[Bug 226445] Merge Review: symlinks
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: symlinks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 04:25 EST --- Tim, How about importing this one to CVS and closing the ticket ? :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230585] Review Request: xdg-user-dirs - Handling of well known folders in homedir
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: xdg-user-dirs - Handling of well known folders in homedir https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230585 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226505] Merge Review: ttcp
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: ttcp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226505
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 05:04 EST ---
no %{?_smp_mflags}? flags and they aren't needed, it's really small source.
Fixed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231087] Review Request: perl-Devel-Leak - Utility for looking for perl objects that are not reclaimed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Devel-Leak - Utility for looking for perl objects that are not reclaimed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231087 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231086] Review Request: perl-Devel-Caller - Meatier versions of caller
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Devel-Caller - Meatier versions of caller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231086 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231086] Review Request: perl-Devel-Caller - Meatier versions of caller
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Devel-Caller - Meatier versions of caller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231086 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 06:11 EST --- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream. 56c7ed8204be4e7c63d524d21fa56050 Devel-Caller-0.11.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is small and no need to have -doc package + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + ./Build test t/Devel-Caller # Failed (TODO) test 'with lexical $foo' # in t/Devel-Caller.t at line 36. # got: 'GLOB(0x9fa1bc8)' # expected: 'SCALAR(0xa0773a0)' # Failed (TODO) test 'with lexical @foo' # in t/Devel-Caller.t at line 37. # got: 'SCALAR(0x9fb4104)' # expected: 'ARRAY(0xa0b4420)' # Failed (TODO) test 'with lexical %foo' # in t/Devel-Caller.t at line 38. # got: 'GLOB(0x9fb3fc0)' # expected: 'HASH(0xa0b4438)' # Failed (TODO) test 'with $quux' # in t/Devel-Caller.t at line 115. # got: undef # expected: 'SCALAR(0xa0c1d88)' # Failed (TODO) test 'with @quux' # in t/Devel-Caller.t at line 116. # got: undef # expected: 'ARRAY(0xa0c1d94)' # Failed (TODO) test 'with %quux' # in t/Devel-Caller.t at line 117. # got: undef # expected: 'HASH(0xa0c1da0)' # Failed (TODO) test 'with name 0' # in t/Devel-Caller.t at line 125. # got: '' # expected: '$main::quux' # Failed (TODO) test 'with name 1' # in t/Devel-Caller.t at line 126. # got: '' # expected: '@main::quux' # Failed (TODO) test 'with name 2' # in t/Devel-Caller.t at line 127. # got: '' # expected: '%main::quux' # Failed (TODO) test 'with name 0' # in t/Devel-Caller.t at line 134. # got: '' # expected: '*main::STDIN' # Failed (TODO) test 'with name 1' # in t/Devel-Caller.t at line 135. # got: '' # expected: '*main::STDOUT' # Failed (TODO) test 'with name 2' # in t/Devel-Caller.t at line 136. # got: '' # expected: '*main::STDERR' # Failed (TODO) test 'package called_assign($T::bar)' # in t/Devel-Caller.t at line 56. # Structures begin differing at: # $got-[0] = '' # $expected-[0] = '$T::bar' # Failed (TODO) test 'package called_assign($T::baz)' # in t/Devel-Caller.t at line 56. # Structures begin differing at: # $got-[0] = '' # $expected-[0] = '$T::baz' # Failed (TODO) test 'package called_assign($T::quux, $T::bar)' # in t/Devel-Caller.t at line 56. # Structures begin differing at: # $got-[0] = '' # $expected-[0] = '$T::quux' # Failed (TODO) test 'package called_assign(@T::bar)' # in t/Devel-Caller.t at line 56. # Structures begin differing at: # $got-[0] = '' # $expected-[0] = '@T::bar' # Failed (TODO) test 'package called_assign(@T::baz)' # in t/Devel-Caller.t at line 56. # Structures begin differing at: # $got-[0] = '' # $expected-[0] = '@T::baz' # Failed (TODO) test 'package called_assign(@T::quux, @T::bar)' # in t/Devel-Caller.t at line 56. # Structures begin differing at: # $got-[0] = '' # $expected-[0] = '@T::quux' # Failed (TODO) test 'package called_assign(@T::flange)' # in t/Devel-Caller.t at line 56. # Structures begin differing at: # $got-[0] = '' # $expected-[0] = '@T::flange' # Failed (TODO) test 'package called_assign(%T::bar)' # in t/Devel-Caller.t at line 56. # Structures begin differing at: # $got-[0] = '' # $expected-[0] = '%T::bar' # Failed (TODO) test 'package called_assign(%T::baz)' # in t/Devel-Caller.t at line 56. # Structures begin differing at: # $got-[0] = '' # $expected-[0] = '%T::baz' # Failed (TODO) test 'package called_assign(%T::quux, %T::bar)' # in t/Devel-Caller.t at line 56. # Structures begin differing at: #
