: 2 0x 40960 -1 /sys D: 3 0x000b 40960 -1 /dev/pts D: 4 0x0301 10248586326071 /boot D: 5 0x0013 40963184531844 /dev/shm D: 6 0x0305 4096 1308736 -1 /media/fatty D: 7 0x0014 40960 -1 /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc D: 8 0x0015 40960 -1 /var/lib/nfs/rpc_pipefs D: sanity checking 1 elements D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Name create mode=0x42 D: running pre-transaction scripts D: computing 9 file fingerprints Preparing packages for installation... D: computing file dispositions D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Basenames create mode=0x42 D: == +++
[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 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 13:58 EST --- - Removed glob from %files - Added NEWS to %doc - Not sure about your comment on BR, so I didnt fix anything in that regard - imported new srpm into cvs - added entry to owners.list - built successfully for devel - added cvs sync request for FC5/6 - THANKS FOR THE 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 222175] New: Review Request: six - Hex playing program
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=222175 Summary: Review Request: six - Hex playing program 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://rafalzaq.nonlogic.org/fedora/six/six.spec SRPM URL: http://rafalzaq.nonlogic.org/fedora/six/six-0.5.3-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: Six is a Hex playing program for Linux/Un*x systems running KDE. It has a strong AI, an easy to use GUI and can import emails from Richard's PBEM server. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222175] Review Request: six - Hex playing program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: six - Hex playing program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222175 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 14:12 EST --- I'll take 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 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 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 14:40 EST --- I have not checked yet 0.6.3-4, however at least almost good. So: - NOTE: Before being sponsored: This package will be accepted with another few work. But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) must sponsor you. Once you are sponsored, you have the right to formally review other submitters' review request and approve the packages. For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) are required to show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines as is descriped on : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored Usually there are two ways to show this. A. submit other review requests with enough quality. B. Do a pre-review (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do a formal review) of other person's review request. When you submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report so that I can check your comments or review request. Fedora Extras package review requests which are waiting for someone to review can be checked on: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/showdependencytree.cgi?id=FE-NEWhide_resolved=1 Review guidelines are described mainly on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222175] Review Request: six - Hex playing program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: six - Hex playing program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222175
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 14:44 EST ---
It looks like there's some missing scriptlets. You ought to read
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets to know most of
them.
Firstly, your package installs icons into %{_datadir}/icons/{hicolor,locolor}.
It means that you have to add following lines to your spec file:
%post
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
%{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
%{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --ignore-theme-index --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/
hicolor || :
%postun
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
%{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
%{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --ignore-theme-index --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/
hicolor || :
Also, there's a MimeType= entry so you need to add:
%post
update-mime-database %{_datadir}/mime /dev/null || :
%postun
update-mime-database %{_datadir}/mime /dev/null || :
And the normal review process:
* sources match upstream (457028e8040f030b8f2cd6a65d04bab9)
* rpmlint is silent
* dist tag present
* build root correct
* license field matches the actual license and is included in %doc
* BuildRequires looks good as package builds in mock (fc6/x86_64)
* provides and requires are sane
* no shared libraries
* not relocatable
* it owns all directories well
Package contains check procedure, so you can create %check section with `make
check` inside it.
