[Bug 225668] Merge Review: cscope
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: cscope
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225668
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 04:00 EST ---
There should also not be a dot before the %{?dist}, since %{?dist} includes one
already. The result of the extra dot is that this package just hit Rawhide:
cscope-15.5-15.2..fc7.i386.rpm
Note the double dot in the release 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 226892] Review Request: kpowersave - kde power control applet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kpowersave - kde power control applet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226892 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 04:08 EST --- Thanks for the clarification. Review for release 2.fc6: * RPM name is OK * Source kpowersave-0.7.1.tar.bz2 is the same as upstream * This is the latest version * rpmlint looks OK * File list looks OK * Builds fine in mock * Works fine (36 automatic checks have been run by fedora-qa) 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 222523] Review Request:gmrun - A lightweight Run program window with TAB completion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request:gmrun - A lightweight Run program window with TAB completion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222523 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 04:23 EST --- Fixed. * Sun Feb 04 2007 gilboad AT gmail DOT com - 0.9.2-6 - Fixed summery. - Remove redundant fileattr. Spec URL: http://gilboadavara.thecodergeek.com/gmrun.spec SRPM URL: http://gilboadavara.thecodergeek.com/gmrun-0.9.2-6.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 222521] Review Request: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222521 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 04:23 EST --- I'm a KISS kind of guy. If it's all the same to you, I rather keep the startup file as a patch/source. * Sun Feb 04 2007 gilboad AT gmail DOT com - 1.2.30-11 - Remove .Xdefaults fix from startup. (reported upstream). - Replace buildroot with RPM_BUILD_ROOT. Spec URL: http://gilboadavara.thecodergeek.com/icewm.spec SRPM URL: http://gilboadavara.thecodergeek.com/icewm-1.2.30-11.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 222742] Review Request: fuse-smb - FUSE-Filesystem to fast and easy access remote resources via SMB
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fuse-smb - FUSE-Filesystem to fast and easy access remote resources via SMB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222742 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 04:35 EST --- It took some time to get additional branches, but fuse-smb is now available in FC-5, FC-6 and a rawhide. Thanks for your help. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 167147] Review Request: aqsis - 3D Rendering system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 04:42 EST --- Sorry, for the delay, but I'm in the middle of my exams. I will soon post new spec and SRPM for our release candidate or release. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 05:11 EST --- Yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225984] Merge Review: lftp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: lftp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225984
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 05:11 EST ---
Ah, you're right, my mistake.
That leaves us with:
* RPM name is OK
* Source lftp-3.5.9.tar.bz2 is the same as upstream
* This is the latest version
* Builds fine in mock
* File list looks OK
Needs work:
* BuildRoot should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot)
* Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake)
* Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros
(wiki: QAChecklist item 7)
* BuildRequires: gettext is missing (required to build the translations)
* The %makeinstall macro should not be used
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#MakeInstall)
* Preserve timestamps when installing files
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#Timestamps
Minor:
* Duplicate BuildRequires: autoconf (by automake), automake (by libtool)
Rpmlint output:
Source RPM:
W: lftp mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 11, tab: line 1)
rpmlint of lftp:
W: lftp incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.5.9 3.5.9-1.fc6
E: lftp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/lftp/3.5.9/proto-ftp.so
['/usr/lib/lftp/3.5.9', '/usr/lib']
E: lftp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/lftp/3.5.9/proto-fish.so
['/usr/lib/lftp/3.5.9', '/usr/lib']
E: lftp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/lftp/3.5.9/proto-http.so
['/usr/lib/lftp/3.5.9', '/usr/lib']
E: lftp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/lftp/3.5.9/liblftp-network.so
['/usr/lib']
E: lftp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/lftp/3.5.9/proto-sftp.so
['/usr/lib/lftp/3.5.9', '/usr/lib']
W: lftp conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/lftp.conf
W: lftp devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/liblftp-jobs.so
W: lftp devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/liblftp-tasks.so
E: lftp library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/liblftp-jobs.so.0.0.0
E: lftp library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/liblftp-jobs.so.0.0.0
E: lftp library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/liblftp-tasks.so.0.0.0
E: lftp library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/liblftp-tasks.so.0.0.0
--
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 225777] Merge Review: gawk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 05:31 EST --- Created an attachment (id=147296) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147296action=view) new spec file with all issues fixed Hopefully all issues are fixed, only an entry in the changelog is 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 225280] Merge Review: aspell-pl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: aspell-pl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225280 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 05:42 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) I'll be able to include your compression fix and roll a spec without the other srcball change issue. Yeah, but in this case that compression fix can by applied thanks to a new 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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 06:08 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) Updated: Spec URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/LabPlot/LabPlot.spec SRPM URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/LabPlot/LabPlot-1.5.1.4-3.src.rpm SRPM should be: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/LabPlot/LabPlot-1.5.1.5-3.src.rpm Perhaps just a typo. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 06:23 EST --- (In reply to comment #18) (In reply to comment #11) Updated: Spec URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/LabPlot/LabPlot.spec SRPM URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/LabPlot/LabPlot-1.5.1.4-3.src.rpm SRPM should be: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/LabPlot/LabPlot-1.5.1.5-3.src.rpm Perhaps just a typo. Yes it should , sorry however : this is wrong: --remove-category=KDE\ --remove-category=Qt \ --remove-category=Physics\ --remove-category=Education \ --remove-category=Math \ I'll fix 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 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: chkconfig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 06:27 EST ---
Hi Bill,
I just tried a mock build from the spec at
http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/, and it failed.
