[Bug 227631] Review Request: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227631 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 03:19 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) 1. I generally contest the assertion that replacing file deps with package deps is good. They are not equivalent. It ignores the fact that applications can be moved between packages at any time, and that tools can change their location (even within a package) at any time. 2. rpm scriptlets introduce a direct dependency of a package on a file and will fail or produce invalid results when these files move/are removed/replaced. 3. rpm scriptlets are special wrt. execution order upon package removal/upgrade/installation (for details c.f. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets) This introduces special constraints on package dependencies, which become utterly complicated when tools change their location rsp. move between packages. Admitted, /sbin/chkconfig, /sbin/service and /bin/bash are unlikely to be moved/removed in near future, but for the sake of clarity of specs and to avoid problems related to 1-3. above, I am enforcing a rule of To be safe, each tool being explicitly and unconditionally invoked in scriptlets, must be explicitly listed as file dep in Requires(xxx) I am not sure if there is a corresponding rule in the guideline, but I think so. Yes. Changed back. That's what I had originally. I made it that way prior to the review because it seemed the safest way and made the spec file usage consistent, but not quite the level of thinking as above. This doesn't appear to be covered in the guidelines above but reading them there is an implicit use of full paths in scriplets and Requires which implies the points above. Ian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
fedora-review granted: [Bug 225981] Merge Review: lcms
Bug 225981: Merge Review: lcms Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Dan Horak [EMAIL PROTECTED] has granted Dan Horak [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225981 --- Additional Comments from Dan Horak [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't see any other problems, so this package is APPROVED. ___ 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 Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 03:28 EST --- I don't see any other problems, so 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 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] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226133] Merge Review: mc
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: mc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226133 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 04:01 EST --- Could you, please, use the latest snapshot (http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/utils/file/managers/mc/snapshots/mc-2007-01-24-03.tar.gz) so I can check the checksum of the source file? The packaged version was deleted from the upstream location. There are still some warnings and errors from rpmlint, so we will have to check their relevancy 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 226998] Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226998
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 04:04 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Well,
* BuildRequires
- Mockbuild fails on FC7 i386 (needs desktop-file-utils)
Oops, can't believe I forgot that, fixed.
* Documentation
- Please add other README files
I assume you mean INSTALL.txt ICON.txt and TODO.txt?
INSTALL.txt and ICON.txt both contain installation instructions and thus should
not be packaged. I've added TODO.txt
* Timestamps
- keep timestamps on image files and etc, i.e. use cp -p
or install -p
Fixed
* Desktop file entry
-
--add-category X-Fedora \
-
is deprecated and should be removed.
* Scriptlets
-
if [ -x %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache ]; then
-
is redundant because execution of non-existing file
simply exits with 127 and is ignored by || :
I've been doing things like this for over a year now, I know there was some
discussion about both of these but I never followed it close enough to learn the
new guidelines, to busy with other Fedora stuff. I've read the new guidelines
now, thanks for straightening me out on this - Both fixed.
Here is a new version with all this fixed:
Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/gemdropx.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/gemdropx-0.9-2.fc7.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227811] Review Request: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227811 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 04:13 EST --- oky doky, I don't see a section in our guidelines about this, but not a problem. Absolute URL for Source: in the current version -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193059] Review Request: ibmasm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ibmasm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193059 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778, 177841 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 04:19 EST --- headers should be 644. Something must have gone odd on my box. No worries ;-) Current version builds fine in and out of mock, doesn't have any problems with missing requirements and rpmlint is quiet. 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 223586] Review Request: strigi - A desktop search program for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: strigi - A desktop search program for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223586 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 04:30 EST --- Actually, strigiclient is not a search frontend, it's more like a daemon configuration tool. I think it should have a desktop file and be in the menu (in the configuration submenu maybe ?) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227811] Review Request: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227811 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 04:40 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) oky doky, I don't see a section in our guidelines about this, but not a problem. Absolute URL for Source: in the current version Where have you been throughout the years Fedora exists? This rule had even been enforced during Fedora.us. But I realize, the Guidelines are a bit vague on this. The rationale behind this: Without an absolute URL, it's unnecessary hard to * verify if the source tarball matches upstream or if it has been compromised. * to track upstream activities (Is the tarball still there, has a new version been released etc.) You will also want to have a look at /usr/bin/spectool (from package rpmdevtools, available from FE). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226998] Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226998 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 04:45 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) * Documentation - Please add other README files I assume you mean INSTALL.txt ICON.txt and TODO.txt? INSTALL.txt and ICON.txt both contain installation instructions and thus should not be packaged. I've added TODO.txt Ah.. I meant: ./data/images/README ./data/sounds/README ./README.txt ./action/README.txt These files explains where the image/sounds files came from and I think adding these files is kinder. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225656] Merge Review: cpio
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: cpio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225656 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 05:24 EST --- thnx. Ruben, patch applied. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226104] Merge Review: logrotate
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: logrotate https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226104 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 05:25 EST --- fixed in logrotate-3.7.4-13.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 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] 2007-02-09 05:35 EST --- fixed in ncompress-4.2.4-49.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 227811] Review Request: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227811 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 05:38 EST --- The wiki says - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. Maybe we could rephrase that in a form which makes clear that full URL is mandatory (and sha1sum is also allowed as alternative) ? Since this version is, just as you said, a bit vague, I was never picky about full URL, as long as the URL + %name + %version led to a valid result. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226998] Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226998 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 05:49 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) (In reply to comment #2) * Documentation - Please add other README files I assume you mean INSTALL.txt ICON.txt and TODO.txt? INSTALL.txt and ICON.txt both contain installation instructions and thus should not be packaged. I've added TODO.txt Ah.. I meant: ./data/images/README ./data/sounds/README ./README.txt ./action/README.txt These files explains where the image/sounds files came from and I think adding these files is kinder. I see, Good idea, new version with these files added is here: Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/gemdropx.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/gemdropx-0.9-2.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226511] Merge Review: unifdef
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: unifdef https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226511 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 05:53 EST --- I wonder if you still think there's a need to include an unifdef package when sunifdef is available currently in Extras (packaged by me) - sunifdef is effectively upstream now, since unifdef hasn't been maintained for a while. Sunifdef is a commandline tool for eliminating superfluous preprocessor clutter from C and C++ source files. It is a more powerful successor to the FreeBSD 'unifdef' tool. http://www.sunifdef.strudl.org/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
fedora-review requested: [Bug 226316] Merge Review: privoxy
Bug 226316: Merge Review: privoxy Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Sarantis Paskalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226316 --- Additional Comments from Sarantis Paskalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mark the package as reviewed. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226316] Merge Review: privoxy
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: privoxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226316 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 06:07 EST --- Mark the package as reviewed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226436] Merge Review: statserial
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: statserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226436 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 06:09 EST --- Thanks! Tagged and built as 1.1-39.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 226998] Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226998 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 06:13 EST --- Well, I will check 0.9-2 later. By the way, would you tell me in advance to which repository (FE-7/6/5) you want to import this package? (I currently don't know how the new review process will become... and.. do I have to ask the submitter in advance??) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226511] Merge Review: unifdef
