[Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds
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: desktop-backgrounds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 03:09 EST ---
Yes, so this other packages means other packages required
by this package, not other packages not really required by
this package.
So having two directories owned by several packages is actually
_allowed_ . The more important thing is that every directories
should be owned at any install option somehow. So this package
does not need gnome-backgrounds, then this package _must_ own
%{_datadir}/gnome-background-properties. This is a _MUST_.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds
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: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 03:14 EST --- Oops.. s|two directories|a directory| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds
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: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 03:19 EST --- your interpretation completely disregards the rule-of-thumb example providing in the review guidance. It's an established policy, a policy which was re-affirmed in discussion at FUDCon among multiple reviewers and attendant members of the packaging committee. If you want to have a wider discussion of its interpretation, feel free to bring it up in the appropriate mailinglist. Having a running debate in this review ticket is counter-productive. If the maintainer feels there is a particular need to break this particular policy, that maintainer can provide a justification as per the review guidance. good day -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds
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: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 03:28 EST --- No, this policy is not changed actually. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page
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: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool,
man page
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 03:36 EST ---
I cleanup up the spec file by removing the configure and makeinstall macro's.
The ./configure and make install should do, but I am not sure about the various
dirs on 64 bit the, %{_x11dir}/%{_lib} should reveal the x11 dir on 64 bit this
is /usr/lib64/.
The rpm's are the same.
I hope the spec file is now working as it should work.
spec url: http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-7.6.spec
srpm url: http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-0.7.6_4-3.9.src.rpm
debug url:
http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-debuginfo-0.7.6_4-3.9.i386.rpm
rpm url: http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-0.7.6_4-3.9.i386.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 223943] Review Request: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug!
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: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! Alias: nemiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223943 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 03:54 EST --- Using chcon in %install doesn't help because (a) file contexts aren't stored in RPM packages, and (b) rpm sets the file contexts based on the currently-running policy at package install time, which would override any file context set previously. The quick fix for this is to fix the file context in %post. The better fix for this is to request that /usr/lib(64)?/nemiver/plugins/dbgperspective/libdbgperspectiveplugin.so is set to context type textrel_shlib_t in the main selinux-policy package (request this on fedora-selinux-list or raise a bug on selinux-policy), so you don't need to adjust the context type in your own package. The bext fix is of course to get the underlying memory access fixed upstream as mentioned before. Hopefully they will have a clue what is going on. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 03:56 EST --- I have reviewed this release (moto4lin-0.3-5) and all problems reported before seem fixed, except for one: the compile step does not take into account $RPM_OPT_FLAGS: qmake ignores the parameters included in the the spec file and uses only those included in the project bundled in the source, which in turn uses the default values from /usr/lib/qt-3.3/mkspecs/linux-g++/qmake.conf. Unfortunately this contradicts the packaging guidelines (wiki: Compiler flags). Neither the reporter not I have enough experience to solve this issues, therefore I kindly request for counseling from people more experienced. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 223943] Review Request: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug!
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: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! Alias: nemiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223943 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 04:05 EST --- (In reply to comment #18) The better fix for this is to request that /usr/lib(64)?/nemiver/plugins/dbgperspective/libdbgperspectiveplugin.so is set to context type textrel_shlib_t in the main selinux-policy package (request this on fedora-selinux-list or raise a bug on selinux-policy), so you don't need to adjust the context type in your own package. +1 this is always preferable if .so really needs such context -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds
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: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 04:05 EST --- Again, * this package does not require gnome-backgrounds * Also my system does not have gnome-backgrounds Please read carefully the section File and Directory Ownership of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines . http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines only shows the summary. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords||Reopened Resolution|WONTFIX | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 04:09 EST --- I think giving up this package is too early. Back to assigned. I will see if I can help for this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds
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: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 04:12 EST --- re: comment #5 'So having two directories owned by several packages is actually_allowed_' Mamoru, please read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines again: - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. The exception to this are directories listed explicitly in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard. This means that each directory not listed in the FHS can have only one owner. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228465] New: Review Request: hunspell-cy - Welsh hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228465 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-cy - Welsh hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-cy.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-cy-0.20040425-1.src.rpm Description: Welsh hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola
P2k phones
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 04:16 EST ---
make CXX=g++ $RPM_OPT_FLAGS %{_smp_mflags} all
seems okay.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds
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: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 04:18 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. The exception to this are directories listed explicitly in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard. This means that each directory not listed in the FHS can have only one owner. No, this means that there is no need to have an explicit dependency on filesystem even if filesystem owns some of the directories used by the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225757] Merge Review: flac