+ make DESTDIR=/var/tmp/chkconfig-1.3.32-1-root-mockbuild MANDIR=/usr/share/man
install
[ -d //sbin ] || mkdir -p //sbin
[ -d //usr/sbin ] || mkdir -p //usr/sbin
[ -d //usr/share/man ] || mkdir -p //usr/share/man
[ -d //usr/share/man/man8 ] || mkdir -p //usr/share/man/man8
[ -d //usr/share/man/man5 ] || mkdir -p //usr/share/man/man5
[ -d //var/lib/alternatives ] || mkdir -p -m 755 //var/lib/alternatives
[ -d //etc/alternatives ] || mkdir -p -m 755 //etc/alternatives
install -m 755 chkconfig //sbin/chkconfig
install: cannot remove `//sbin/chkconfig': Permission denied
make: *** [install] Error 1
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.20880 (%install)
So we can either stick with instroot, or replace instroot with DESTDIR in the
Makefile.
One issue is that DESTDIR is not passed through to the Makefile in the po
subdirectory.
Please let me know what you think.
Ok, in reply to comment #2:
/etc, /usr/sbin are compiled in. Having it as a macro can't really help.
They're defined as variables in the makefile.
You could use make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILDROOT ALTDIR=%{_sysconfdir}/alternatives
etc.. but I'm not
sure it's worth the effort. Unless we're planning on moving /etc to another
directory in FC-8 ;-)
It's not really ever rebased between releases.
Ok
No URL to have.
Ok, the URL can be added after the merge, when the tarball is available from
the Fedora repo.
Thanks,
Ruben
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225984] Merge Review: lftp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: lftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225984 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 06:32 EST --- Instead of Requires: perl-String-CRC32 prefer: Requires: perl(String::CRC32) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226669] Merge Review: zip
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: zip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226669 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 226557] Merge Review: xfig
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226557 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 06:35 EST --- There should be another alternative for using a pdf viewer. If I use KDE, having evince pull out as a pdf viewer would mean that i have to install another pdf viewer even kpdf is install by default. The spec needs work to be compatible with the usual FE guidelines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226669] Merge Review: zip
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: zip
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226669
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 06:38 EST ---
Review for release 1.2.2:
* RPM name is OK
* Source zip231.tar.gz is the same as upstream
* Source zcrypt29.tar.gz is the same as upstream
* Builds fine in mock
* File list looks OK
Needs work:
* BuildRoot should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot)
* Encoding should be UTF-8
* Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake)
* Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros
(wiki: QAChecklist item 7)
Minor:
* The latest version is 2.32
Notes:
* Please use {?dist} in the Release tag. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag for more info
Rpmlint is not silent:
Source RPM:
W: zip summary-ended-with-dot A file compression and packaging utility
compatible with PKZIP.
E: zip tag-not-utf8 %changelog
W: zip invalid-license distributable
E: zip non-utf8-spec-file zip.spec
W: zip mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 51, tab: line 47)
rpmlint of zip:
W: zip summary-ended-with-dot A file compression and packaging utility
compatible with PKZIP.
E: zip tag-not-utf8 %changelog
W: zip invalid-license distributable
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226185] Merge Review: ncompress
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: ncompress
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226185
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 06:41 EST ---
* /usr/bin = %{_bindir}
* install -p ... to preserve time-stamps of any files which are
not rebuild
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226187] Merge Review: nc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: nc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226187 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 06:45 EST --- The source comes from OpenBSD cvs. No tarball available. I will look at these hopefully next week or the week after. Patches are welcome. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226539] Merge Review: which
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: which https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226539 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 06:48 EST --- Created an attachment (id=147298) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147298action=view) failed build log failed build log -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 06:49 EST --- the supplied liborigin from LabPlot is no more built, but however it calls for liborigin.la. liborigin.la isn't supplied by the liborigin that recently got approved. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223598 make[2]: *** No rule to make target `../liborigin/liborigin.la', needed by `LabPlot'. Stop. make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/BUILD/LabPlot-1.5.1.5/src' -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 BugsThisDependsOn|223598 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 223598] Review Request: liborigin - Library for reading OriginLab OPJ project files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: liborigin - Library for reading OriginLab OPJ project files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223598 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|221027 | 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 226539] Merge Review: which
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: which
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226539
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 06:53 EST ---
Review for release 8:
* RPM name is OK
* Source which-2.16.tar.gz is the same as upstream
* This is the latest version
* Builds fine in mock
* File list looks OK
Needs work:
* BuildRoot should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot)
* Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake)
* The %makeinstall macro should not be used
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#MakeInstall)
* The package should contain the text of the license
(wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines)
COPYING is included in the source, please add it to %doc
* Please change hardcoded paths with macro's
* Preserve timestamps when installing files
* Please consider using {?dist} in the Release Tag
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag)
Rpmlint is not silent:
Source RPM:
W: which summary-ended-with-dot Displays where a particular program in your
path is located.
W: which strange-permission which-2.sh 0775
W: which redundant-prefix-tag
W: which prereq-use /sbin/install-info
W: which prereq-use dev
Use Requires(post) and Requires(preun). What's the prereq dev for?
rpmlint of which:
W: which summary-ended-with-dot Displays where a particular program in your
path is located.