Thus, THINGS you need to do are:
- add missing %post and %postun sections
- add %check section
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222175] Review Request: six - Hex playing program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: six - Hex playing program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222175 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 14:53 EST --- Also, I can call ArcadeGame category into question. In my opinion it is rather only a BoardGame. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222191] New: Review Request: eclipse - An open, extensible IDE
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=222191 Summary: Review Request: eclipse - An open, extensible IDE 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 I'd like to get the eclipse spec file reviewed in preparation for the core and extras merge. I won't be able to commit this to the extras repository because java-gcj-compat uses the eclipse-ecj sub-package but I would still like to go through the process. Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/bkonrath/eclipse/eclipse.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/bkonrath/eclipse/eclipse-3.2.1-28.fc7.src.rpm Note that this spec file is already in Fedora cvs and I will be committing changes as I go through this review process. Description: The Eclipse Platform is designed for building integrated development environments (IDEs) that can be used to create applications as diverse as web sites, embedded Java(tm) programs, C++ programs, and Enterprise JavaBeans(tm). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222191] Review Request: eclipse - An open, extensible 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: eclipse - An open, extensible IDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222191 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 15:17 EST --- I wonder if it would be a conflict of interest if I took this one? Probably not. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222191] Review Request: eclipse - An open, extensible 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: eclipse - An open, extensible IDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222191 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 15:19 EST --- only if you dont give it a fair 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 222191] Review Request: eclipse - An open, extensible 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: eclipse - An open, extensible IDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222191 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 15:20 EST --- I'll give it a fair review. So I guess I can take this one. I'm intimately familiar with the spec so it'll probably be easier for 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 172869] Review Request: nss-mdns
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nss-mdns https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=172869 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 15:20 EST --- Could you please attach your nsswitch.conf? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221027] Review Request: LabPlot - Data Analysis and Visualization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: LabPlot - Data Analysis and Visualization https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221027 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 15:37 EST --- Build fails for me in mock with: RPM build errors: File not found by glob: /var/tmp/LabPlot-1.5.1.5-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib/libLabPlotnetCDF.so.3* File not found by glob: /var/tmp/LabPlot-1.5.1.5-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib/libLabPlotqwtplot3d.so.0* File not found: /var/tmp/LabPlot-1.5.1.5-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib/libLabPlotnetCDF.so File not found: /var/tmp/LabPlot-1.5.1.5-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib/libLabPlotqwtplot3d.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 219869] Review Request: perl-Mozilla-LDAP
Please 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-Mozilla-LDAP Alias: perldap https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219869 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 16:00 EST --- Thanks Dennis. Here are the new files: SPEC URL: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/directory/perldap/releases/1.5/src/perl-Mozilla-LDAP.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/directory/perldap/releases/1.5/src/perl-Mozilla-LDAP-1.5-7.src.rpm Sources: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/directory/perldap/releases/1.5/src/perl-mozldap-1.5.tar.gz ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/directory/perldap/releases/1.5/src/Makefile.PL.rpm I made a separate Makefile.PL.rpm so as not to conflict with the other Makefile.PL -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221769] Review Request: libcgi - CGI easy as C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libcgi - CGI easy as C https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221769 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 16:05 EST --- I would like to ship the static library as I need to test to cgi apps for embedded systems using this library. Would it be ok if I create a -static subpackage that would require the devel subpackage? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219972] Review Request: poker-network - A poker server, client and abstract user interface 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: poker-network - A poker server, client and abstract user interface library Alias: poker-network https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219972 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 16:12 EST --- Spec URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/poker-network.spec SRPM URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/poker-network-1.0.32-7.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Jan 10 2007 Christohper Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.0.32-7 - Keep permssions 600 for poker.server.xml file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 16:37 EST --- libtool pulls in automake which in turn pulls in autoconf. Therefore it is enough to BR libtool -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222175] Review Request: six - Hex playing program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: six - Hex playing program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222175
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 16:55 EST ---
Also, there's a MimeType= entry so you need to add:
%post
update-mime-database %{_datadir}/mime /dev/null || :
No. update-desktop-database must be run.
update-mime-database, on the contrary, is only for the new
XML MIME type definition files.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222175] Review Request: six - Hex playing program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: six - Hex playing program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222175 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 17:03 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) No. update-desktop-database must be run. Right. I have accidentally pasted a wrong script there... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222220] New: Review Request: polyester - KDE style and window decoration
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=20 Summary: Review Request: polyester - KDE style and window decoration Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.deadbabylon.de/fedora/extras/polyester/polyester.spec SRPM URL: http://www.deadbabylon.de/fedora/extras/polyester/polyester-1.0-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: Widget style + kwin decoration both aimed to be a good balance between eyecandy and simplicity. Some notes: *.la-files cannot be removed without making this package unusuable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219869] Review Request: perl-Mozilla-LDAP
Please 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-Mozilla-LDAP Alias: perldap https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219869 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 17:31 EST --- Created an attachment (id=145292) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=145292action=view) updated spec file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219869] Review Request: perl-Mozilla-LDAP
Please 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-Mozilla-LDAP
Alias: perldap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219869
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 17:32 EST ---
Two small issues
include MPL-1.1.txt RELEASE in %doc and change the license field to MPL as
thats what it seems to be licensed under.
package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
dist tag is present.
build root is correct.