[Bug 231087] Review Request: perl-Devel-Leak - Utility for looking for perl objects that are not reclaimed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Devel-Leak - Utility for looking for perl objects that are not reclaimed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231087 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 06:12 EST --- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream. 9ee2cf88bd1dbc6091e38ef4597b54bb Devel-Leak-0.03.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is small and no need to have -doc package + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl -MExtUtils::Command::MM -e test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch') t/*.t t/basicnew 0x962244c : new 0x9622494 : ok All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=3, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 cusr + 0.00 csys = 0.02 CPU) + Provides: Leak.so perl(Devel::Leak) = 0.03 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 231083] Review Request: perl-Module-Compile - Perl Module Compilation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Module-Compile - Perl Module Compilation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231083 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 06:13 EST --- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream. 31e30f3f3c87fe5b0124b6bcc4059cd2 Module-Compile-0.20.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is small and no need to have -doc package + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl -MExtUtils::Command::MM -e test_harness(0, 'inc', 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch') t/*.t t/compileok t/data1..ok t/data2..ok t/fold_blocksok t/lexicalok t/orzok t/parse..ok t/pmcok All tests successful. Files=8, Tests=25, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.66 cusr + 0.11 csys = 0.77 CPU) 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 225695] Merge Review: diffstat
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: diffstat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225695 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 06:27 EST --- * Source 0 is not available (ftp://invisible-island.net/diffstat/diffstat-1.43.tar.gz) The upstream source is named 'diffstat.tar.gz'. How should I change Source0? W: diffstat-debuginfo invalid-license distributable Is there a text of license somewhere? No, there is not one that I know of. The web page says All are copyrighted, freely distributable works. All other changes applied. Tagged and built as 1.43-2.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226445] Merge Review: symlinks
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: symlinks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225695] Merge Review: diffstat
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: diffstat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225695 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 06:32 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) W: diffstat-debuginfo invalid-license distributable Is there a text of license somewhere? No, there is not one that I know of. The web page says All are copyrighted, freely distributable works. That doesn't look to be OSI-compatible, since it seems not to be freely modifiable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205755] Review Request: elsa - manages group of processes and allows accounting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elsa - manages group of processes and allows accounting https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205755 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 06:40 EST --- Guillaume, If the package is in Fedora Core, can you close this BZ as MODIFIED? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225695] Merge Review: diffstat
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: diffstat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225695 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 07:13 EST --- Okay, I've tracked down this from diffstat.c: /** * Copyright 1994-2005,2006 by Thomas E. Dickey * * All Rights Reserved. * ** * 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 and that both that* * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting * * documentation, and that the name of the above listed copyright holder(s) * * not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the * * software without specific, written prior permission. * ** * THE ABOVE LISTED COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S) DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD * * TO THIS SOFTWARE, INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND * * FITNESS, IN NO EVENT SHALL THE ABOVE LISTED COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S) BE LIABLE * * FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES * * WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN * * ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR * * IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.* **/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225961] Merge Review: kdebase
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: kdebase https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225961 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 08:11 EST --- 1) as i remember it's needed for multilib problem 2) it's now committed in CVS 3) it's not really needed. it can be dropped. i have built new 6:3.5.6-3.fc7 into rawhide. please take a look at new package, Thanks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205755] Review Request: elsa - manages group of processes and allows accounting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elsa - manages group of processes and allows accounting https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205755 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 09:02 EST --- I think that ELSA is not in Fedora Core. When I look component in Fedora Core from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/request.cgi, the package is not present, it is still in Fedora Extras. So should I let the BZ as NEW? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 08:54 EST --- Needs work: * The package should contain the text of the license (COPYING-DOCS) (wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) * Scriptlets: missing Require(post): xdg-utils and Require(postun): xdg-utils (on kdeaddons and kdeaddons-atlantikdesigner) * As kdeaddons ships icons in the hicolor directory, it should have Requires: hicolor-icon-theme (for both binary packages also) https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-September/msg00282.html Details: * mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 97, tab: line 5) * privacy patch is chmod 744 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205755] Review Request: elsa - manages group of processes and allows accounting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elsa - manages group of processes and allows accounting https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205755 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 09:29 EST --- Uh-uh. I have no idea what the next step is. Josh: Help!? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear
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: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 09:36 EST --- The -3 release adds the redundant %build and changes the BR to php-cli as Tim suggests. - I haven't looked at the new exec-script warnings in detail, at least some of those files look like they shouldn't be packaged. - There's been a comment regarding the source-of-the-Source for a rev or too. - The f-m@ flamewar demonstrated a clear lack of consensus in the community w.r.t $RPM_SOURCE_DIR. - License tag changes are waiting for an agreed standard on License tags. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225695] Merge Review: diffstat
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: diffstat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225695 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 09:44 EST --- That is BSD-like or MIT-like (or even BSD or MIT), I don't remember exactly, and clearly right. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205755] Review Request: elsa - manages group of processes and allows accounting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elsa - manages group of processes and allows accounting https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205755 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 09:51 EST --- This review was for Extras, so it obviously won't be in Core. And with Fedora 7, there really isn't a Core/Extras distinction anymore. All that needs to be done here is to build the package with 'make tag build' in package directory and close this bug as Resolved: RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230831] Review Request: games-menus - Catagorized submenus for the GNOME/KDE Games menu
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: games-menus - Catagorized submenus for the GNOME/KDE Games menu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230831 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 10:02 EST --- Created an attachment (id=149339) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=149339action=view) Italian translation Here there is the Italian translation for the menus. Andrea. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227083] Review Request: maven-shared-1.0-4jpp - Maven Shared Components
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: maven-shared-1.0-4jpp - Maven Shared Components https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227083 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 10:11 EST --- I'll take this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194374] Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games
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: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194374 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 10:01 EST --- i have already merged the changes and comitted in CVS. Please take a look at new package kdegames-3_5_6-2_fc7 in rawhide. Thanks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229910] Review Request: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect via backend drivers.
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: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect via backend drivers. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229910 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 10:28 EST --- Actually, calling it v0.1 could be a problem if upstream does finally put out a release, and decides to call it something like 0.0.1. I believe the subsys-not-used bit in the rpmlint output is somehow related to the use (or non-use) of /var/lock/subsys/ for a lockfile to help the initscript know when the daemon has been launched. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227083] Review Request: maven-shared-1.0-4jpp - Maven Shared Components
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: maven-shared-1.0-4jpp - Maven Shared Components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227083
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 10:33 EST ---
Please fix items marked by X, thanks!
MUST:
* package is named appropriately
- match upstream tarball or project name
- try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
- specfile should be %{name}.spec
- non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
something)
- for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
- if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be
not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name
* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
- OSI-approved
- not a kernel module
- not shareware
- is it covered by patents?
- it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
- no binary firmware
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
- use acronyms for licences where common
* specfile name matches %{name}
X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
- tar command for Source0 creates a src tar ball named file-management.tar.gz,
but Source0 is maven-shared-file-management-1.0.tar.gz
- Source 4 is maven-plugin-testing-harness-1.0-beta-1.tar.gz, but tar command
creates maven-plugin-testing-harness.tar.gz
- md5sum mismatch, but diff -r shows contents are the same.