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: flac https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225757 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 04:20 EST --- Would be my bug actually. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228468] New: Review Request: hunspell-da - Danish hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228468 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-da - Danish hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-da.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-da-0.20050330-1.src.rpm Description: Danish hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds
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: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 04:25 EST --- okay... instead of having a sidebar conversation in a bug ticket... it is time to take this to the mailinglist for general discussion. Clearly there is a difference of opinion. How about we spare the poor package maintainer the bloody details of this, and move this to the fedora-extras-list for discussion. I sincerely invite Mamoru Tasaka to start a thread on fedora-extras-list concerning the matter. And I would encourage anyone with an opinion to participate in the mailinglist discussion. Doing a prolonged discussion in here, is counter-productive. -jef -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228469] New: Review Request: hunspell-de - German hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228469 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-de - German hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-de.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-de-0.20051213-1.src.rpm Description: German hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 04:29 EST --- Thank you, Mamoru, that was it. Jafo-redhat: please modify the spec to include Mamoru's suggestion and I will approve the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds
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: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 04:30 EST --- I always check fedora-devel fedora-extras fedora-maintainers fedora-list fedora-packaging etc as much as I can. However always the discussion is held on midnight... (I live in Japan, EST + 14h) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228471] New: Review Request: hunspell-ee - Estonian hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228471 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-ee - Estonian hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-ee.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-ee-0.20030602-1.src.rpm Description: Estonian hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds
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: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 04:40 EST --- I brought up this issue here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00308.html there was no definitive answer. This issue is still open. In the review I do I insist that no directory should be owned and I let the packager the choice to own the directory or depend on the not-really needed package. Maybe this issue should be risen once again on another list. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225286] Merge Review: aspell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225286 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 04:42 EST --- aspell-0.60.5-3.fc7 is in development branch now - please Jef could you look at 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 228472] New: Review Request: hunspell-el - Greek hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228472 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-el - Greek hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-el.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-el-0.20041220-1.src.rpm Description: Greek hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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-cvs? | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228465] Review Request: hunspell-cy - Welsh hunspell dictionaries
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-cy - Welsh hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228465 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 04:48 EST --- - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 7095549a89b21a1952639902fa6dcae0ec6a4e16 cy_GB.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license GPL stated in the tag is the same as the web site says - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint outputsilent - code, not content - no need for -docs as the only doc is just a 5K text file with the GPL license in Welsh and English - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file 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 228473] New: Review Request: hunspell-es - Spanish hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228473 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-es - Spanish hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-es.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-es-0.20050510-1.src.rpm Description: Spanish hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228468] Review Request: hunspell-da - Danish hunspell dictionaries
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-da - Danish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228468 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| Flag||fedora-review- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 05:02 EST --- This package does not include the most recent upstream version of the files and therefore the sha1sum of the included zip is not the same with the one from %Source0. Please update to the current version (06-Jan-2007) or explain why should the previous version be accepted (and how can it be verified) before continuing the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228475] New: Review Request: hunspell-fr - French hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228475 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-fr - French hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-fr.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-fr-0.20060915-1.src.rpm Description: French hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod
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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| Reporter Accessible|1 | CC Accessible|1 | Group|fedora_contrib | Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228476] New: Review Request: hunspell-ga - Irish hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228476 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-ga - Irish hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-ga.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-ga-0.20060731-1.src.rpm Description: Irish hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228477] New: Review Request: hunspell-gl - Galician hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228477 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-gl - Galician hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-gl.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-gl-0.20061002-1.src.rpm Description: Galician hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228469] Review Request: hunspell-de - German hunspell dictionaries
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-de - German hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228469 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 05:26 EST --- - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 09beb35f8fd3753125535a920a1a001ce5b28fa8 de_DE-20051213.zip de75be0efe486a69a24f13ec33be5bb0357dc599 de_CH-20051213.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license GPL stated in the tag is the same as the web site says - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint outputsilent - code, not content - no need for -docs as the only doc is just a 5K text file with the GPL license in Welsh and English - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED PS: Maybe you could also include the de_AT dictionary files ? They seem to be based roughly on the same word lists -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils
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: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 05:27 EST --- Thanks. SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. Historically coreutils.spec has kept its translations in the specspo package, as other Core packages have done. What needs to happen now? Spec file does not use macros for bin, sbin and what not throughout. I didn't see any missed bin/sbin macros (note that _bindir is /usr/bin, not /bin, and similarly for _sbindir), but the %pre scriptlet was missing _datadir and _infodir. New package tagged and built as 6.7-4.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 228469] Review Request: hunspell-de - German hunspell dictionaries
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-de - German hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228469 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 05:29 EST --- Of course there is no Welsh, but German involved. Sorry. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228478] New: Review Request: hunspell-he - Hebrew hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228478 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-he - Hebrew hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-he.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-he-0.20050112-1.src.rpm Description: Hebrew hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228479] New: Review Request: hunspell-hr - Croatian hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228479 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-hr - Croatian hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-hr.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-hr-0.20060607-1.src.rpm Description: Croatian hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228468] Review Request: hunspell-da - Danish hunspell dictionaries
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-da - Danish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228468 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 05:44 EST --- Indeed, new danish dictionaries available. Updated as http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-da-0.20070106-1.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-da.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228481] New: Review Request: hunspell-hu - Hungarian hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228481 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-hu - Hungarian hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-hu.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-hu-0.20061105-1.src.rpm Description: Hungarian hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228471] Review Request: hunspell-ee - Estonian hunspell dictionaries
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-ee - Estonian hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228471 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 05:59 EST --- - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 4289cdd695eba079aceed471954f0adfc8059ffa et_EE.aff 712f4651ae2a82bea216cad78b144d182ad1c06f et_EE.dic - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 2 text files) - the license LGPL stated in the tag is the same as upstream's web site (http://www.meso.ee/~jjpp/speller/,Litsents ) says; the actual license is not included in the final rpm because upstream does not supply an actual release but just the two dictionary files - there are only 2 files (word lists) so no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent on src.rpm; binary gives the following warning: W: hunspell-ee no-documentation which is consistent with the fact that there is nothing in the rpm but the two dictionary files - code, not content - no need for .desktop file APPROVED Obs: please bug upstream to include the LGPL license in case they release the dictionary as a single file (tar/zip/whatever); it would also be a good idea if their dict files would be available at http://ftp.services.openoffice.org/pub/OpenOffice.org/contrib/dictionaries/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228483] New: Review Request: hunspell-it - Italian hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228483 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-it - Italian hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-it.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-it-2.3-0.1.20060723.src.rpm Description: Italian hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228484] New: Review Request: hunspell-lt - Lithuanian hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228484 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-lt - Lithuanian hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-lt.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-lt-1.1-1.20061127cvs.src.rpm Description: Lithuanian hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228488] New: Review Request: hunspell-ms - Malay hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228488 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-ms - Malay hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-ms.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-ms-0.20050117-1.src.rpm Description: Malay hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228468] Review Request: hunspell-da - Danish hunspell dictionaries
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-da - Danish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228468 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 06:36 EST --- - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 75bc7fbcbb9736cc4615bf19a5d74001e8c468ac da_DK.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license GPL stated in the tag is the same as the one included in the upstream archive - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint outputsilent - code, not content - no need for -docs as the only doc is just the GPL license + usage instructions - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file 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 228489] New: Review Request: hunspell-nb - Bokmaal hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228489 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-nb - Bokmaal hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-nb.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-nb-0.20050315-1.src.rpm Description: Bokmaal hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228490] New: Review Request: hunspell-nl - Dutch hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228490 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-nl - Dutch hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-nl.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-nl-0.20050617-1.src.rpm Description: Dutch hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer
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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 06:44 EST --- You need to add ncurses-devel in BuildRequires also add disttag ,correct buildroot mock build is failing with chmod 4755 /usr/bin/zhcon chmod: cannot access '/usr/bin/zhcon': No such file or directory. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228492] New: Review Request: hunspell-nn - Nynorsk hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228492 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-nn - Nynorsk hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-nn.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-nn-0.20050112-1.src.rpm Description: Nynorsk hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226496] Merge Review: tn5250