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
license is open source-compatible. MPL License text included in package.
source files match upstream:
136f74d7649ada77cdf7657bb01a165f perl-mozldap-1.5.tar.gz
136f74d7649ada77cdf7657bb01a165f ../SOURCES/perl-mozldap-1.5.tar.gz
latest version is being packaged.
BuildRequires are proper.
package builds in mock ( on FC-6 ).
rpmlint is silent.
final provides and requires are sane:
no shared libraries are present.
package is not relocatable.
owns the directories it creates.
doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
no duplicates in %files.
file permissions are appropriate.
%clean is present.
no scriptlets present.
code, not content.
documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
%docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
no headers.
no pkgconfig files.
no libtool .la droppings.
not a GUI app.
not a web app.
APPROVED using the attached spec file which fixes the issues
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for
UPnP and DHT
Alias: deluge
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 17:42 EST ---
i believe that you should avoid the 'find' command, just you should use
'install' command for change file access permissions in 'copy-time' with the
parameters '-p -m755' on all *.py in %{python_sitelib}/%{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 219972] Review Request: poker-network - A poker server, client and abstract user interface 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: poker-network - A poker server, client and abstract
user interface library
Alias: poker-network
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219972
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 18:33 EST ---
Spec URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/poker-network.spec
SRPM URL:
http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/poker-network-1.0.32-8.src.rpm
%changelog
* Wed Jan 10 2007 Christopher Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.0.32-8
- Move poker-interface to %%{_libexecdir}
- Package poker-interface with poker-client-lib
- Remove no longer needed shared lib patch
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222220] Review Request: polyester - KDE style and window decoration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: polyester - KDE style and window decoration https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 18:43 EST --- Ok, I'll do the 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 219869] Review Request: perl-Mozilla-LDAP
Please 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-Mozilla-LDAP Alias: perldap https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219869 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 18:57 EST --- Thanks Dennis. Here are the final versions for inclusion into Fedora: SPEC URL: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/directory/perldap/releases/1.5/src/perl-Mozilla-LDAP.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/directory/perldap/releases/1.5/src/perl-Mozilla-LDAP-1.5-8.src.rpm Sources: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/directory/perldap/releases/1.5/src/perl-mozldap-1.5.tar.gz ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/directory/perldap/releases/1.5/src/Makefile.PL.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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 20:09 EST --- okay, I'll fix this in the -3 release. Seems also I did not have the latest debian patch applied, I will also update this in the -3 release. Thanks again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221769] Review Request: libcgi - CGI easy as C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libcgi - CGI easy as C https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221769 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 21:22 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) I would like to ship the static library as I need to test to cgi apps for embedded systems using this library. Are you running Fedora on this embedded system? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 22:22 EST --- Haha. I completely forgot about the install command for a moment. T_T I've updated the spec with your suggestion, Wilmer (which made it quite a bit cleaner, actually ^_^). SPEC: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/deluge.spec SRPM: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/deluge-0.4.1-3.src.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 221769] Review Request: libcgi - CGI easy as C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libcgi - CGI easy as C https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221769 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 23:19 EST --- I think according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/StaticLinkage (Though its not a Final Draft), this document you need to get FESCO Approval to include .a files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222257] New: Review Request: pastebin - A collaborative debugging 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=57 Summary: Review Request: pastebin - A collaborative debugging tool Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.stahnkage.com/rpms/pastebin.spec SRPM URL: http://www.stahnkage.com/rpms/pastebin-0.50-1.src.rpm Description: pastebin is here to help you collaborate on debugging code snippets. If you're not familiar with the idea, most people use it to submit a code fragment to pastebin, getting a url like http://pastebin.com/1234 and then link that URL in IRC or IM conversations. This allows others to see your code and optionally post 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 222257] Review Request: pastebin - A collaborative debugging 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: pastebin - A collaborative debugging tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-11 01:21 EST ---
package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
dist tag is present.
build root is correct.