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
* correct buildroot
- should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
X license text included in package and marked with %doc
- no license marked with %doc
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
X rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output
W: maven-shared mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 51)
* changelog format is ok
* Packager tag should not be used
* Vendor tag should not be used
* Distribution tag should not be used
* use License and not Copyright
* Summary tag should not end in a period
* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
X specfile is legible
- URL is for Apache Geronimo
- should have %define _with_gcj_support 1 at the top of the spec file, please
get rid of %define _with_gcj_support 0 and %define gcj_support 0
- the %define gcj_support doesn't seems like it can be split up
into multiple lines
- for the %post and %postun, the if condition should probably be before the
the %post[,un] so that there won't be an empty %post[,un] if gcj_support is 0.*
package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
- builds in mock will flush out problems here
- the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires:
bash
bzip2
coreutils
cpio
diffutils
fedora-release (and/or redhat-release)
gcc
gcc-c++
gzip
make
patch
perl
redhat-rpm-config
rpm-build
sed
tar
unzip
which
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
* make sure lines are = 80 characters
* specfile written in American English
* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
- see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
* don't use rpath
* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
* should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
* use macros appropriately and consistently
- ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
* don't use %makeinstall
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
- if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
end of %install
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package should probably not be relocatable
* package contains code
- see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
- in general, there should be no offensive content
* package should own all directories and files
* there should be no %files duplicates
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
* %clean should be present
* %doc files should not affect runtime
* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
will do these when issues are fixed
* run rpmlint on the
[Bug 227083] Review Request: maven-shared-1.0-4jpp - Maven Shared Components
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: maven-shared-1.0-4jpp - Maven Shared Components https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227083 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 10:44 EST --- Reassigning... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227089] Review Request: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227089 [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 227077] Review Request: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing
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: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227077 [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 227070] Review Request: jflex-1.3.5-2jpp - Fast Scanner Generator
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: jflex-1.3.5-2jpp - Fast Scanner Generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227070 [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 227090] Review Request: nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp - HTML scanner and tag balancer
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: nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp - HTML scanner and tag balancer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227090 [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 227077] Review Request: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing
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: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227077 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 10:48 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: junitpref Short Description: JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227070] Review Request: jflex-1.3.5-2jpp - Fast Scanner Generator
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: jflex-1.3.5-2jpp - Fast Scanner Generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227070 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 10:49 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: jflex Short Description: Fast Scanner Generator Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227090] Review Request: nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp - HTML scanner and tag balancer
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: nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp - HTML scanner and tag balancer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227090 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 10:49 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: nekohtml Short Description: HTML scanner and tag balancer Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227092] Review Request: piccolo-1.04-2jpp - Small fast XML parser
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: piccolo-1.04-2jpp - Small fast XML parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227092 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 10:50 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: piccolo Short Description: Small fast XML parser Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225695] Merge Review: diffstat
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: diffstat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225695 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 10:55 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) The upstream source is named 'diffstat.tar.gz'. How should I change Source0? diffstat.tar.gz is only a symlink to diffstat-1.43.tgz. Just change tar.gz to tgz. I think you should copy the license text to LICENSE (COPYING, etc.) file and include it as another Source (that file goes to %doc of course). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227096] Review Request: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component
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: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227096 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 11:12 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) Actually, there's one thing that I didn't catch. Under the svn command, you need to include the tar command as well. done, files changed and uploaded to same location: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/224/plexus-archiver-1.0-0.1.a6.1jpp.1.src.rpm https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/225/plexus-archiver.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 227096] Review Request: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component
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: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227096 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227096] Review Request: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component
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: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227096 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225695] Merge Review: diffstat
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: diffstat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225695 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 11:31 EST --- Oh yes, so it is. Tagged and built as 1.43-2.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229600] Review Request: specto - An desktop application that will watch configurable events
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: specto - An desktop application that will watch
configurable events
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229600
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 11:52 EST ---
Well, for -2:
* Dictory ownership
- Still not okay.
-
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*
-
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps
are owned by hicolor-icon-theme.
* Requirement
- Well, gnome-python2-gconf requires gnome-python2 and there is
no circular dependencies between these two.
So Requires: gnome-python2 is redundant, sorry.
* Needed documentation file
- Well, currently, when I push Help - About button:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] specto-0.2.0-2.fc7]$ LANG=C specto
GTK Accessibility Module initialized
Traceback (most recent call last):
File /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/spectlib/notifier.py, line 859, in
show_about
self.specto.show_about()
File /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/spectlib/main.py, line 539, in
show_about
self.about = About(self)
File /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/spectlib/about.py, line 38, in
__init__
version_file=open(version_file_path, 'r')
IOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/usr/share/doc/specto/VERSION'
This program surely expects that VERSION should be installed
under /usr/share/doc/specto.
However, this means that
* The file VERSION should be installed
* This file cannot be regardes as a documentation because
this file is required by this program.
This also applies to COPYING file.