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: unifdef https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226511 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 06:18 EST --- No, I have no particular need for it since the kernel now includes its own copy of unifdef; it doesn't use the external one any more. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226998] Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226998 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 06:23 EST --- Its intended for FE-6 and devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226213] Merge Review: openjade
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: openjade https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226213 Bug 226213 depends on bug 203635, which changed state. Bug 203635 Summary: openjade internal libs .la and .so symlinks should be removed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203635 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226133] Merge Review: mc
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: mc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226133 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 07:14 EST --- Ok, I built the new mc with the latest CVS snapshot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226436] Merge Review: statserial
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: statserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226436 [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
fedora-review granted: [Bug 226436] Merge Review: statserial
Bug 226436: Merge Review: statserial Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] has granted Tim Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226436 --- Additional Comments from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Formal review for release 39: MUST - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( GPL ) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream, sha1sum 3ace36585c82238003b37f267263f06aad4f0afd statserial-1.1.tar.gz - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of foreign files/folders - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - no static, .la, .pc files - rpmlint is silent on src.rpm; for the binary the following warnings are generated: W: statserial spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/statserial-1.1/phone_log W: statserial doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/statserial-1.1/phone_log /bin/bash Since phone_log IS a bash script and bash is supposed to be already installed anyway, no additional packages are actually pulled so I guess both warnings can safely be ignored. SHOULD - Builds fine in mock for FC6 and devel (x86_64) - Runs as advertised on FC6/x86_64 Notes: I have no access to 390 so I can only assume that the hardware being different, the ExcludeArch is justified. APPROVED ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226436] Merge Review: statserial
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: statserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226436 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 07:23 EST --- Formal review for release 39: MUST - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( GPL ) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream, sha1sum 3ace36585c82238003b37f267263f06aad4f0afd statserial-1.1.tar.gz - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of foreign files/folders - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - no static, .la, .pc files - rpmlint is silent on src.rpm; for the binary the following warnings are generated: W: statserial spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/statserial-1.1/phone_log W: statserial doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/statserial-1.1/phone_log /bin/bash Since phone_log IS a bash script and bash is supposed to be already installed anyway, no additional packages are actually pulled so I guess both warnings can safely be ignored. SHOULD - Builds fine in mock for FC6 and devel (x86_64) - Runs as advertised on FC6/x86_64 Notes: I have no access to 390 so I can only assume that the hardware being different, the ExcludeArch is justified. 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 195647] Review Request: redland
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: redland https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195647 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 07:40 EST --- Thanks for reviewing! Wrt. your issues: 1) Any LGPL package is always allowed to be used under the GPL - this is a standard feature of the LGPL. As such I don't think it's necessary to add it to the license field, since I don't see any other LGPL package doing that. What do you think ? 2) yep, will add that 4) will file that bug now. 5) IMO this is up to upstream if this should be changed. I don't necessarily feel it should - the headers seem to be namespaced with rdf_ - but in any case I don't think packagers should make changes like this if they are not strictly necessary because it creates problems for developers. What do you think ? I will push a new package when we resolve 1) and 5) Thanks Thomas -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226436] Merge Review: statserial
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: statserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226436 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 07:44 EST --- Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227717] Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227717 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 07:57 EST --- thx Parag, so, i'll wait that someone add me in fedorabugs group ans sponsor me. i'll just make unofficial review then -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227717] Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227717 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 07:58 EST --- s/ans/and -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226105] Merge Review: logwatch
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: logwatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226105 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 07:58 EST --- Fixed in logwatch-7.3.2-8.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 226316] Merge Review: privoxy
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: privoxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226316 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 08:38 EST --- I asked about the --disabled-dynamic-pcre in privoxy development list. There is an issue in privoxy=3.0.6, fixed since in CVS, that can trigger a crash. That is however a relatively new issue, not an issue since before 2002, when this switch was added. Moreover, Debian uses the dynamic lib, so I propose to drop the swith and to add a Requires: pcre. Discussion on privoxy devel list is here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.privoxy.devel/8000 The patch discussed for privoxy is here: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=1621173group_id=8atid=18 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225656] Merge Review: cpio
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: cpio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225656 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 08:52 EST --- according to make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL=install -p install should we preserve timestamps on files which were rebuilt? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195647] Review Request: redland
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: redland https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195647 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 09:01 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) 5) IMO this is up to upstream if this should be changed. Well, system integration is the task of an rpm's maintainer ;) I don't necessarily feel it should - the headers seem to be namespaced with rdf_ - but in any case I don't think packagers should make changes like this if they are not strictly necessary because it creates problems for developers. What do you think ? IMO: Move them into a subdir. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
fedora-review granted: [Bug 226998] Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame
Bug 226998: Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] has granted Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226998 --- Additional Comments from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] Okay. This package is APPROVED by me with the following summary: * Owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Name: gemdropx * Summary: Falling blocks puzzlegame * Branch: FC-devel FC-6 - Requesting cvs admin for making initial directories. Please wait until cvs admin answers on this bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226998] Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| Flag||fedora-review+, fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 09:07 EST --- Okay. This package is APPROVED by me with the following summary: * Owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Name: gemdropx * Summary: Falling blocks puzzlegame * Branch: FC-devel FC-6 - Requesting cvs admin for making initial directories. Please wait until cvs admin answers on this bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
fedora-review denied: [Bug 225882] Merge Review: hdparm
Bug 225882: Merge Review: hdparm Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] has denied manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225882 --- Additional Comments from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] - BuildRoot is not the preferred value - %build does not use smp flags; if not supported, please add a comment in the spec - please also consider including README.accoustic; the feature is documented in the man page, but the README seems to include a bit more info The rest seems OK. Please fix the above and I'll do a full review. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225882] Merge Review: hdparm
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: hdparm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225882 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review-, needinfo? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 09:18 EST --- - BuildRoot is not the preferred value - %build does not use smp flags; if not supported, please add a comment in the spec - please also consider including README.accoustic; the feature is documented in the man page, but the README seems to include a bit more info The rest seems OK. Please fix the above and I'll do a full 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
fedora-review requested: [Bug 225625] Merge Review: bridge-utils
Bug 225625: Merge Review: bridge-utils
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Component: Package Review
Jima [EMAIL PROTECTED] has asked for fedora-review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225625
--- Additional Comments from Jima [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Review time! :-)
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
43bbd2a67b59cac3e15d545f8b51df68 bridge-utils-1.1.tar.gz
43bbd2a67b59cac3e15d545f8b51df68 bridge-utils-1.1.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.