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: tn5250 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226496 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 06:53 EST --- all except suggestions 2 and 4 fixed in tn5250-0.17.3-8.fc7 - failed scripts often lead to duplicate packages in the rpmdb, I'd like to avoid that - %patch -b can lead to rpms containing backup files if you aren't careful. It happened in the past and will happen again. I'd suggest the opposite: remove all -b flags and add them only when you need them for gendiff. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228493] New: Review Request: hunspell-pl - Polish hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228493 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-pl - Polish hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-pl.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-pl-0.20060823-1.src.rpm Description: Polish hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228495] New: Review Request: hunspell-pt - Portuguese hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228495 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-pt - Portuguese hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-pt.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-pt-0.20061026-1.src.rpm Description: Portuguese hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228496] New: Review Request: hunspell-ru - Russian hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228496 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-ru - Russian hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-ru.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-ru-0.20040406-1.src.rpm Description: Russian hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228497] New: Review Request: hunspell-sk - Slovak hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228497 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-sk - Slovak hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-sk.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-sk-0.20050228-1.src.rpm Description: Slovak hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195486] Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195486 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 07:16 EST --- Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kdenetwork.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.testing/kdenetwork-3.5.6-1.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Jan 16 2007 Rex Dieter rdieter[AT]fedoraproject.org 7:3.5.6-1 - kde-3.5.6 * Tue Jan 09 2007 Rex Dieter rdieter[AT]fedoraproject 7:3.5.5-5 - ksirc DOS (http://www.kde.org/info/security/advisory-20070109-1.txt) * Wed Nov 01 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 7:3.5.5-4 - BR: meanwhile-devel * Wed Nov 01 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 7:3.5.5-3 - respin ICQ patch (kde#136566c#37) * Wed Nov 01 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 7:3.5.5-2 - ICQ patch (kde#136566, rh#213341) * Wed Oct 11 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 7:3.5.5-1 - 3.5.5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228499] New: Review Request: hunspell-sl - Slovenian hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228499 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-sl - Slovenian hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-sl.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-sl-0.20021008-1.src.rpm Description: Slovenian hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195485] Review Request: kdegraphics: K Desktop Environment - Graphics Applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdegraphics: K Desktop Environment - Graphics Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195485 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 07:19 EST --- Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kdegraphics.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/kdegraphics-3.5.6-1.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Jan 16 2007 Rex Dieter rdieter[AT]fedoraproject.org 7:3.5.6-1 - kde-3.5.6 * Thu Dec 07 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 7:3.5.5-4 - BR: poppler-qt-devel * Tue Nov 28 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 7:3.5.5-3 - %%post(un): /sbin/ldconfig * Thu Nov 01 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 7:3.5.5-2 - post-3.5.5-kdegraphics.diff -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194373] Review Request: kdeedu: Educational/Edutainment applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdeedu: Educational/Edutainment applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194373 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 07:21 EST --- If it's not required anymore nope. (: Update (for posterity): Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kdeedu.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/kdeedu-3.5.6-1.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 194280] Review Request: kdebindings: KDE/DCOP bindings to non-C++ languages
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: kdebindings: KDE/DCOP bindings to non-C++ languages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194280 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 07:22 EST --- Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kdebindings.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/kdebindings-3.5.6-1.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Jan 16 2007 Rex Dieter rdieter[AT]fedoraproject.org 3.5.6-1 - kde-3.5.6 * Thu Oct 05 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 3.5.5-1 - 3.5.5 * Tue Jul 25 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 3.5.4-1 - kde-3.5.4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228500] New: Review Request: hunspell-sv - Swedish hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228500 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-sv - Swedish hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-sv.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-sv-1.3.8.6-1.src.rpm Description: Swedish hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228501] New: Review Request: hunspell-th - Thai hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228501 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-th - Thai hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-th.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-th-0.20050530-1.src.rpm Description: Thai hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228503] New: Review Request: hunspell-zu - Zulu hunspell dictionaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228503 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-zu - Zulu hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-zu.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-zu-0.20060120-1.src.rpm Description: Zulu hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200236] Review Request: kdeaddons: K Desktop Environment - Plugins
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: kdeaddons: K Desktop Environment - Plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200236 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 07:30 EST --- Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kdeaddons.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/kdeaddons-3.5.6-2.src.rpm %changelog * Thu Jan 25 2007 Rex Dieter rdieter[AT]fedoraproject.org 3.5.6-2 - upstream privacy patch * Tue Jan 16 2007 Rex Dieter rdieter[AT]fedoraproject.org 3.5.6-1 - kde-3.5.6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228503] Review Request: hunspell-zu - Zulu hunspell dictionaries
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-zu - Zulu hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228503 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 07:31 EST --- last one, phew! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-02-13 07:35 EST ---
* in %files, there is no need of * for odbc, so
%{_libdir}/%{name}/liblodbc.so*
should be replaced with
%{_libdir}/%{name}/liblodbc.so
* no need to duplicate the documentation in all the subpackages.
LICENSE NEWS ChangeLog README
could be only in the main package.
* HOWTO-RELEASE isn't usefull in the fedora package
* The following is useless and should be removed:
%post tcl -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun tcl -p /sbin/ldconfig
* there is a license issue for vpflib. In LICENSE, there is:
vpflib/*:
No license mentioned, public domain?