W: which conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/profile.d/which-2.sh
E: which executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/profile.d/which-2.sh
E: which executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/which-2.sh 0755
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola
P2k phones
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
Flag||fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 07:03 EST ---
MUSTFIX:
Missing SMP flags: if there is a known problem, a comment should be added in the
spec file (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake)
You should not use the Packager tag (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#tags)
Does not build in mock (missing qmake), you should add a Buildrequire for
qt-devel.
Minor:
BuildRoot does not follow the guidelines (should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki:
PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227228] Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227228
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 07:09 EST ---
Easy Fix:
chitlesh(SPECS)[1]$rpmlint
/home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/SRPMS/gshutdown-0.2-1.rc1.src.rpm
W: gshutdown mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 2)
You should add timestamps to your make install:
%{__make} DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL=%{__install} -p install
version labeling:
Version:0.2
Release:1.rc1%{?dist}
you should pretty much do:
Version:0.2rc1
Release:1%{?dist}
You can dropped explicit BR:
BuildRequires: gtk2-devel, libglade2-devel
Since
chitlesh(devel)[0]$rpm -qR libglade2-devel
/usr/bin/python
gtk2-devel = 2.5.0
libglade-2.0.so.0
[...]
libglade2-devel already requires gtk2-devel
You can dropped this as well
--add-category X-Fedora \
The file NEWS is useless, you also dropped it as its contents refers to
ChangeLog
Also there is no use of writing explicit requires such:
Requires: libglade = 0.17, libnotify = 0.4.2
yum will search for them automatically. :)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225678] Merge Review: dcraw
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: dcraw https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225678 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 07:13 EST --- OK source files match upstream: 63f7859e44f914e703ccc7b9e4f9fdd8809add1850365f6186aa6df6deabc2c0 dcraw-8.53.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK build root is correct. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (i386). OK package installs properly OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK final provides and requires are sane OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. MUST FIX: BAD rpmlint is NOT silent. W: dcraw summary-ended-with-dot A tool for decoding raw image data from digital cameras. BAD %find_lang macro is not used for the locale files both are rather minors and a patch for the spec file is attached -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225754] Merge Review: finger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: finger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225754 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 07:14 EST --- All of the above except of URL which is unknown should be fixed in finger-0.17-34. Also I've realized that dist tag was missing in the spec. Would be great to check for that as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225678] Merge Review: dcraw
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: dcraw https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225678 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 07:15 EST --- Created an attachment (id=147299) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147299action=view) fix the discussed issues in the 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 226538] Merge Review: wget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: wget https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226538 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 225678] Merge Review: dcraw
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: dcraw https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225678 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-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 226538] Merge Review: wget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: wget
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226538
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 07:19 EST ---
Hi Karsten,
Review for release 12:
* RPM name is OK
* Source wget-1.10.2.tar.gz is the same as upstream
* Source wget-1.11-de.po is the same as upstream
* This is the latest version
* Builds fine in mock
* File list looks OK
* Config files of wget looks OK
Needs work:
* BuildRoot should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot)
* BuildRequires: perl should not be included
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#Exceptions)
* Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake)
* The %makeinstall macro should not be used
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#MakeInstall)
* The package should contain the text of the license
(wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines)
COPYING is included in the source, just add it to %doc
Notes:
* Use Requires(post) and Requires(preun) instead of Prereq
* Honour %{optflags} when building
* Preserve timestamps when installing
Rpmlint is not silent:
Source RPM:
W: wget summary-ended-with-dot A utility for retrieving files using the HTTP or
FTP protocols.
W: wget unversioned-explicit-provides webclient
W: wget prereq-use /sbin/install-info
W: wget macro-in-%changelog xx
W: wget mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 65, tab: line 48)
rpmlint of wget:
W: wget summary-ended-with-dot A utility for retrieving files using the HTTP or
FTP protocols.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227228] Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227228 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 07:20 EST --- And also see whether the following has some negative influence on its usuability or not: chitlesh(SPECS)[1]$gshutdown (gshutdown:27870): Gtk-CRITICAL **: gtk_tree_row_reference_new: assertion `GTK_IS_TREE_MODEL (model)' failed (gshutdown:27870): Gtk-CRITICAL **: gtk_cell_view_set_displayed_row: assertion `GTK_IS_TREE_MODEL (cell_view-priv-model)' failed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227228] Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227228
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 07:25 EST ---
you should pretty much do:
Version: 0.2rc1
Release:1%{?dist}
Certainly not. But:
Version: 0.2
Release: 0.1.rc1%{?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 225981] Merge Review: lcms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: lcms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225981 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 07:27 EST --- should be quick as it is coming from Extras originally :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227228] Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227228 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 07:27 EST --- Requires: libglade = 0.17, libnotify = 0.4.2 Make sure these are not caught by rpmbuild automatically. Query the binary rpms and look out for the dependencies on the library sonames. Avoid dependencies on package names wherever possible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227228] Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227228
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 07:31 EST ---
you should make use of GTK+ icon cache
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=showredirect=ScriptletSnippets#head-7103f6c38d1b5735e8477bdd569ad73ea2c49bda
%post
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
%{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
%postun
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
%{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225746] Merge Review: fedora-release
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: fedora-release https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225746 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 07:41 EST --- Is fedora-release-notes really required by this package? http://martin.hates-software.com/2007/02/03/fb463e68.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225717] Merge Review: ed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: ed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225717
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 07:42 EST ---
Missing rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at beginning of %install section.