So generally should should
* install the two files _also_ under somewhere (here, say
%{_datadir}/%{name})
* modify the related python scripts
Well, I am not a expert of python, however if you install _also_
under /usr/share/specto,
--- about.py.orig 2007-03-06 14:21:37.0 +0900
+++ about.py2007-03-07 01:45:01.0 +0900
@@ -34,11 +34,11 @@
def __init__(self, specto):
self.specto = specto
-version_file_path = (spectlib.util.get_path(category=doc) +
'VERSION')
+version_file_path = (spectlib.util.get_path() + 'VERSION')
version_file=open(version_file_path, 'r')
version = str(version_file.readline()[:-1]) # [:-1] means we omit the
last character, which is \n.
version_file.close
-license_file_path = (spectlib.util.get_path(category=doc) +
'COPYING')
+license_file_path = (spectlib.util.get_path() + 'COPYING')
license_file = open(license_file_path, r)
license = license_file.read()
license_file.close()
seems to work.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231174] New: Review Request: nrg2iso - Convert Nero Burning Rom image files into ISO
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=231174 Summary: Review Request: nrg2iso - Convert Nero Burning Rom image files into ISO 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://folk.ntnu.no/sindrb/packages/nrg2iso.spec SRPM URL: http://folk.ntnu.no/sindrb/packages/nrg2iso-0.4-1.src.rpm Description: Nrg2Iso is a linux utiity for converting CD (or DVD) image generated by Nero Burning Rom to ISO format. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231083] Review Request: perl-Module-Compile - Perl Module Compilation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Module-Compile - Perl Module Compilation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231083 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 12:07 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Module-Compile Short Description: Perl Module Compilation Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-5 FC-6 InitialCC: fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231087] Review Request: perl-Devel-Leak - Utility for looking for perl objects that are not reclaimed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Devel-Leak - Utility for looking for perl objects that are not reclaimed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231087 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 12:14 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Devel-Leak Short Description: Utility for looking for perl objects that are not reclaimed Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-5 FC-6 InitialCC: fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231086] Review Request: perl-Devel-Caller - Meatier versions of caller
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Devel-Caller - Meatier versions of caller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231086 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 12:14 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Devel-Caller Short Description: Meatier versions of caller Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-5 FC-6 InitialCC: fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226294] Merge Review: php
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: php Alias: php https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226294 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226196] Merge Review: newt-perl
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: newt-perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226196 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 12:39 EST --- Jesse: sure; I'm happy to rename this now if it doesn't create more work for you. What's the process for a package rename? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226196] Merge Review: newt-perl
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: newt-perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226196 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 12:43 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) Jesse: sure; I'm happy to rename this now if it doesn't create more work for you. What's the process for a package rename? Depends on if you want to keep history or not. If you don't, we can import the new srpm named perl-newt as a new package, and I'll block the old one from the buildsystem, adding hte new one. If you want to keep cvs history, this might get more difficult, but not impossible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227071] Review Request: jline-0.9.9-1jpp - Java library for reading and editing user input in console 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: jline-0.9.9-1jpp - Java library for reading and editing user input in console applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227071 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 12:51 EST --- Just a couple things: - Should the post and postun sections for javadoc be removed? - Some lines have more than 80 characters. - Should gcj support be added? - I think group should be changed to Development/Libraries. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226196] Merge Review: newt-perl
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: newt-perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226196 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 12:53 EST --- I don't care about preserving CVS across the rename, no. New package at: ~jorton/perl-Newt-1.08-15.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 229600] Review Request: specto - An desktop application that will watch configurable events
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: specto - An desktop application that will watch
configurable events
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229600
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 12:55 EST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Well, for -2:
* Dictory ownership
- Still not okay.
-
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*
-
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps
are owned by hicolor-icon-theme.
Oops..my bad
* Requirement
- Well, gnome-python2-gconf requires gnome-python2 and there is
no circular dependencies between these two.
So Requires: gnome-python2 is redundant, sorry.
I was thinking about it. you got it the first.
* Needed documentation file
- Well, currently, when I push Help - About button:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] specto-0.2.0-2.fc7]$ LANG=C specto
GTK Accessibility Module initialized
Traceback (most recent call last):
File /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/spectlib/notifier.py, line 859, in
show_about
self.specto.show_about()
File /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/spectlib/main.py, line 539, in
show_about
self.about = About(self)
File /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/spectlib/about.py, line 38, in
__init__
version_file=open(version_file_path, 'r')
IOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/usr/share/doc/specto/VERSION'
This program surely expects that VERSION should be installed
under /usr/share/doc/specto.
However, this means that
* The file VERSION should be installed
* This file cannot be regardes as a documentation because
this file is required by this program.
This also applies to COPYING file.