OK - Should have dist tag
See below - Should package latest version
2 bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package.
Issues:
1. The recommended value for BuildRoot is:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
You may want to use that.
2. rpmlint says:
rpmlint on ./bridge-utils-1.1-2.fc7.src.rpm
W: bridge-utils setup-not-quiet
E: bridge-utils no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
Easily fixed. Add -q to %setup, and rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT after %install.
3. Latest version not used
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=26089 says 1.2 is
available (and has been since 2006-09-20). Please evaluate whether you
should be using this release instead.
4. Bugs open
There are two open bugs against this package:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205810
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169723
I'm not sure either bug is still particularly valid (one is against FC4,
the other looks like it should be resolved).
If you can address the issues above, I think we can call bridge-utils
APPROVED.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225625] Merge Review: bridge-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: bridge-utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225625
[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] 2007-02-09 09:22 EST ---
Review time! :-)
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
43bbd2a67b59cac3e15d545f8b51df68 bridge-utils-1.1.tar.gz
43bbd2a67b59cac3e15d545f8b51df68 bridge-utils-1.1.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.
OK - Should have dist tag
See below - Should package latest version
2 bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package.
Issues:
1. The recommended value for BuildRoot is:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
You may want to use that.
2. rpmlint says:
rpmlint on ./bridge-utils-1.1-2.fc7.src.rpm
W: bridge-utils setup-not-quiet
E: bridge-utils no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
Easily fixed. Add -q to %setup, and rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT after %install.
3. Latest version not used
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=26089 says 1.2 is
available (and has been since 2006-09-20). Please evaluate whether you
should be using this release instead.
4. Bugs open
There are two open bugs against this package:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205810
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169723
I'm not sure either bug is still particularly valid (one is against FC4,
the other looks like it should be resolved).
If you can address the issues above, I think we can call bridge-utils
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 223586] Review Request: strigi - A desktop search program for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: strigi - A desktop search program for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223586 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 09:22 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) Actually, strigiclient is not a search frontend, it's more like a daemon configuration tool. I think it should have a desktop file and be in the menu (in the configuration submenu maybe ?) Oh.. I misunderstood. Maybe System or something like would be good. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225928] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el
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: jakarta-commons-el https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928 [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 187317] Review Request: mindi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mindi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187317 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 09:39 EST --- I've added -q and removed -n in the SPEC The packge still contained one binary file that I have now removed, so I'll now make the package noarch.rpm indeed. I'm still looking at why UTF-8 is incorrect. As soon as I have a new package ready for your analysis, I'll let you know. Thanks for your feedback. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 09:47 EST --- Created an attachment (id=147773) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147773action=view) Mock build log of ntfs-config-0.5.2-1.fc7 Mockbuild of ntfs-config-0.5.2-1 fails on FC-devel i386. It seems that many needes BuildRequires are 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
fedora-review granted: [Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media
Bug 225822: Merge Review: gnome-media Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Deji Akingunola [EMAIL PROTECTED] has granted Bastien Nocera [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 --- Additional Comments from Deji Akingunola [EMAIL PROTECTED] GOOD: * Build Ok in mock (x86_64) * License (GPL) and rpm Group tag OK * Naming meets the packaging guildlines * Spec file clean and legible * Handles locales correctly * Build dependencies properly listed * Source file matches upstream's 094a92f01a3581de7b3567f85320df7b gnome-media-2.17.90.tar.bz2 * Own its files and directories correctly rpmlint warnings/error: This can mostly be ignored [EMAIL PROTECTED] reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-2.17.90-6.fc7.x86_64.rpm E: gnome-media obsolete-not-provided gnome W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/CDDB-Slave2.schemas W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-audio-profiles.schemas W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-cd.schemas W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-volume-control.schemas [EMAIL PROTECTED] reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-2.17.90-6.fc7.src.rpm W: gnome-media unversioned-explicit-obsoletes gnome [EMAIL PROTECTED] reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-devel-2.17.90-6.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: gnome-media-devel no-documentation However I wonder if it's not just OK to drop that Obsoletes on gnome, it seems superfluous of gnome-media to Obsolete gnome as it cannot also provide it (gnome). I believe you can fix that, so APPROVED. APPROVED. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media
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-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 09:52 EST --- GOOD: * Build Ok in mock (x86_64) * License (GPL) and rpm Group tag OK * Naming meets the packaging guildlines * Spec file clean and legible * Handles locales correctly * Build dependencies properly listed * Source file matches upstream's 094a92f01a3581de7b3567f85320df7b gnome-media-2.17.90.tar.bz2 * Own its files and directories correctly rpmlint warnings/error: This can mostly be ignored [EMAIL PROTECTED] reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-2.17.90-6.fc7.x86_64.rpm E: gnome-media obsolete-not-provided gnome W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/CDDB-Slave2.schemas W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-audio-profiles.schemas W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-cd.schemas W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-volume-control.schemas [EMAIL PROTECTED] reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-2.17.90-6.fc7.src.rpm W: gnome-media unversioned-explicit-obsoletes gnome [EMAIL PROTECTED] reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-devel-2.17.90-6.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: gnome-media-devel no-documentation However I wonder if it's not just OK to drop that Obsoletes on gnome, it seems superfluous of gnome-media to Obsolete gnome as it cannot also provide it (gnome). I believe you can fix that, so APPROVED. 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 225882] Merge Review: hdparm
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: hdparm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225882 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 09:55 EST --- ok, fixed in hdparm-6_9-3. I've added smp flags although it doesn't really matter with just 2 .c files and a built time of 3 secs -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225625] Merge Review: bridge-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: bridge-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225625 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 10:17 EST --- Other notes on the bump to 1.2: You can (well, need to) drop patches 1-5, as they've been merged upstream, and you need to add a BR and call to autoconf before %configure, since they didn't ship a pre-made configure script in 1.2. Just a reminder for when you get back. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 10:18 EST --- yeah, my bad, forgot to upload fixed files. it'll done to night -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
fedora-review requested: [Bug 226402] Merge Review: SDL
Bug 226402: Merge Review: SDL
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Component: Package Review
Hans de Goede [EMAIL PROTECTED] has asked for fedora-review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226402
--- Additional Comments from Hans de Goede [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm behind a windows machine ATM, so no full review, but a few items to fix and
a few questions to get started:
SHOULDFIX items:
* replace --x-includes=/usr/include --x-libraries=/usr/%{_lib}
with --x-includes=%{_includedir} --x-libraries=%{_libdir}
* BuildRequires: nasm should be: %ifarch %{ix86}, I doubt ppc owners will
be amused when they try to rebuild SDL from srpm for some reason and then
need to install nasm.