install doc/ed.1 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1
Here, you could use install -p -m0644 to preserve time-stamps and
set the file access permissions, and then spare yourself the separate
%attr(0644,root,root) in the %files 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 225754] Merge Review: finger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: finger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225754 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 07:45 EST --- Ah, great. Do you have a url for the new version? It's not avaliable on cvs.fedora.redhat.com 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 227228] Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227228 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 07:46 EST --- Mock has failed, you have a missing BuildRequires desktop-file-install the next time you submit a package, try to mock the package :) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/MockTricks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227228] Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227228 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 07:47 EST --- typo: it's desktop-file-utils and not desktop-file-install -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226516] Merge Review: unzip
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: unzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226516 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 07:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) /etc, /usr/sbin are compiled in. Having it as a macro can't really help. This shouldn't be so. Can't that be corrected? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225038] Review Request: medit - Another very nice Gtk+ text 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: medit - Another very nice Gtk+ text editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225038 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 07:50 EST --- contents of /usr/share/mime/ and subdirs are highly questionable and need a very close look Please do investigate as why your package includes files which belong elsewhere or are generated at run-time: -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/mime/XMLnamespaces -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/mime/aliases -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/mime/globs -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/mime/magic -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/mime/subclasses Also on your system, these files do exist already. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226516] Merge Review: unzip
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: unzip
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226516
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 07:54 EST ---
Review for release 2.2.1:
* RPM name is OK
* Source unzip552.tar.gz is the same as upstream
* This is the latest version
* Builds fine in mock
* File list looks OK
Needs work:
* BuildRoot should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot)
* Encoding should be UTF-8
* Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake)
* Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros
(wiki: QAChecklist item 7)
* Preserve timestamps with cp -p when installing files
Notes:
* Please consider using {?dist} (fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag)
I got a warning during building, is this expected?
ln: creating hard link `./Makefile' to `unix/Makefile': File exists
Rpmlint is not silent:
Source RPM:
W: unzip summary-ended-with-dot A utility for unpacking zip files.
E: unzip tag-not-utf8 %changelog
E: unzip non-utf8-spec-file unzip.spec
rpmlint of unzip:
W: unzip summary-ended-with-dot A utility for unpacking zip files.
E: unzip tag-not-utf8 %changelog
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226514] Merge Review: unix2dos
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: unix2dos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226514 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 08:06 EST --- No need to mention in the Changelog who suggested what, especially when dealing with errors :) I'll review that. Note that I cannot actually test the program because I do not have a compatible phone. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226514] Merge Review: unix2dos
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: unix2dos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226514
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 08:06 EST ---
Review for release 26.2.2:
* RPM name is OK
* Builds fine in mock
* File list looks OK
Needs work:
* BuildRoot should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot)
* BuildRequires: perl should not be included
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#Exceptions)
* Preserve timestamps when installing files
* Consider using {?dist} in the Release tag
Notes:
* -Wall is already in RPM_OPT_FLAGS
Rpmlint is not silent:
Source RPM:
W: unix2dos summary-not-capitalized unix2dos - UNIX to DOS text file format
converter
Don't use the name in the Summary
W: unix2dos invalid-license distributable
W: unix2dos no-url-tag
W: unix2dos macro-in-%changelog description
W: unix2dos macro-in-%changelog build
W: unix2dos macro-in-%changelog description
rpmlint of unix2dos-2.2-26:
W: unix2dos summary-not-capitalized unix2dos - UNIX to DOS text file format
converter
W: unix2dos invalid-license distributable
W: unix2dos no-url-tag
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-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 225754] Merge Review: finger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: finger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225754 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 08:15 EST --- It's in rawhide, built right now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225981] Merge Review: lcms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: lcms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225981 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 08:19 EST --- OK source files match upstream: 930ef7de15eb028c1cdbfe3f1170aaa1d5b0b4d45a8fa496d944216e155122c2 lcms-1.15.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK build root is correct. OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (i386). OK package installs properly OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK final provides and requires are sane: OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths, ldconfig is run. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK scriptlets are present and they are sane. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK headers in devel subpackage. OK pkgconfig filesin devel subpackage. OK no libtool .la are packaged. OK not a GUI app. MUST FIX: BAD license field does NOT match the actual license. The License tag contains LGPL, but the license in the COPYING file and in the source files headers is different. The Web say it is MIT license. SHOULD FIX: BAD rpmlint is NOT silent. I: lcms checking E: lcms zero-length /usr/share/doc/lcms-1.15/ChangeLog the ChangeLog could be omited I: python-lcms checking W: python-lcms summary-ended-with-dot Python interface to LittleCMS. Also a newer version 1.16 was already released. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225609] Merge Review: bash
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: bash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225609 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 08:20 EST --- In reply to comment #3: From the comments in the spec, the reason for those is that install-info, which is in the 'info' package, requires bash. So, how can it install info before it installs bash? You run into a looping dependency and it doesnt work. I'd love to hear a more clever way to get around it, but the scriptlets in the spec seemed the solution to me. Do you see any better way? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225981] Merge Review: lcms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: lcms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225981 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 08:23 EST --- Created an attachment (id=147300) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147300action=view) patch to fix the discussed 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 227230] Review Request: emacs-bbdb - contact management utility for Emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: emacs-bbdb - contact management utility for Emacs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227230 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 08:24 EST --- Just noticed a missing Requires: tetex. Will add and update soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225742] Merge Review: expat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: expat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225742 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 08:28 EST --- Thanks for the review. Fixed in -10: - Summary trailing dot removed - switch to preferred BuildRoot Won't fix: - %makeinstall is necessary for this non-DESTDIR-aware Makefile - dist tag use is not mandatory - explicit BuildRequires is a good thing - rpm automatically adds correct Requires for scriptlet interpreters - yes, static libraries are necessary for the static build of 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 225754] Merge Review: finger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: finger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225754 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 08:47 EST --- Perfect, I don't see any blockers. But please consider preserving timestamps with install -p or cp -p when installing files in the next version. This package is 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 226571] Merge Review: xorg-x11-apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xorg-x11-apps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226571 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 08:53 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) Believe me, you do _not_ want to install desktop files for xeyes and friends. I have complained about that wording in the packaging guidelines before. /me fully agrees that shipping desktop files for that stuff would be really stupid -- I probably should have been more clear and should just have quoted the second sentence from the guidelines that is : If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225244] Merge Review: amtu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: amtu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225244