So generally should should
* install the two files _also_ under somewhere (here, say
%{_datadir}/%{name})
* modify the related python scripts
Well, I am not a expert of python, however if you install _also_
under /usr/share/specto,
--- about.py.orig 2007-03-06 14:21:37.0 +0900
+++ about.py2007-03-07 01:45:01.0 +0900
@@ -34,11 +34,11 @@
def __init__(self, specto):
self.specto = specto
-version_file_path = (spectlib.util.get_path(category=doc) +
'VERSION')
+version_file_path = (spectlib.util.get_path() + 'VERSION')
version_file=open(version_file_path, 'r')
version = str(version_file.readline()[:-1]) # [:-1] means we omit
the
last character, which is \n.
version_file.close
-license_file_path = (spectlib.util.get_path(category=doc) +
'COPYING')
+license_file_path = (spectlib.util.get_path() + 'COPYING')
license_file = open(license_file_path, r)
license = license_file.read()
license_file.close()
seems to work.
Yep, thanks for the fix.
I also found another way to solve this problem.
I'll upload fixed files within a few hours.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 167147] Review Request: aqsis - 3D Rendering system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 13:14 EST --- Please be sure those members have matching Bugzilla accounts. done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227070] Review Request: jflex-1.3.5-2jpp - Fast Scanner Generator
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: jflex-1.3.5-2jpp - Fast Scanner Generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227070 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |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 227077] Review Request: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing
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: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227077 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |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 228159] Review Request: new-stuff-manager - program that runs in the background and downloads/installs 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: new-stuff-manager - program that runs in the background and downloads/installs plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228159 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 13:29 EST --- I made the changes you requested and uploaded it again to the location above. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227089] Review Request: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227089 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 13:31 EST --- Sorry, adding that now: New Package CVS Request === Package Name: msv Short Description: Multischema Validator Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-03-06 13:33 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-3.5.6-3.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Mar 06 2007 Rex Dieter rdieter[AT]fedoraproject.org 3.5.6-3 - +%%doc COPYING-DOCS - +Requires(post,postun): xdg-utils -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs
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: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 13:35 EST --- Last week the buildroot proposal http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines?action=recallrev=92#head-b4fdd45fa76cbf54c885ef0836361319ab962473 was ratified by both fpc and fesco and I just edited the guidelines. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2007-03-06 13:39 EST --- 1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2007-03-06 13:43 EST --- 1. Agreed 2. Rationale there being that sip/PyQt/PyKDE is included here too, so to allow alternative installs. I think we're pretty much comitted to *not* using sip/PyQt/PyKDE in kdebindings, so this extra crud can go away. 3. 4. debug macro is never used (I'll remove it), and --disable-final is required for proper build (or more precisely --enable-final fails) 5. perl hackery, agreed, can go away. 6. ??? WORKSFORME: http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/kde-redhat/mock/fedora-6-i386-core-kde/kdebindings/ 7. doesn't need 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 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] 2007-03-06 13:51 EST --- 3. subpackages simply recycle their *own* Summary for %description, for now, unless you have a better suggestion? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs
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: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 13:51 EST --- Yep, saw that and was meaning to dig this bug back up and throw an APPROVED stamp on it accordingly. Package APPROVED, import at will. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs
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: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 13:53 EST --- Whoops, wrong blocker bug... Will set the review + flag 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 229490] Review Request: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline
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: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229490 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 14:29 EST --- Well, I'll check them out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230892] Review Request: gtk-recordmydesktop - GUI Desktop session recorder with audio and video
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtk-recordmydesktop - GUI Desktop session recorder with audio and video https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230892 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |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 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] 2007-03-06 15:16 EST --- 1. good. ok. 2. good. ok. 3. A bit more verbose would be nice, but I guess it's ok. People installing those packages would likely be developers who know what they are looking for. 4. good. ok. 5. good. ok. 6. Thats fc6... I was building for devel/rawhide. Does that work for you there as well? 7. good. ok. So, can you confirm the status of building on devel/rawhide? Once it builds there, I can run the rest of my file/package checks... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-03-06 15:37 EST --- 6. WORKSFORME on devel/fc7 too: http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/kde-redhat/mock/fedora-7-i386-core-kde/kdebindings/ http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/kde-redhat/mock/fedora-7-x86_64-core-kde/kdebindings/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229342] Review Request: nfs4-acl-tools - ACL utilities for NFSv4