However some files in vpflib have an author, which means a copyright
owner. Without license they are under the default license which is
a restrictive license (no redistribution, no modification).
* there is also a license issue for ogdi/c-api/gmath.c:
ogdi/c-api/gmath.c is:
Derived from Numerical methods in C
Looking at this book it seems that the codes are under a proprietary
license.
Suggestions:
* The timestamps of source file aren't the same that those
spectool -g gets (but otherwise source match upstream)
* use
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
instead of
%defattr(-,root,root)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226496] Merge Review: tn5250
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: tn5250
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226496
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 07:40 EST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
all except suggestions 2 and 4 fixed in tn5250-0.17.3-8.fc7
- failed scripts often lead to duplicate packages in the rpmdb, I'd like to
avoid that
You are right, and I agree with you. I didn't targeted the rm -f in
scriptlets, but in %install:
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/lib5250.la
- %patch -b can lead to rpms containing backup files if you aren't careful. It
happened in the past and will happen again.
I'd suggest the opposite: remove all -b flags and add them only when you need
them for gendiff.
Ok, as you like.
I haven't seen the changes, so I guess it takes time for changes in
internal cvs to propagate.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 07:51 EST --- Well I will want to check by tomorrow (in Japan: EST +14)... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-02-13 07:53 EST --- I hope I can check this by tomorrow... may take a bit long.. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228472] Review Request: hunspell-el - Greek hunspell dictionaries
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-el - Greek hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228472 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 07:58 EST --- GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum f2277588f698658b7d4c5ce0aa2e7b9e399feedd el_GR.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license GPL stated in the tag is the same as the one included in the source, and is included in the package - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - no need for -docs as the only doc is just the GPL license - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file 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 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] 2007-02-13 08:10 EST ---
(In reply to comment #33)
* in %files, there is no need of * for odbc, so
%{_libdir}/%{name}/liblodbc.so*
should be replaced with
%{_libdir}/%{name}/liblodbc.so
fixed.
* no need to duplicate the documentation in all the subpackages.
LICENSE NEWS ChangeLog README
could be only in the main package.
fixed, leaved only README in the odbc/tcl package (at last need something).
* HOWTO-RELEASE isn't usefull in the fedora package
get rid
* The following is useless and should be removed:
%post tcl -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun tcl -p /sbin/ldconfig
oh yes. Those are now private libs.
* there is a license issue for vpflib. In LICENSE, there is:
vpflib/*:
No license mentioned, public domain?
However some files in vpflib have an author, which means a copyright
owner. Without license they are under the default license which is
a restrictive license (no redistribution, no modification).
* there is also a license issue for ogdi/c-api/gmath.c:
ogdi/c-api/gmath.c is:
Derived from Numerical methods in C
Looking at this book it seems that the codes are under a proprietary
license.
* there is a license issue for vpflib. In LICENSE, there is:
vpflib/*:
No license mentioned, public domain?
However some files in vpflib have an author, which means a copyright
owner. Without license they are under the default license which is
a restrictive license (no redistribution, no modification).
I try contact tham and sort this out.
* there is also a license issue for ogdi/c-api/gmath.c:
ogdi/c-api/gmath.c is:
Derived from Numerical methods in C
Is this insuficcient (from .c header):
Looking at this book it seems that the codes are under a proprietary
**
* Derived from Numerical methods in C.
*
* Copyright (C) 1995 Logiciels et Applications Scientifiques (L.A.S.) Inc
* Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and
* its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted,
* provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies, that
* both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
* supporting documentation, and that the name of L.A.S. Inc not be used
* in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software
* without specific, written prior permission. L.A.S. Inc. makes no
* representations about the suitability of this software for any purpose.
* It is provided as is without express or implied warranty.
**
Suggestions:
* The timestamps of source file aren't the same that those
spectool -g gets (but otherwise source match upstream)
* use
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
instead of
%defattr(-,root,root)
fixed.