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 09:03 EST ---
1. Where is the upstream for this version?
IBM has it.
2. our pal rpmlint says:
Should add URL tag, perhaps:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=130497
I don't know where IBM distributes it from. I work directly with them on CC
evals and the tarball is emailed to me.
Setup should have -q on it?
I suppose it could. Doesn't hurt anything either way.
Why aren't you using %configure?
In my experience, some packages will not build with %configure. We might be able
to change it.
W: amtu macro-in-%changelog clean
will change
W: amtu macro-in-%changelog files
will change
E: amtu non-readable /usr/bin/amtu 0750
E: amtu non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/amtu 0750
Why is this 750?
Because it needs to be. It requires privileges to run. If it were available to
accounts that could run it and fail, the audit requirements are higher.
W: amtu wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/amtu-1.0.4/AMTUHowTo.txt
This should be fixed to not have doc line endings...
Attach a patch please.
3. Why the compiler setting stuff in build?
Because it requires special handling between the arches and to follow the
guidelines issued internally to Red Hat. If you have redhat-rpm-config
installed, there are build flags that get picked up this way.
Also, can you use %{smp_mflags} ?
why?
4. Is the Requires: audit = 1.1.2 required? Looks like rpm picks up the
libaudit requirement...
Yes, but there are different versions of audit and that one has the api that we
want.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225742] Merge Review: expat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: expat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225742
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 09:05 EST ---
Hi Joe,
- %makeinstall is necessary for this non-DESTDIR-aware Makefile
Agreed, from the guidelines:
Fedora's RPM includes a %makeinstall macro but it must NOT be used when make
install DESTDIR=%
{buildroot} will work.
So in this case it's not a blocker.
- dist tag use is not mandatory
That's right
- explicit BuildRequires is a good thing
True.
- rpm automatically adds correct Requires for scriptlet interpreters
True as well.
- yes, static libraries are necessary for the static build of rpm
There's no official policy on the inclusion of static libraries as far as I
know, so this is no blocker either.
This package is 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 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout 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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 09:05 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=147302)
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147302action=view)
Mock build log of magic-7.4.33-4.fc7
Mock build log of magic-7.4.33-4 on FC-devel i386.
* Currently I cannot figure out why mockbuild log says:
---
BLT: no
Tcl/Tk magic uses the BLT package to create a tree diagram
of the cell hierarchy in a design. Without it, this option
is unavailable. Consider installing the BLT package.
---
* icon cache updating
---
%post
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
%{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
%postun
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
%{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
--
- I don't think this is needed because this package
installs no icon image files into the directory.
* rpmlint
says..
--
W: magic hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/magic/sys/.magicrc
E: magic script-without-shebang /usr/lib/magic/tcl/console.tcl
--
* What is the formar file?
* I think the latter is surely the issue.
* Please consider to make the log of compile more
precise, not just telling us:
--
--- compiling cmwind/CMWcmmnds.o
--- compiling cmwind/CMWundo.o
--- compiling cmwind/CMWrgbhsv.o
--- linking libcmwind.o
--
I cannot find what is actually done here.
* Documentation
- main package contains the files under
/usr/lib/magic/doc, which seem to be the same files
in -doc 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 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 09:05 EST --- GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - license ( GPL ) OK, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream, sha1sum 12dff499f7a29a36e7b7a67d3260d470280485dc moto4lin-0.3.tar.bz - package compiles on FC6/x86_64 - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for separated -doc - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no .la, static, .pc files MUSTFIX - the source rpm should retain the date of the upstream source - the binary rpm should include as %doc the license file (it is included in the tar.bz2 as GPL-2) - %prep does not need to include cleaning the buildroot - the program is a GUI, so acording to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop a moto4lin.desktop file should be included in the rpm. Otherwise a comment with your explanation of not providing one should be included in the spec file Suggestion - It is unusual for a spec to include the comments about the macros. If you definitely need them, feel free to let them in, but otherwise they should be deleted. NEEDINFO - as far as I can tell, the program does start in FC6. Without a compatible phone I cannot say if it actually works. The comment on the main page of the moto4lin wiki states that the 0.3 version does not work on x86_64 and recommends either patching it or using the more recent svn version. Could you please elaborate on this aspect? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 09:08 EST --- - the source rpm should retain the date of the upstream source == the date of upstream tar.bz2 should be preserved -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225984] Merge Review: lftp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: lftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225984 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 09:32 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) Instead of Requires: perl-String-CRC32 prefer: Requires: perl(String::CRC32) A even better solution would be to drop this explicit requirement as rpmbuild has no problem in detecting and adding it to the requirements list. jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225290] Merge Review: attr
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: attr https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225290 [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 226657] Merge Review: xrestop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xrestop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226657 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 09:45 EST --- I would be happy to review this package. Look for a full review in a bit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225742] Merge Review: expat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: expat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225742
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 09:52 EST ---
%{?dist} is no must? Since when if true or did I misunderstand something?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 09:52 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) FWIW, I disagree with the purging of Duplicate BuildRequires that seems to be proposed. If the configure script explicitly checks for glib2, it is a good idea to have an explicit BR for glib2-devel, even if pango-devel happens to pull it in already. Agreed, the comments in the minor section of comment #1 aren't considered blockers for the packages approval. They are merely suggestion of things to look at. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191036] Review Request: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container
format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191036
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 09:53 EST ---
1. package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
2. specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
3. dist tag is present.