questions:
* Why this? : export tagname=CC
* Why add -O3 is there any bench mark proof this is benificial?
* Since you now pass --x-includes=/usr/include --x-libraries=/usr/%{_lib},
to work around configure's X-detection, do you still need:
BuildRequires imake and libXt-devel?
* Does devel really Requires libXt-devel?
I must say all in all a pretty good specfile, I've seen much worse (both in FE
as in FC).
An important question when moving on with this is what todo with current bz
tickets against SDL. Quite a few of them seem legitimate and not all that hard
to fix. I don't know however if open bz tickets should be concidered blockers
for the review. I see that someone has made one of them block this ticket, but
that can be removed. AFAIK there are no rules for this, we could ask the
mailinglist but that usually leads to much ado about nothing. In my opninion we
should try to fix as many BZ's against SDL as possible during this review, but
not let them block the review, agreed?
Which brings me to the next subject one of the main reasons why I've decided to
review SDL and not just any package is because I'm very active in packaging
games and gaming related libraries (allegro (ask jnovy), CLanLib 0.6 and 0.8,
plib) and as an experiment in co-maintainer ship between (former) FE and FC
maintainers I would like to become a co-maintainer of SDL.
Judging from the current open BZ tickets against SDL, of which most seem easy
to fix, currently other work has higher priorities then SDL, and thus you could
use a hand. I don't know howto shape this co-maintainership for now I'll try to
take a look at some of the open BZ tickets and write fixes for those, notice
btw that bug 217389 already contains fix I've reviewed the fix and it looks
good to me.
Unfortunately I currently don't have internet access at home so I'll only be
able to communicate about this mon, wed, thu and fri.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226402] Merge Review: SDL
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: SDL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226402
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 10:20 EST ---
I'm behind a windows machine ATM, so no full review, but a few items to fix and
a few questions to get started:
SHOULDFIX items:
* replace --x-includes=/usr/include --x-libraries=/usr/%{_lib}
with --x-includes=%{_includedir} --x-libraries=%{_libdir}
* BuildRequires: nasm should be: %ifarch %{ix86}, I doubt ppc owners will
be amused when they try to rebuild SDL from srpm for some reason and then
need to install nasm.
questions:
* Why this? : export tagname=CC
* Why add -O3 is there any bench mark proof this is benificial?
* Since you now pass --x-includes=/usr/include --x-libraries=/usr/%{_lib},
to work around configure's X-detection, do you still need:
BuildRequires imake and libXt-devel?
* Does devel really Requires libXt-devel?
I must say all in all a pretty good specfile, I've seen much worse (both in FE
as in FC).
An important question when moving on with this is what todo with current bz
tickets against SDL. Quite a few of them seem legitimate and not all that hard
to fix. I don't know however if open bz tickets should be concidered blockers
for the review. I see that someone has made one of them block this ticket, but
that can be removed. AFAIK there are no rules for this, we could ask the
mailinglist but that usually leads to much ado about nothing. In my opninion we
should try to fix as many BZ's against SDL as possible during this review, but
not let them block the review, agreed?
Which brings me to the next subject one of the main reasons why I've decided to
review SDL and not just any package is because I'm very active in packaging
games and gaming related libraries (allegro (ask jnovy), CLanLib 0.6 and 0.8,
plib) and as an experiment in co-maintainer ship between (former) FE and FC
maintainers I would like to become a co-maintainer of SDL.
Judging from the current open BZ tickets against SDL, of which most seem easy
to fix, currently other work has higher priorities then SDL, and thus you could
use a hand. I don't know howto shape this co-maintainership for now I'll try to
take a look at some of the open BZ tickets and write fixes for those, notice
btw that bug 217389 already contains fix I've reviewed the fix and it looks
good to me.