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
license field matches the actual license.
license is open source-compatible. GPL License text included in package.
source files match upstream:
d7b8993f4baed7753fb7c912b06725fb pastebin.tar.gz
d7b8993f4baed7753fb7c912b06725fb ../SOURCES/pastebin.tar.gz
latest version is being packaged.
BuildRequires are proper.
package builds in mock ( FC-6 ).
rpmlint is silent.
final provides and requires are sane
no shared libraries are present.
package is not relocatable.
doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
file permissions are appropriate.
%clean is present.
no scriptlets present.
code, not content.
documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
%docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
no headers.
no pkgconfig files.
no libtool .la droppings.
not a GUI app.
Needs fixing
does not own %{_datadir}/%{name}
%{_sysconfdir}/%{name} listed twice
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-11 02:02 EST --- Not building in mock on FC6 x86_64: gcc -shared -O -o /builddir/build/BUILD/ogdi-3.1.5/bin/Linux/libogdi31.so ecs_ dyna.o ecsregex.o ecssplit.o ecsassoc.o ecshash.o ecstile.o server.o ecsdist.o e cslist.o ecsinfo.o ecsgeo.o ecs_xdr.o ecs_xdrz.o gmath.o client.o ecs_capabiliti es.o -ldl -lz -lexpat -lproj -lm /usr/bin/ld: ecs_dyna.o: relocation R_X86_64_32 against `a local symbol' can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC ecs_dyna.o: could not read symbols: Bad value collect2: ld returned 1 exit status Don't use Packager field. You may put your contact information in your %changelog entries. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines for reference. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222043] Review Request: gnomescan - Gnome Scanner 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: gnomescan - Gnome Scanner Utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222043 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-11 02:25 EST --- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPMS. + source files match upstream. 7c481bb5ce112ebf5889bc4cd63f5836 gnomescan-0.4.0.2.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. + %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required. + %doc does not affect runtime. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code Not contents. + no static libraries present. + no gnomescan.pc and gnomescanui.pc files present. + -devel subpackage exists + included %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig + no .la files. + translations are available + Dose owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + no scriptlets used. + Desktop files are handled correctly in spec. + file permissions are appropriate. + gui app. 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 172869] Review Request: nss-mdns
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nss-mdns https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=172869 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-11 02:28 EST --- -- begin dump -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# cat /etc/nsswitch.conf # # /etc/nsswitch.conf # # An example Name Service Switch config file. This file should be # sorted with the most-used services at the beginning. # # The entry '[NOTFOUND=return]' means that the search for an # entry should stop if the search in the previous entry turned # up nothing. Note that if the search failed due to some other reason # (like no NIS server responding) then the search continues with the # next entry. # # Legal entries are: # # nisplus or nis+ Use NIS+ (NIS version 3) # nis or yp Use NIS (NIS version 2), also called YP # dns Use DNS (Domain Name Service) # files Use the local files # db Use the local database (.db) files # compat Use NIS on compat mode # hesiod Use Hesiod for user lookups # [NOTFOUND=return] Stop searching if not found so far # # To use db, put the db in front of files for entries you want to be # looked up first in the databases # # Example: #passwd:db files nisplus nis #shadow:db files nisplus nis #group: db files nisplus nis passwd: files shadow: files group: files #hosts: db files nisplus nis dns hosts: files dns # Example - obey only what nisplus tells us... #services: nisplus [NOTFOUND=return] files #networks: nisplus [NOTFOUND=return] files #protocols: nisplus [NOTFOUND=return] files #rpc:nisplus [NOTFOUND=return] files #ethers: nisplus [NOTFOUND=return] files #netmasks: nisplus [NOTFOUND=return] files bootparams: nisplus [NOTFOUND=return] files ethers: files netmasks: files networks: files protocols: files rpc:files services: files netgroup: files publickey: nisplus automount: files aliases:files nisplus -- end dump -- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