4. build root is correct, but not the recommended version
- please add %(%{__id_u} -n) at the end before importing
5. license field matches the actual license.
6. license is open source-compatible (MPL 1.1). License text included in
package.
However, the following file has no license header:
libmp4v2-1.5.0.1/atom_ohdr.cpp
Please poke upstream to fix that.
7. source files match upstream:
90eb2b0940ebe02ef81b7a60530beaee libmp4v2-1.5.0.1.tar.bz2
4b4abb862b079a7e296c891d96faebc9 mklibmp4v2-r51.tar.bz2
8. latest version is being packaged.
9. BuildRequires are proper.
10. package builds in mock (fc7/x86_64).
11. rpmlint is silent.
12. final provides and requires are sane:
libmp4v2 = 1.5.0.1-3.fc7
=
/sbin/ldconfig
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libmp4v2.so.0()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libmp4v2-devel = 1.5.0.1-3.fc7
=
libmp4v2 = 1.5.0.1-3.fc7
libmp4v2.so.0()(64bit)
13. shared libraries are present and ldconfig is called in %post(un).
14. package is not relocatable.
15. owns the directories it creates.
16. doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
17. no duplicates in %files.
18. file permissions are appropriate.
19. %clean is present.
20. %check is not present, no testsuite.
21. no scriptlets present.
22. code, not content.
23. documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
24. %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
25. headers present in -devel package only.
26. no pkgconfig files.
27. no libtool .la droppings.
28. not a GUI app.
29. not a web app.
4. and 6. need work, but are not blockers, so
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 226657] Merge Review: xrestop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xrestop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226657 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 10:01 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 (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 5ff774ff9cbb5997f0fb68e712dee302 xrestop-0.2.tar.gz 5ff774ff9cbb5997f0fb68e712dee302 xrestop-0.2.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - 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. See below - 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 function as described. See below - Should have dist tag See below - Should package latest version 0 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Buildroot should be the standard one. 2. rpmlint says: E: xrestop zero-length /usr/share/doc/xrestop-0.2/NEWS Drop the NEWS file? Also the INSTALL file is the generic autotools one, and should also be dropped. 3. Should use the dist tag? 4. The latest version is 0.4 upstream. I think you can then also drop the man patch as this is fixed upstream. 5. There's some odd # SUBDIRS= comments that should get removed... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226186] Merge Review: ncpfs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: ncpfs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226186
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 10:07 EST ---
Here's the full review; fixing the above issues and the buildroot should be all
that's necessary.
* source files match upstream:
2837046046bcdb46d77a80c1d17dbfd15e878700e879edab4cda9f080e0337f9
ncpfs-2.2.6.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
O dist tag is not present (not required)
X build root is not correct; should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %makeinstall is not used.
* package builds in mock.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
/sbin/ldconfig
ipxutils
libncp.so.2.3
libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.2.2.0.17)
libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.2.2.0.18)
libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.INTERNAL)
libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS_2.2.0.19)
libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS_2.2.1)
libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS_2.2.4)
=
libncp.so.2.3
libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.2.2.0.17)
libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.2.2.0.18)
libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.INTERNAL)
libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.MPILIB)
libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS_2.2.0.19)
libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS_2.2.1)
libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS_2.2.4)
ncpfs = 2.2.6-6
(ipxutils provides only ipxutils = 2.2.6-6)
* %check is present; no test suite upstream.
* shared libraries are present; ldconfig called as necessary.
X unversioned .so files should be in -devel subpackage.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets present are OK (ldconfig).
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
X headers present and should be in -devel package.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226638] Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226638 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-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 226638] Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226638 [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 226558] Merge Review: xfsprogs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xfsprogs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226558 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED], ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 10:16 EST --- We've also got one of the XFS developers who was interested in taking this package over... Eric? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226039] Merge Review: libraw1394
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: libraw1394 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226039 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 10:17 EST --- Not quite everything else was okay, the buildroot wasn't correct. I've fixed that and the macros in the changelog 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 225244] Merge Review: amtu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: amtu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225244
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 10:20 EST ---
In reply to comment #3:
I don't know where IBM distributes it from. I work directly with them on CC
evals and the tarball is emailed to me.
Could you perhaps ping them to update the sourceforge site with the latest?
Then it would be easy to check against upstream.
Setup should have -q on it?
I suppose it could. Doesn't hurt anything either way.
True, just more in line with all the other packages...
Why aren't you using %configure?
In my experience, some packages will not build with %configure. We might be
able to change it.
Can you try and do so?
Why is this 750?
Because it needs to be. It requires privileges to run. If it were available to
accounts that could run it and fail, the audit requirements are higher.