Unfortunately I currently don't have internet access at home so I'll only be
able to communicate about this mon, wed, thu and fri.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225794] Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts
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: ghostscript-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225794 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 10:22 EST --- Still confused. What about 8.11 with much better international support? Current offering pales in comparison. I don't know what was the reason to upgrade to old tiny set. ftp://mirror.cs.wisc.edu/pub/mirrors/ghost/fonts/ghostscript-fonts-std-8.11.tar.gz This has been raised before in bug 203369 and bug 113866. These are GPL. We are not in freeze yet. Why would you refuse them 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 225826] Merge Review: gnome-netstatus
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-netstatus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225826 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 10:27 EST --- Hi, NEEDSWORK: * Fail to build in mock (rawhide x86_64), seems to need a BR on libxslt; make[3]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/gnome-netstatus-2.12.0/help' xsltproc -o gnome-netstatus-C.omf --stringparam db2omf.basename gnome-netstatus --stringparam db2omf.format 'docbook' --stringparam db2omf.dtd -//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.1.2//EN --stringparam db2omf.lang C --stringparam db2omf.omf_dir /usr/share/omf --stringparam db2omf.help_dir /usr/share/gnome/help --stringparam db2omf.omf_in `pwd`/./gnome-netstatus.omf.in `/usr/bin/pkg-config --variable db2omf gnome-doc-utils` C/gnome-netstatus.xml db2omf: Could not construct the OMF maintainer element. Add an author, corpauthor, editor, othercredit, or publisher element with the role attribute set to maintainer to gnome-netstatus.xml. make[2]: *** [gnome-netstatus-C.omf] Error 10 make[2]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/gnome-netstatus-2.12.0/help' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/gnome-netstatus-2.12.0' make: *** [all] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.59866 (%build) * The BuildRoot tag is very short, it doesn't conform to the packaging guildelines * Is Prereq: gtk2 ... neccesary at all? And also the explicit Requires on gtk2, libglade2, libgnomeui, and gnome-panel * Not very sure about this (since the build failed for me half-way), does the build really depends on gnome-vfs2, maybe that BR ought to be gnome-vfs2-devel. * Packaging guildelines discourage the use of '%makeinstall' macro, but advises using 'make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install' instead. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
fedora-review denied: [Bug 225826] Merge Review: gnome-netstatus
Bug 225826: Merge Review: gnome-netstatus Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Deji Akingunola [EMAIL PROTECTED] has denied Deji Akingunola [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225826 --- Additional Comments from Deji Akingunola [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, NEEDSWORK: * Fail to build in mock (rawhide x86_64), seems to need a BR on libxslt; make[3]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/gnome-netstatus-2.12.0/help' xsltproc -o gnome-netstatus-C.omf --stringparam db2omf.basename gnome-netstatus --stringparam db2omf.format 'docbook' --stringparam db2omf.dtd -//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.1.2//EN --stringparam db2omf.lang C --stringparam db2omf.omf_dir /usr/share/omf --stringparam db2omf.help_dir /usr/share/gnome/help --stringparam db2omf.omf_in `pwd`/./gnome-netstatus.omf.in `/usr/bin/pkg-config --variable db2omf gnome-doc-utils` C/gnome-netstatus.xml db2omf: Could not construct the OMF maintainer element. Add an author, corpauthor, editor, othercredit, or publisher element with the role attribute set to maintainer to gnome-netstatus.xml. make[2]: *** [gnome-netstatus-C.omf] Error 10 make[2]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/gnome-netstatus-2.12.0/help' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/gnome-netstatus-2.12.0' make: *** [all] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.59866 (%build) * The BuildRoot tag is very short, it doesn't conform to the packaging guildelines * Is Prereq: gtk2 ... neccesary at all? And also the explicit Requires on gtk2, libglade2, libgnomeui, and gnome-panel * Not very sure about this (since the build failed for me half-way), does the build really depends on gnome-vfs2, maybe that BR ought to be gnome-vfs2-devel. * Packaging guildelines discourage the use of '%makeinstall' macro, but advises using 'make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install' instead. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
fedora-review requested: [Bug 226002] Merge Review: libevent
Bug 226002: Merge Review: libevent Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Jima [EMAIL PROTECTED] has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226002 --- Additional Comments from Jima [EMAIL PROTECTED] Starting review... ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226002] Merge Review: libevent
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: libevent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 10:31 EST --- Starting 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 187317] Review Request: mindi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mindi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187317 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 10:39 EST --- I'm still looking at why UTF-8 is incorrect. Open the spec file in less, you'll see accented caracters stand out in changelog entries for 1.0.7-1.fc5 and 1.06-1.fc5 (Rémy and Sébastien). By the way, the spec file changelog should only contain packaging changes, not the application's changelog. That should only be in the ChangeLog file, installed in %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 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 10:45 EST --- updated. http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi.spec http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi-3.1.5-2.src.rpm - add -soname versioning on shared libs - remove pl lang from spec - fix packing of libs - tcl is plugin dont separate package name +rpmlint report zero bugs. +mock can build 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 225794] Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts
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: ghostscript-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225794 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 10:47 EST --- Leaving the rest of the review to other people, as I can't say I understand all the story of the different versions and licenses. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225827] Merge Review: gnome-nettool
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-nettool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225827 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 10:51 EST --- Hi, NEEDSWORK: * Post and postun requires on desktop-file-utils are not necesary * why does it need to run 'update-desktop-database' in it post and postun, the desktop file deosn't seem to contain any mimetype key (admittedly, I only checked src/gnome-nettool.desktop.in) * The '--add-category X-Red-Hat-Base' can also be removed from the desktop-file-install, its redundant. * Packaging guildelines discourage using the '%makeinstall' macro (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0dbcfbdd2fcb7791dd002) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
fedora-review denied: [Bug 225827] Merge Review: gnome-nettool
Bug 225827: Merge Review: gnome-nettool Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Deji Akingunola [EMAIL PROTECTED] has denied Deji Akingunola [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225827 --- Additional Comments from Deji Akingunola [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, NEEDSWORK: * Post and postun requires on desktop-file-utils are not necesary * why does it need to run 'update-desktop-database' in it post and postun, the desktop file deosn't seem to contain any mimetype key (admittedly, I only checked src/gnome-nettool.desktop.in) * The '--add-category X-Red-Hat-Base' can also be removed from the desktop-file-install, its redundant. * Packaging guildelines discourage using the '%makeinstall' macro (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0dbc fbdd2fcb7791dd002) ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |m) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225932] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-launcher
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: jakarta-commons-launcher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225932 [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
fedora-review requested: [Bug 225932] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-launcher
Bug 225932: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-launcher Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Thomas Fitzsimmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225932 ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
fedora-review denied: [Bug 225625] Merge Review: bridge-utils
Bug 225625: Merge Review: bridge-utils Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Jima [EMAIL PROTECTED] has denied Jima [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225625 --- Additional Comments from Jima [EMAIL PROTECTED] *punts the ball back to dwmw2* ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225625] Merge Review: bridge-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: bridge-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225625 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 11:18 EST --- *punts the ball back to dwmw2* -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 11:19 EST --- Well, who is the current submitter?? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 223657] Review Request: PerceptualDiff - An image comparison utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: PerceptualDiff - An image comparison utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223657 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 11:26 EST --- setting needinfo (when you are back from exam, please let us know). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
fedora-review denied: [Bug 226002] Merge Review: libevent
Bug 226002: Merge Review: libevent
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Component: Package Review
Jima [EMAIL PROTECTED] has denied Jima [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s request for
fedora-review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226002
--- Additional Comments from Jima [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
6cc776458ecaf9247550863702a44d7c libevent-1.1a.tar.gz
6cc776458ecaf9247550863702a44d7c libevent-1.1a.tar.gz.1
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
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
1 bug - check for outstanding bugs on package.