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: nfs4-acl-tools - ACL utilities for NFSv4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229342 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 15:40 EST --- Steve, you owe me a Stuffed Pizza for this. ;) I took a look at fixing up the source for this package a bit, and I found the following items: - The source has no concept of DESTDIR, which is pretty easy to fix. - It was doing some brain-dead checking for the existence of nfs_editfacl. I fixed it up a bit, and now it makes a correct symlink. - The source was completely obliterating any LDFLAGS passed to it, configure saw them, but the include/buildmacros was just overwriting them blindly. I fixed that too. With that done, I was able to simplify the spec significantly, normalize it, and lose the need for the autotools BuildRequires. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229342] Review Request: nfs4-acl-tools - ACL utilities for NFSv4
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: nfs4-acl-tools - ACL utilities for NFSv4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229342 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 15:41 EST --- Created an attachment (id=149378) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=149378action=view) New, cleaned up spec file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229342] Review Request: nfs4-acl-tools - ACL utilities for NFSv4
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: nfs4-acl-tools - ACL utilities for NFSv4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229342 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 15:45 EST --- Created an attachment (id=149379) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=149379action=view) Patch to enable DESTDIR (and fix symlink) This patch enables DESTDIR functionality in the source. If DESTDIR is not set, the behavior is identical to before, with one exception: One of the Makefiles was attempting to make a symlink for nfs_editfacl if it didn't exist. Ignoring the fact that this is a bit braindead to do (just because it doesn't exist at buildtime doesn't mean it won't get installed immediately after nfs4-acl-tools), it wasn't making a very good symlink. I fixed it so that it makes the symlink properly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229342] Review Request: nfs4-acl-tools - ACL utilities for NFSv4
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: nfs4-acl-tools - ACL utilities for NFSv4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229342 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 15:47 EST --- Created an attachment (id=149380) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=149380action=view) Actually use the LDFLAGS that are passed by the user Passing LDFLAGS, and using them too? That's too much to ask! ;) Well, maybe not. This simple patch actually lets the source use the LDFLAGS that the user exports/passes to configure. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231174] Review Request: nrg2iso - Convert Nero Burning Rom image files into ISO
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: nrg2iso - Convert Nero Burning Rom image files into ISO https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231174 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231005] gnome-vfs2-obexftp: ObexFTP filesystem support for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: gnome-vfs2-obexftp: ObexFTP filesystem support for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231005
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 16:13 EST ---
Initial comments from just skimming the srpm, possibly a full review later
unless someone beats me to it:
- --with-compile-warnings=no to configure seems to be a no-op
- --disable-dependency-tracking to configure would result in cleaner build
output and possibly slightly faster build.
- License file missing from %doc - is the package GPL or LGPL? Both files are
included in the upstream tarball, but it seems to me that this is LGPL and thus
COPYING.LIB should only be included. Upstream could be interested in clarifying
this in future releases.
- Cosmetics: both %buildroot and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT used, should stick with one
- Doesn't parallel build (make %{?_smp_mflags}) work?
- %makeinstall used - doesn't 'make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT' work?
- If hcid needs to be started with -x using the bluetooth init script, a bug
should be opened against bluez-utils asking to make it possible to set hcid
options in a /etc/sysconfig/* snippet, and have that bug block this one. Or did
you mean starting hcid some other way?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225843] Merge Review: gnome-vfs2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gnome-vfs2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225843 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 16:18 EST --- What is the license of this package? License tag says LGPL, upstream tarball contains both GPL and LGPL license texts, and only the GPL file is included in binary packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226215] Merge Review: openobex
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: openobex https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226215 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 16:23 EST --- What is the license of this package? License tag says LGPL, upstream tarball contains both GPL and LGPL license texts, contains both GPL (irda.h, obex_connect.h) and LGPL sources, and only the GPL license file is included in binary packages. Mixture of GPL and LGPL sources which are all built in would make all of this fall under the GPL, no? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231005] gnome-vfs2-obexftp: ObexFTP filesystem support for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: gnome-vfs2-obexftp: ObexFTP filesystem support for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231005 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 16:38 EST --- More about licensing: - dbus-glib is AFL/GPL. AFL 2.1 is not compatible with GPL, I don't know if it's compatible with LGPL or not. - gnome-vfs2 is LGPL or GPL (bug 225843). - openobex is a mixture of LGPL and GPL code, probably making it GPL (bug 226215). Summarizing from the above, looks like GPL would be the only safe bet when distributing this package. See also bug 228296 (which is a more straight forward case) for how the licensing in that case was clarified to users of that 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 231174] Review Request: nrg2iso - Convert Nero Burning Rom image files into ISO
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: nrg2iso - Convert Nero Burning Rom image files into ISO https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231174 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 16:48 EST --- The version you have submitted ignores $RPM_OPT_FLAGS. Please find attached two patches which fix that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231174] Review Request: nrg2iso - Convert Nero Burning Rom image files into ISO