Sounds reasonable.
This should be fixed to not have doc line endings...
Attach a patch please.
You can do it in the spec... just add:
%{__sed} -i 's/\r//' AMTUHowTo.txt
3. Why the compiler setting stuff in build?
Because it requires special handling between the arches and to follow the
guidelines issued internally to Red Hat. If you have redhat-rpm-config
installed, there are build flags that get picked up this way.
It seems like if that was the case you would want to just override the
RPM_OPT_FLAGS in those places (ie, in rpm or macro files).
Also, can you use %{smp_mflags} ?
why?
Indeed this is a small package and it might not be worth it, but if it works,
why not? Would save a bit of build time.
Agreed on everything else...
When you have updated rawhide/cvs, let me know and reassign me on this bug,
and I will be happy to check over 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 226186] Merge Review: ncpfs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: ncpfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226186 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-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 226188] Merge Review: ncurses
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: ncurses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226188 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 225713] Merge Review: dvgrab
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: dvgrab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225713 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 10:33 EST --- Build root and URL fixed in cvs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225981] Merge Review: lcms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: lcms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225981
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 10:34 EST ---
Requires: python, %{python_sitearch}
The automatic python(abi) = ... dep should suffice. Path deps make
Yum download the extra filelists, which is unnecessary in this case.
touch ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{python_sitearch}/lcms.py{c,o}
%ghost %{python_sitearch}/lcms.py?
We no longer %ghost compiled Python files.
%{_libdir}/*.a
Static libs can go, right?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225290] Merge Review: attr
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: attr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225290
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 10:35 EST ---
OK source files match upstream:
397f565e427e9237537d10345a3b1b09a5f988c4b4035e3bfc1ff5260f20a11d
attr_2.4.32-1.tar.gz
OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
consistently.
OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
OK latest version is being packaged.
OK BuildRequires are proper.
OK compiler flags are appropriate.
OK %clean is present.
OK package builds in mock (i386).
OK package installs properly
OK debuginfo package looks complete.
OK final provides and requires looks sane.
OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths, ldconfig
is run.
OK owns the directories it creates.
OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK no duplicates in %files.
OK file permissions are appropriate.
OK scriptlets are present and they are sane.
OK code, not content.
OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK no libtool .la are packaged.
OK not a GUI app.
MUST FIX:
BAD headers and .so are in devel subpackage, but the dependency on the lib
subpackage is not correct
SHOULD FIX:
BAD dist tag is NOT present.
BAD not suggested build root is used.
BAD rpmlint is NOT silent.
I: attr checking
W: attr summary-ended-with-dot Utilities for managing filesystem extended
attributes.
W: attr prereq-use /sbin/ldconfig
W: attr prereq-use /sbin/ldconfig
these are found automagically
W: attr macro-in-%changelog defattr
macro is not escaped
I: libattr-devel checking
W: libattr-devel no-version-dependency-on libattr 2.4.32
see MUST FIX
W: libattr-devel summary-ended-with-dot Extended attribute static libraries and
headers.
W: libattr-devel symlink-should-be-relative /usr/lib/libattr.so /lib/libattr.so
could be linked from ../../%{_lib}/libattr.so
I: libattr checking
W: libattr summary-ended-with-dot Dynamic library for extended attribute
support.
W: libattr no-documentation
You could also use %doc macro in the %files section instead of
%{_datadir}/doc/...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225290] Merge Review: attr
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: attr https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225290 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 10:37 EST --- Created an attachment (id=147305) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147305action=view) fix the discussed issues in the 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 226638] Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226638
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 10:38 EST ---
* I'm a bit unsure about this package in general -- is it really still needed?
FC5 has modular X already, and we don't support from older releases anymore
iirc. RHEL5 should have this package, too, and RHEL6 probably should not need it
anymore, too.
* why doesn't this package simply own some of the other important directorys
like /usr/lib/xorg/modules/
* Stuff like cat $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/${UPGRADE_CMD} 'EOF' is disliked; it
should live in a separate file that it included as source
* Quoting the spec
{{{
# NOTE: Do not replace these with _libdir or _includedir macros, they are
# intentionally explicit.
}}}
Nice, the comment helps -- but it would help more if the reason why its
intentionally explicit would be mentioned ;-) Ohh, it's explained later in the
spec; Not importatn, but maybe mention in once at the top of the spec file
properly might be the best
* rpmlint:
rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-filesystem-7.1-2.fc7.noarch.rpm
W: xorg-x11-filesystem incoherent-version-in-changelog 7.1-2.fc6 7.1-2.fc7
- simply avoid mention the disttag in the changelog
W: xorg-x11-filesystem invalid-license MIT/X11
- Would be MIT, but what actualy is licenced under MIT/X11 ?
W: xorg-x11-filesystem no-documentation
- acceptable
E: xorg-x11-filesystem standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/lib/X11
- owned by package filesystem, so not needed
W: xorg-x11-filesystem dangerous-command-in-%pre rm
rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-filesystem-7.1-2.fc7.src.rpm
W: xorg-x11-filesystem invalid-license MIT/X11
- see above
E: xorg-x11-filesystem hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/X11
E: xorg-x11-filesystem hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/X11
E: xorg-x11-filesystem hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/X11
E: xorg-x11-filesystem hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/X11
E: xorg-x11-filesystem hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/X11
E: xorg-x11-filesystem hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/X11
- accpetable in this case
W: xorg-x11-filesystem no-%build-section
- accpetable in this case
Stopping reviewing here for now until it becomes clear this is still needed
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 10:41 EST --- Oddly enough, it built fine on my FC rawhide x86 box in and out of mock. Do you want to fix the problems and I can review 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 226640] Merge Review: xorg-x11-font-utils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xorg-x11-font-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226640 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 226558] Merge Review: xfsprogs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xfsprogs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226558 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 10:44 EST --- Sure I'll pick up xfsprogs and should try to get xfsdump in from extras too, I suppose. Jarod, expect questions from 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 225684] Merge Review: devhelp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: devhelp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225684
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 10:49 EST ---
Good:
* Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines
* Group Tag is from the official list
* All paths begin with macros
* Desktop entry is fine
* All directories are owned by this or other packages
* All necessary BuildRequires listed.