Issues:
1. rpmlint says:
W: libevent incoherent-version-in-changelog control 1.1a-3.2.1
I'd recommend fixing the broken changelog entry from Jesse Keating's
bump-n-build script. (Seconded by Jesse.)
2. Dist tag
Appending %{?dist} to the Release field is recommended. Not a
blocker, but it'd be nice.
3. Not latest version
Upstream web site indicates 1.2a is the latest version (released
2006-12-02). Please evaluate as to whether upgrading might be for the
best.
4. Bugs open:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204990
If you can address the above, I don't see any reason why libevent can't
be approved for merging.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226002] Merge Review: libevent
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: libevent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226002
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 11:28 EST ---
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
6cc776458ecaf9247550863702a44d7c libevent-1.1a.tar.gz
6cc776458ecaf9247550863702a44d7c libevent-1.1a.tar.gz.1
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
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
1 bug - check for outstanding bugs on package.
Issues:
1. rpmlint says:
W: libevent incoherent-version-in-changelog control 1.1a-3.2.1
I'd recommend fixing the broken changelog entry from Jesse Keating's
bump-n-build script. (Seconded by Jesse.)
2. Dist tag
Appending %{?dist} to the Release field is recommended. Not a
blocker, but it'd be nice.
3. Not latest version
Upstream web site indicates 1.2a is the latest version (released
2006-12-02). Please evaluate as to whether upgrading might be for the
best.
4. Bugs open:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204990
If you can address the above, I don't see any reason why libevent can't
be approved for merging.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-02-09 11:29 EST --- (In reply to comment #18) For me -5 seems okay, just one question. - Why does some tcl files have executable permission with shebang, while some don't? Should all files should have both (i.e. executable permission with shebang) or all files should not, or current state has some meaning? (I think this may not a big issue, however, I just want to know what is occurring here). I did some tests and concluded that I can chmod -x those rpmlint shebangs. Parag do you want me to dump another release ? = A note: copyright.ps disappeared. While copyright.ps seems to say that this is MIT, however, as long as I read bug 226715, upstream want to claim that this is GPL. So currently copyright.ps can be ignored (my recognition is that the upstream of irsim and magic is the same, is this correct?). Yes it's the same upstream : http://opencircuitdesign.com/ Magic is the last one on the list to pave in fedora repositories :) The below apps are mantained by http://opencircuitdesign.com/ * Magic, the VLSI layout editor, extraction, and DRC tool. * XCircuit, the circuit drawing and schematic capture tool. * IRSIM, the switch-level digital circuit simulator. * Netgen, the circuit netlist comparison (LVS) and netlist conversion tool. * PCB, the printed circuit board layout editor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225875] Merge Review: gtksourceview
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: gtksourceview
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225875
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 11:35 EST ---
the package must own %{_datadir}/gtk-doc and %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html or depend
on something that does?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197445] Review Request: fuse-convmvfs
Please 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-convmvfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 11:35 EST --- Well, the srpm on comment 5 gets 550... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
fedora-review granted: [Bug 225928] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el
Bug 225928: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Thomas Fitzsimmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] has granted Fernando Nasser [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928 --- Additional Comments from Thomas Fitzsimmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] (In reply to comment #5) 1) W.r.t. Groups, please see the last message from 'spot' in the fedora-packaging list: You can put whatever you would like in the Group field. Its not regulated in Fedora whatsoever. ~spot That rpmlint warning is to be ignored as the Group use is actually deprecated and will be replaced by a new mechanism with the RPM revamping project. OK. 2) W.r.t. the javadoc code it is the current mechanism used at JPackage and Fedora 6 for allowing multiple versions of a software and its documentation to be installed. I have unearthed upstream a proposal that would simplify this in future JPackage releases, but current all Java paqckages that have -javadocs use the above code. Although I also want that code to be simplified, and I hope it will, it is not using anything explicitly forbidden by the current Fedora Guidelines. OK. APPROVED. Now we're supposed to leave this bug report open until the merged Fedora build system comes online. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support 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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 11:41 EST --- updated. Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/grass.spec SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/grass-6.2.3-1.src.rpm more review over Request. To summ up: * Fri Feb 09 2007 Balint Cristian [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6.2.1-3 - fix more nits in specs * Wed Feb 07 2007 Balint Cristian [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6.2.1-2 - fix nits in specs - disable static libs pack - use macros in file lists if 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 225826] Merge Review: gnome-netstatus
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-netstatus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225826 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 11:41 EST --- I've done some cleanups in the spec now. libxslt gets pulled in by gnome-doc-utils, your problem is something else. I'll see if the buildsystem is more successful in getting it built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225745] Merge Review: fedora-logos
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-logos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225745 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 11:41 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) So, whats the next step here ? Someone should take the package for review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225826] Merge Review: gnome-netstatus
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-netstatus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225826 [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 225928] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el
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: jakarta-commons-el https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 12:00 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) Now we're supposed to leave this bug report open until the merged Fedora build system comes online. I just talked with Warren. The procedure is to build the package in Brew. Then when I've confirmed that the updated package has hit Rawhide, I'll close this bug as RAWHIDE. So please go ahead and rebuild this package in Brew. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227631] Review Request: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and
unmounting filesystems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227631
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 12:02 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #1)
- rpmlint checks return:
W: autofs no-url-tag
Is there any?
Not really.
I registered autofs.net and started a wiki (wiki.autofs.net)
but it needs quite a bit of care and attention. We could use
it anyway. Have a look and see what you think.
I would list it.
W: autofs unversioned-explicit-obsoletes autofs-ldap
The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all
older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause
update
problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something
it
was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if
possible.
Not sure but I believe this was added when going from
autofs version 3 to autofs version 4 and all versions
of autofs-ldap needed to be obsoleted. Probably good
to keep this.
This seems to have happened in the RH6.2/7.0 time frame (~autofs 3.1.5/6), and
I'd would argue that it's long past its usefulness.