-2 updated.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226666] Merge Review: yum
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: yum https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 08:20 EST --- This is my first review so maybe somebody should take a extra look at my 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 226666] Merge Review: yum
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: yum
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 08:23 EST ---
Must :
OK - spec filename is %{name}.spec
OK - source match upstream md5sum
CVS: 6e6953f92531aa0f9074199f2925d22a yum-3.1.1.tar.gz
Upstream :6e6953f92531aa0f9074199f2925d22a yum-3.1.1.tar.gz
OK - Package naming
OK - Spec in American English and legible
OK - License : GPL
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - License file (COPYING) is included in %doc
- Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
FAIL - Buildroot should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Comments:
* Source0 should end with %{name}-%{version}, not yum-%{version}
* Requires: python (Upstream spec has Requires: python = 2.4)
* Requires: rpm = 0:4.1.1 ( Upstream spec has Requires: rpm = 0:4.4.2)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-02-13 08:27 EST --- (In reply to comment #34) fixed, leaved only README in the odbc/tcl package (at last need something). If there is nothing specific for these sub-packages, the right thing is not to have any documentation. There will be a rpmling warning but it can be ignored. Is this insuficcient (from .c header): Yes, it is insufficient since it covers only the new code. Looking at this book it seems that the codes are under a proprietary ** * Derived from Numerical methods in C. * * Copyright (C) 1995 Logiciels et Applications Scientifiques (L.A.S.) Inc * Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and * its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, * provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies, that * both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear in * supporting documentation, and that the name of L.A.S. Inc not be used * in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software * without specific, written prior permission. L.A.S. Inc. makes no * representations about the suitability of this software for any purpose. * It is provided as is without express or implied warranty. ** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-02-13 08:49 EST --- (In reply to comment #34) Looking at this book it seems that the codes are under a proprietary ** * Derived from Numerical methods in C. * * Copyright (C) 1995 Logiciels et Applications Scientifiques (L.A.S.) Inc * Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and * its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, * provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies, that * both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear in * supporting documentation, and that the name of L.A.S. Inc not be used * in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software * without specific, written prior permission. L.A.S. Inc. makes no * representations about the suitability of this software for any purpose. * It is provided as is without express or implied warranty. ** This is Standard ML of New Jersey Copyright License and GNU says this is permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2007-02-13 08:53 EST --- I've added something to nxml-init.el that I hope will resolve this. http://cyberelk.net/tim/data/nxml-mode/emacs-nxml-mode.spec http://cyberelk.net/tim/data/nxml-mode/emacs-nxml-mode-0.20041004.1-4.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 228272] Review Request: amarokFS - Simple, nice looking full screen front-end for Amarok
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: amarokFS - Simple, nice looking full screen front-end for Amarok https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228272 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 08:53 EST --- Thanks for the feedback! New build: Spec URL: http://www.snoekie.com/rpm/amarokFS.spec SRPM URL: http://www.snoekie.com/rpm/amarokFS-0.4.2-2.src.rpm Changes: - Added BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils - Fixed source URLs - Removed Application from .desktop file's Categories tag - Install application icon to correct location - Added KDE/GTK icon cache update scriptlets - Cleaned up the application's qmake file a bit (In reply to comment #1) Needs work: * QT environment variable are not sourced I am not following you here - the package is being built using qmake; AFAIK the CONFIG += qt line in the qmake project file takes care of this? I have cleaned up the .pro file accordingly to make it more clear, though. * The package should contain the text of the license, please ask the author to include it in the tarball. It's not a blocker for the package, but it would be better. I agree. The developer seems to be away on holiday at the moment, but I will mail him about this; I also plan on submitting some of the patches/bugfixes I added to this application once the 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 228473] Review Request: hunspell-es - Spanish hunspell dictionaries
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-es - Spanish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228473 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 08:59 EST --- GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 3801efb6d6252e40a743a913afc4f86bb8d3a3ef es_ES.zip 4cc6bd6f5985d876f6d1bb565051b8131ddb82e4 es_MX.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only text files) - the license LGPL stated in the tag is the same as the one included in the source and is included in the package - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - no need for -docs as the only doc are just the LGPL licenses (localised for Spain and Mexico) - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED PS: You could also add support for es_BZ (Belize), es_CU (Cuba), es_GU (Guatemala) Please bug upstream to update the corresponding Readme files on http://ftp.services.openoffice.org/pub/OpenOffice.org/contrib/dictionaries/, over there the license is stated to be GPL and not LGPL as the ones included in the zip files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2007-02-13 09:05 EST --- ** * Derived from Numerical methods in C. * * Copyright (C) 1995 Logiciels et Applications Scientifiques (L.A.S.) Inc * Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and * its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, * provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies, that * both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear in * supporting documentation, and that the name of L.A.S. Inc not be used * in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software * without specific, written prior permission. L.A.S. Inc. makes no * representations about the suitability of this software for any purpose. * It is provided as is without express or implied warranty. ** This is Standard ML of New Jersey Copyright License and GNU says this is permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL So to understand this part is basicaly OK ? Regarding vrf i called the author to help sort out issue, i waiting for his response. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226666] Merge Review: yum