* Builds in Mock fine.
Must Fix Items:
* Missing URL . http://developer.imendio.com/projects/devhelp
* Source URL isn't canonical.
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/%{name}/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.bz2
* rpmlint error:
E: devhelp postin-without-ldconfig /usr/lib/libdevhelp-1.so.0.0.0
E: devhelp postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib/libdevhelp-1.so.0.0.0
Minor things to look at, not considered blockers:
* rpmlint error: W: devhelp-devel summary-ended-with-dot Library to embed
Devhelp in other applications.
* Doesn't use preferred buildroot.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-f196e7b2477c2f5dd97ef64e8eacddfb517f1aa1
* Unnecessary Requires on gnome-vfs2, gtk2, libglade2, and libgnomeui. The BR
on the devel packages should pull these in automatically.
http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i386/devhelp-0.12-10.fc7.src.rpm/result/build.log
* Duplicate BuildRequires: glib2-devel (by gtk2-devel), libglade2-devel (by
libgnomeui-devel), gtk2-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), GConf2-devel (by
libgnomeui-devel), gnome-vfs2-devel (by libgnomeui-devel)
* Could use the '-disable-static' configure flag, and not even bother building
the static libs.
* Could just use 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' to clean the install section for
consistency.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225715] Merge Review: echo-icon-theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: echo-icon-theme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225715 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 10:58 EST --- Good: * Source URL is canonical * Upstream source tarball verified * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines * Group Tag is from the official list * Buildroot has all required elements * All paths begin with macros * All directories are owned by this or other packages * Builds fine in mock. Must Fix: * Should be Requires(postun), not Requires(postub). * rpmlint errors: W: echo-icon-theme macro-in-%changelog _datadir W: echo-icon-theme macro-in-%changelog build W: echo-icon-theme macro-in-%changelog buildroot This should be an easy one to fix. Just %% the macros in the ChangeLog. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225742] Merge Review: expat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: expat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225742 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 10:59 EST --- Uh, look trought the list of MUST items in the Review Guidelines... nothing there. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag: Do I Have To Use the Dist Tag? No. It is documented and standardized so that maintainers who wish to use it can do so, but it is not mandatory. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225812] Merge Review: gnome-audio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gnome-audio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225812 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 225713] Merge Review: dvgrab
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: dvgrab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225713 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 11:05 EST --- I don't see anything else so its 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 226271] Merge Review: perl-Net-IP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl-Net-IP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226271 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 11:08 EST --- Just a couple of small issues that can be fixed directly in CVS, no need for a review roundtrip: - Source URL is broken (missing slash), should be ftp://cpan...;, not ftp:/cpan... - Change -type d -depth to -depth -type d in %install to avoid a (discarded) warning from find(1). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225878] Merge Review: gzip
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 11:13 EST --- OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. See below - Sources match upstream md5sum: OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - 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 function as described. OK - Should have dist tag See below - Should package latest version 0 open bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. This version doesn't seem to be available upstream. There is a 1.3.8 and a 1.3.10. Perhaps upgrading to 1.3.10 should be the thing to do? Was 1.3.9 removed due to some problem? 2. Buildroot should be the standard one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226503] Merge Review: tree
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: tree https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226503 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 225661] Merge Review: createrepo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: createrepo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225661
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 11:23 EST ---
From an email by Michael Schwendt regarding the directory and its files:
Even better:
%{_datadir}/%{name}/
The extra slash at the end makes it clear that you want to include
a directory and not an ordinary 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 225684] Merge Review: devhelp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: devhelp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225684 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 11:24 EST --- Fixed in devhelp-0.13-2.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 226503] Merge Review: tree
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: tree
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226503
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 11:25 EST ---
Hi there,
Review for release 5:
* RPM name is OK
* Source tree-1.5.0.tgz is the same as upstream
* Builds fine in mock
* File list looks OK
Needs work:
* BuildRoot should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot)
* Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake)
* Package is marked as relocatable, please check.
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#RelocatablePackages)
* Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros
(wiki: QAChecklist item 7)
* The package should contain the text of the license
(wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines)
Just add LICENSE from the source to %doc
* Preserve timestamps when you install files
Rpmlint is not silent:
Source RPM:
W: tree summary-ended-with-dot A utility which displays a tree view of the
contents of directories.
W: tree hardcoded-prefix-tag /usr
W: tree hardcoded-path-in-buildroot-tag /var/tmp/tree-root
rpmlint of tree:
W: tree summary-ended-with-dot A utility which displays a tree view of the
contents of directories.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226813] Merge Review: zsh
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: zsh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226813 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 11:28 EST --- I would be happy to review this package. Look for a full review in a bit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226503] Merge Review: tree
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: tree https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226503 [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