It also triggers:
E: autofs obsolete-not-provided autofs-ldap
The obsoleted package must also be provided to allow clean upgrade paths
and not to break dependencies.
Other rpmlint:
W: autofs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/autofs
A configuration file is stored in your package without the noreplace flag.
- Shouldn't be marked as %config. You could also use the %{_initrd} macro for
the diretory here and elsewhere in the spec.
E: autofs executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/auto.net
E: autofs executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/auto.smb
- But these are okay - expected to be modified and not required for operation.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 12:06 EST --- Umm.. current fedora policy is that we have to wait one month plus one week at most for submitter's response... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Policy/StalledReviews Well, actually I want to have all packages required by grass reviewed by someone (including me). John, what do you think of current status? Anyway I go to sleep because it is 2AM in Japan now. By the way.. what is PLS? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227570] Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227570 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 12:15 EST --- Okay, so upstream is now aware of and working on the above issue. I expect a pretty quick resolution. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 12:17 EST --- Anyway I go to sleep because it is 2AM in Japan now. No problem. tommorow is a day too. Till than i will come up with geotiff-less version of gdal. By the way.. what is PLS? PLS is please. I am sorry if i confuse with my abreviation, i will avoid 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
fedora-review denied: [Bug 226366] Merge Review: regexp
Bug 226366: Merge Review: regexp Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Andrew Overholt [EMAIL PROTECTED] has denied Andrew Overholt [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366 --- Additional Comments from Andrew Overholt [EMAIL PROTECTED] (In reply to comment #3) Can you set the assigned and flags as you see fit? Definitely. I totally forgot about the new flag-based reviews. Sorry. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226366] Merge Review: regexp
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: regexp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 12:18 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) Can you set the assigned and flags as you see fit? Definitely. I totally forgot about the new flag-based reviews. Sorry. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
fedora-review denied: [Bug 225306] Merge Review: avalon-logkit
Bug 225306: Merge Review: avalon-logkit Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Andrew Overholt [EMAIL PROTECTED] has denied Andrew Overholt [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225306 ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225306] Merge Review: avalon-logkit
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: avalon-logkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225306 [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
fedora-review granted: [Bug 225932] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-launcher
Bug 225932: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-launcher
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Component: Package Review
Thomas Fitzsimmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] has granted Thomas Fitzsimmons
[EMAIL PROTECTED]'s request for fedora-review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225932
--- Additional Comments from Thomas Fitzsimmons [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MUST:
* is this appropriate for Fedora?
X rpmlint on all rpms gives no output
$ rpmlint jakarta-commons-launcher-1.1-1jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm
W: jakarta-commons-launcher non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
$ rpmlint jakarta-commons-launcher-1.1-1jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm
W: jakarta-commons-launcher non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
$ rpmlint jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc-1.1-1jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm
W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc non-standard-group
Development/Documentation
W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc percent-in-%postun
W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
$ rpmlint jakarta-commons-launcher-debuginfo-1.1-1jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm
These are all OK for the reasons Fernando cites here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928
But this one is a bug:
W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc percent-in-%postun
You need this patch:
--- jakarta-commons-launcher.spec 9 Feb 2007 03:56:28 - 1.16
+++ jakarta-commons-launcher.spec 9 Feb 2007 17:06:05 -
@@ -147,7 +147,7 @@
fi
%if %{gcj_support}
-%{post}
+%post
if [ -x %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db ]
then
%{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db
@@ -155,7 +155,7 @@
%endif
%if %{gcj_support}
-%{postun}
+%postun
if [ -x %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db ]
then
%{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db
* package is named appropriately
* specfile name matches %{name}
* package meets packaging guidelines.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* specfile written in American English
* specfile is legible
* source files match upstream
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
* find_lang usage correct
* package is not relocatable
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
* file permissions are fine; %defattrs present
* %clean present
* macro usage is consistent
* package contains code
* no large docs so no -doc subpackage
* %doc files don't affect runtime
* gcj .so files need not be in a -devel sub-package
* no pkgconfig or header files
* no -devel package
* no .la files
* desktop file
* not a web app.
* file ownership fine
* binary RPMs function on x86
* final provides and requires are sane
SHOULD:
* package includes license text
* description and summary sections don't have translations (OK)
* package builds in mock
* package builds on i386
* package functions as described
X scriptlets should be sane
See above about fixing %{post} and %{postun} references.
* no -devel package
* no pkgconfig files
I'm marking this as fedora-review+. Please build the fixed packages into Brew.
Once they hit Rawhide, I'll close this RAWHIDE.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225932] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-launcher
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: jakarta-commons-launcher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225932
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 12:27 EST ---
MUST:
* is this appropriate for Fedora?
X rpmlint on all rpms gives no output
$ rpmlint jakarta-commons-launcher-1.1-1jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm
W: jakarta-commons-launcher non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
$ rpmlint jakarta-commons-launcher-1.1-1jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm
W: jakarta-commons-launcher non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
$ rpmlint jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc-1.1-1jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm
W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc non-standard-group
Development/Documentation
W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc percent-in-%postun
W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
$ rpmlint jakarta-commons-launcher-debuginfo-1.1-1jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm
These are all OK for the reasons Fernando cites here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928
But this one is a bug:
W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc percent-in-%postun
You need this patch:
--- jakarta-commons-launcher.spec 9 Feb 2007 03:56:28 - 1.16
+++ jakarta-commons-launcher.spec 9 Feb 2007 17:06:05 -
@@ -147,7 +147,7 @@
fi
%if %{gcj_support}
-%{post}
+%post
if [ -x %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db ]
then
%{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db
@@ -155,7 +155,7 @@
%endif
%if %{gcj_support}
-%{postun}
+%postun
if [ -x %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db ]
then
%{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db
* package is named appropriately
* specfile name matches %{name}
* package meets packaging guidelines.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* specfile written in American English
* specfile is legible
* source files match upstream
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
* find_lang usage correct
* package is not relocatable
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
* file permissions are fine; %defattrs present
* %clean present
* macro usage is consistent
* package contains code
* no large docs so no -doc subpackage
* %doc files don't affect runtime
* gcj .so files need not be in a -devel sub-package
* no pkgconfig or header files
* no -devel package
* no .la files
* desktop file
* not a web app.