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: yum https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 09:06 EST --- rpmlinst output: [EMAIL PROTECTED] devel]$ rpmlint yum-3.1.1-1.src.rpm W: yum prereq-use /sbin/chkconfig W: yum prereq-use /sbin/service E: yum hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/yum-plugins E: yum hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/yum-plugins/installonlyn.py E: yum hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/yum-plugins E: yum hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/yum-plugins/* I am sure what the prereq warning means. the hardcoded library error should be ignored i think, because the plugins has to go into /usr/lib/yum-plugins/ always, even on 64 bit systems. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225777] Merge Review: gawk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 09:08 EST --- Everything looks good now, so package is APPROVED. And let the printable docs problem remain open for some volunteer :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228475] Review Request: hunspell-fr - French hunspell dictionaries
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-fr - French hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228475 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 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] 2007-02-13 09:09 EST --- If there is nothing specific for these sub-packages, the right thing is not to have any documentation. There will be a rpmling warning but it can be ignored. Ah, ok :-) In this case i removed. Updated to -3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225777] Merge Review: gawk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 09:10 EST --- And Karel, you could close bug #223686 as it is fixed now too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2007-02-13 09:14 EST --- (In reply to comment #37) This is Standard ML of New Jersey Copyright License and GNU says this is permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL Indeed, but it doesn't cover the original code which is from a book. So to understand this part is basicaly OK ? No, I think it is not OK. See also in the C file the comment. It is said that the code is: Derived from Numerical methods in C but it seems to me that this is illegal given the license of Numerical methods in C. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226666] Merge Review: yum
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: yum https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 09:21 EST --- Summery: * Buildroot should be fixed. * The rpm and version should match the ones in upstream spec. * The 'prereq' warning should be checked out. * the 'conffile-without-noreplace-flag' warning should be investigated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-02-13 09:22 EST --- This is Standard ML of New Jersey Copyright License and GNU says this is permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL Indeed, but it doesn't cover the original code which is from a book. So to understand this part is basicaly OK ? No, I think it is not OK. See also in the C file the comment. It is said that the code is: Derived from Numerical methods in C but it seems to me that this is illegal given the license of Numerical methods in C. Hmm, have idea how to sort out ? I have no idea :-( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-02-13 09:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #40) Hmm, have idea how to sort out ? I have no idea :-( Ask upstream for clarification? This kind of issue is certainly best solved by upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228476] Review Request: hunspell-ga - Irish hunspell dictionaries
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-ga - Irish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228476 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 09:27 EST --- GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 78b27d555364e714d53cb1aa2d8a4ae4200a15ee ga_IE.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license GPL stated in the tag is the same as the web site says and is included in the package - there are only 2 files (word lists) + license, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - no need for -docs as the only doc is just the GPL license - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file 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 226187] Merge Review: nc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: nc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226187 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 09:29 EST --- Add upstream source. I have no idea when the checkout was made either which tag. I would like to keep the source file as it is. W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/alta /bin/sh - these are only warnings and I'm not going to change it. The directory contains test scripts, examples which are obviously part of documentation and it's correct that they are executable. See changes in 1.84-11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-02-13 09:34 EST --- (In reply to comment #41) (In reply to comment #40) Hmm, have idea how to sort out ? I have no idea :-( Ask upstream for clarification? This kind of issue is certainly best solved by upstream. Looks on google there are some projects that use same looking code under GPL http://www.google.com/codesearch?q=copy_dmatrixhl=enbtnG=Search+Code What do you think ? Should i replace with this with pices from other GPL project ? Are those legal ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-02-13 09:38 EST --- (In reply to comment #42) Looks on google there are some projects that use same looking code under GPL http://www.google.com/codesearch?q=copy_dmatrixhl=enbtnG=Search+Code What do you think ? Should i replace with this with pices from other GPL project ? I don't think so, since ogdi is basically BSD. The replacements should either be BSD-like or public domain. Are those legal ? It depends on the precise case. It is legal to reimplement the same interface, not to reuse the code under another license. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-02-13 09:39 EST --- The full review is here and see the output of rpmlint at the end OK source files match upstream: 740d8b17463002c5bb3915841eb9abf936377c50375b410cb5d0640900ede8f3 mc-2007-01-24-03.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK build root is correct. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (i386). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK final provides and requires looks sane OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK? file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. BAD rpmlint is not silent. I: mc-debuginfo checking I: mc checking W: mc incoherent-version-in-changelog 4.6.1a-42 1:4.6.1a-42.20070124cvs.fc7 minor :-) W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/cedit.menu W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/edit.indent.rc W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/edit.spell.rc W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/extfs/extfs.ini W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/extfs/sfs.ini W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/mc.charsets W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/mc.ext W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/mc.lib W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/mc.menu W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/syntax/Syntax at least mc.ext, mc.menu should be noreplace, maybe all W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/profile.d/mc.csh W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/profile.d/mc.sh E: mc script-without-shebang /usr/share/mc/bin/mc-wrapper.sh E: mc script-without-shebang /usr/share/mc/bin/mc-wrapper.csh E: mc executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/profile.d/mc.sh E: mc executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/mc.sh 0755 E: mc non-executable-script /etc/mc/edit.spell.rc 0644 E: mc script-without-shebang /usr/share/mc/bin/mc.sh E: mc script-without-shebang /usr/share/mc/bin/mc.csh E: mc non-standard-uid /usr/libexec/mc/cons.saver vcsa E: mc setuid-binary /usr/libexec/mc/cons.saver vcsa 04711 E: mc non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/mc/cons.saver 04711 E: mc non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/mc/cons.saver 04711 E: mc executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/profile.d/mc.csh E: mc executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/mc.csh 0755 E: mc non-executable-script /etc/mc/edit.indent.rc 0644 Can you give some explanation for the issues above? I don't think they are real blockers, but would like to read your opinion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-02-13 09:44 EST --- Well, I have not yet checked the code of ogdi actually (sorry I will be busy for today and tommorrow), however including numerical recipe C code seems a problem. From http://www.numerical-recipes.com/infotop.html#distinfo - # You want to distribute, noncommercially and free on the internet, an application that uses NR routines. You need to distribute source code, so that your application can be recompiled on different machines. Can you include Numerical Recipes routines as part of that source code, including a notice that they are only allowed to be used with your application? * Sorry, no. We never give permission for Numerical Recipes source code to be posted on any public server, or distributed with any freeware or shareware package. If you encounter such a distribution, we'd be grateful if you'd tell us about it. There are good freely redistributable numerical libraries on Netlib that can be used, instead of Numerical Recipes, in such cases. The Numerical Recipes Multi-Language Code CDROM includes the entire freely redistributable SLATEC library, for this kind of use. -- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228473] Review Request: hunspell-es - Spanish hunspell dictionaries
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-es - Spanish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228473 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 09:44 EST --- Guatemala is es_GT I believe not es_GU and es_GT is one of the aliases already es_BZ, es_CU and es_GU don't appear in locale -a | grep es_ and they don't appear in the drop down of spanish languages in openoffice.org's format-character-font-language -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226667] Merge Review: yum-metadata-parser
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: yum-metadata-parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226667 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 09:49 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 226667] Merge Review: yum-metadata-parser
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: yum-metadata-parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226667
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 09:50 EST ---
OK - spec filename is %{name}.spec
OK - source match upstream md5sum
8cc782b0a6fbca137b133fe6294ce000 yum-metadata-parser-1.0.3.tar.gz
OK - Package naming
OK - Spec in American English and legible
OK - License : GPL
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
- License file (COPYING) is included in %doc
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Buildroot is %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
OK - Package is compiling and building on i386.
Comments:
* No Licens file in upstream source.
rpmlint:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] devel]$ rpmlint yum-metadata-parser-1.0.3-1.src.rpm
E: yum-metadata-parser no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
[EMAIL PROTECTED] i386]$ rpmlint yum-metadata-parser-1.0.3-1.i386.rpm
silent
Summery:
* rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should be added to %install
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2007-02-13 09:51 EST --- It doesn't seems to be the same book, but the redistributions conditions are the same. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227027] Review Request: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant
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: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227027 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC|[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 09:58 EST --- spec file and srpm can be found at: https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/servlets/ProjectDocumentList?folderID=76expandFolder=76folderID=0 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227091] Review Request: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task
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: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227091 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 09:59 EST --- Found the spec and srpm at: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/servlets/ProjectDocumentList?folderID=74expandFolder=74folderID=0 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils
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: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 10:03 EST --- I didn't see any missed bin/sbin macros (note that _bindir is /usr/bin, not /bin, and similarly for _sbindir), but the %pre scriptlet was missing _datadir and _infodir. My fault. I was thinking that bindir was /bin and not /usr/bin. Sorry. Looks good. I would mark is as complete, but this is my first review, and I am still learning. I will have somebody else confirm everything is correct and mark it complete. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