* file ownership fine
* binary RPMs function on x86
* final provides and requires are sane
SHOULD:
* package includes license text
* description and summary sections don't have translations (OK)
* package builds in mock
* package builds on i386
* package functions as described
X scriptlets should be sane
See above about fixing %{post} and %{postun} references.
* no -devel package
* no pkgconfig files
I'm marking this as fedora-review+. Please build the fixed packages into Brew.
Once they hit Rawhide, I'll close this RAWHIDE.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225745] Merge Review: fedora-logos
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-logos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225745 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 13:07 EST --- Well, you started a review and left a - behind, so it was not very clear that you don't intend to continue :-( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225345] Review Request: kodos - Visual regular expression 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: kodos - Visual regular expression editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225345 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||.org) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226366] Merge Review: regexp
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: regexp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 14:03 EST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
MUST:
X rpmlint on regexp srpm gives no output
W: regexp non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
Perhaps: System Environment/Libraries ?
It seems use of the existing group is acceptable:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00070.html
X package meets packaging guidelines.
. BuildRoot incorrect. As per this:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Amended.
. do we need section free?
Its a redundant JPackage artifact, removed.
X specfile is legible
. do we still need the crazy gcj_support line?
AFAICR the incantation was added so native compilation (i.e. arch dependence)
could be specified on a build machine directly without the need to modify spec
files. However, brew prevents the use of machine specific settings, hence the
use of the %define at the top. However, if the packages are built on mock, such
settings can be provided on the build machine and the hardcoded %define can be
removed.
X source files match upstream
. I can't find the tarball. Also, Source0 can be the actual URL ending with
the
tar.gz.
Really? With
Source0:http://www.apache.org/dist/jakarta/regexp/jakarta-regexp-%{version}.tar.gz
wget http://www.apache.org/dist/jakarta/regexp/jakarta-regexp-1.4.tar.gz brings
in the tar ball fine for me. Note the replacement of %{version} in the URL.
Surely the use of the macro is not a problem?
X BuildRequires are proper
. why is jpackage-utils in Requires(pre,post)?
According to the guidelines, all directories created by the package must be
owned by the package or the package must require a package that provides the
directory. Directories like %{_javadir} and %{_javadocdir} (/usr/share/java,
/usr/share/javadoc) are provided by jpackage-utils and since the package tries
to install/uninstall things to these directories, I think the presence of these
directories ought to be mandated for the package to be installed/uninstalled.
X package owns all directories and files
. why is the javadoc symlink not just made in %install and then added to the
%file section?
Fixed. The %pre and %post scriptlets for the javadoc are there for multiple
versions of the javadoc package to coexist and the unversioned symlink allows
crosslinking of javadocs.
X final provides and requires are sane
Do we need a 'java' dependency somewhere? Does the (erroneous, I think)
Requires(pre,post) on jpackage-utils imply a regular Requires on it? Do we
need things in coreutils (rpm, ln) in Requires(post,postun)?
Added the Requires on java
The Requires(x) on jpackage-utils has been commented on above. As far as the
question of /bin/rm and /bin/ln in the requires(x) is concerned, this is to
ensure that rpm transactions ensure these are present before the
installation/uninstallation of the package since the %pre and %postun scripts
use them.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226366] Merge Review: regexp
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: regexp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366 [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 223023] Review Request: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223023 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 14:15 EST --- Created an attachment (id=147796) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147796action=view) auto-mode-alist, magic-mode-alist dumps C-h f xml-mode: xml-mode is an alias for `sgml-mode' in `textmodes/sgml-mode.el'. $ rpm -qf /usr/share/emacs/22.0.93/lisp/textmodes/sgml-mode.elc emacs-common-22.0.93-4.cmn6.i386 That's a Rawhide Emacs locally rebuilt for FC6. I've already tried changing the order of the nxml-mode and sgml-mode auto-mode-alist associations, to no avail, so it's not that. And nxml-mode is the only thing in my auto-mode-alist that is associated with *.xhtml files, yet they open in xml-mode (ie. XHTML in the modeline). That's why I suggested magic-mode-alist might be interfering in comment 3. See attached cleaned up typescript; the first part contains dumps of auto-mode-alist and magic-mode-alist with the as-is nxml-init.el, and the latter part the dump of auto-mode-alist after modifying nxml-init.el to append instead of prepending its auto-mode-alist modifications. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213662] Review Request: openmpi - Upstream MPI package with native InfiniBand support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openmpi - Upstream MPI package with native InfiniBand support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213662 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG OtherBugsDependingO|188265 | nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226366] Merge Review: regexp
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: regexp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 14:28 EST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #2)
MUST:
X rpmlint on regexp srpm gives no output
W: regexp non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
Perhaps: System Environment/Libraries ?
It seems use of the existing group is acceptable:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00070.html
Okay.
X source files match upstream
. I can't find the tarball. Also, Source0 can be the actual URL ending
with the
tar.gz.
Really?
Sorry, I accidentally copied that from another review :)
X BuildRequires are proper
. why is jpackage-utils in Requires(pre,post)?
According to the guidelines, all directories created by the package must be
owned by the package
Yes, I agree with your reasoning but let's just remove the javadoc symlinking in
%post{,un} and then these requirements can go away.
X package owns all directories and files
. why is the javadoc symlink not just made in %install and then added to the
%file section?
Fixed. The %pre and %post scriptlets for the javadoc are there for multiple
versions of the javadoc package to coexist and the unversioned symlink allows
crosslinking of javadocs.
I don't think this is worth the complexity of the the %posts. Do you agree?
X final provides and requires are sane
Do we need a 'java' dependency somewhere? Does the (erroneous, I think)
Requires(pre,post) on jpackage-utils imply a regular Requires on it? Do we
need things in coreutils (rpm, ln) in Requires(post,postun)?
Added the Requires on java
Great, thanks.
As far as the
question of /bin/rm and /bin/ln in the requires(x) is concerned, this is to
ensure that rpm transactions ensure these are present before the
installation/uninstallation of the package since the %pre and %postun scripts
use them.
Yeah, I'm just not sure if things in coreutils need to be worried about for
Requires(post,postun). I'll ask on fedora-packaging and we can go from there.
Thanks, Vivek.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226366] Merge Review: regexp
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: regexp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366 [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 225932] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-launcher
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: jakarta-commons-launcher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225932 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-09 15:12 EST --- %post and %postun fixed in rawhide and rebuilt in brew. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