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: nrg2iso - Convert Nero Burning Rom image files into ISO https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231174 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 16:50 EST --- Created an attachment (id=149392) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=149392action=view) patch which makes Makefile honor $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231174] Review Request: nrg2iso - Convert Nero Burning Rom image files into ISO
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: nrg2iso - Convert Nero Burning Rom image files into ISO https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231174 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 16:52 EST --- Created an attachment (id=149393) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=149393action=view) spec file patch fixes a typo and adds $RPM_OPT_FLAGS into equation -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227048] Review Request: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp - DOM Conformance Test Suite
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: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp - DOM Conformance Test Suite https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227048 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 17:31 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.1.20040405.1jpp.1 Short Description: DOM Conformance Test Suite Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227042] Review Request: byaccj-1.11-2jpp - Parser Generator with Java Extension
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: byaccj-1.11-2jpp - Parser Generator with Java Extension https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227069] Review Request: jaxen-bootstrap-1.1-0.b7.3jpp - A convenience package for build of dom4j
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: jaxen-bootstrap-1.1-0.b7.3jpp - A convenience package for build of dom4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227069 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 17:57 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: jaxen-bootstrap Short Description: A convenience package for build of dom4j Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
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: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 17:59 EST --- Out of curiosity, is the eCryptfs utilities package on-track for inclusion in 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 227041] Review Request: bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp - Streaming API for 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: bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp - Streaming API for XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227041 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209906] Review Request: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations
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: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209906 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 18:06 EST --- Thx for you help! If you can check i've also a segmentation issues with the elektra Maybe caused by this --program-prefix changes - or not using /sbin but /usr/sbin ? I don't know... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227061] Review Request: isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp - Public interfaces useful for applications to support RELAX Core
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: isorelax-0.1-0.2004.2jpp - Public interfaces useful for applications to support RELAX Core https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227061 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 18:09 EST --- Built. Should be visible in rawhide soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209906] Review Request: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations
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: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209906 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 18:10 EST --- (In reply to comment #17) Thx for you help! If you can check i've also a segmentation issues with the elektra Maybe caused by this --program-prefix changes - or not using /sbin but /usr/sbin ? I don't know... Could you please give more information on how to reproduce the segfault? I doubt it is related with --program-prefix changes or not using /sbin but /usr/sbin. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
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: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 18:15 EST --- Well, currently I see no issues with how it's packaged, so normally I could approve it now and get you to move forward in the procedure, but I was hoping we could make sure the package works before importing and building it for users. ;) Any idea what the error in comment #36 means? It doesn't work for me here on x86_64. Just spits out that error. ;( Also, can someone confirm it works on i386? I can try and test that later tonight... Once we can confirm it's working, it should be ready to import and build for fc7 (and fc6 if you like). Thanks for all your patience on this, and hopefully we can get it all set soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231174] Review Request: nrg2iso - Convert Nero Burning Rom image files into ISO
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: nrg2iso - Convert Nero Burning Rom image files into ISO https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231174 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 18:25 EST --- Updated Spec URL: http://folk.ntnu.no/sindrb/packages/nrg2iso.spec SRPM URL: http://folk.ntnu.no/sindrb/packages/nrg2iso-0.4-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
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: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 18:29 EST --- Kevin Fenzi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Any idea what the error in comment #36 means? It doesn't work for me here on x86_64. Just spits out that error. ;( Also, can someone confirm it works on i386? I can try and test that later tonight... What is the actual mount command you are giving? Does this work when run as root? modprobe ecryptfs; modprobe aes; modprobe md5; mkdir /secret; mount -t ecryptfs -o key=passphrase:passwd=test,passthrough=n,cipher=aes /secret /secret -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230344] Review Request: bacula - Cross platform network backup for Linux, Unix, Mac and Windows.
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: bacula - Cross platform network backup for Linux, Unix, Mac and Windows. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230344 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 19:09 EST --- [Tue Mar 06 18:05:00 2007] [error] [client 127.0.0.1] PHP Fatal error: Smarty error: unable to write to $compile_dir '/usr/share/bacula-web/templates_c'. Be sure $compile_dir is writable by the web server user. in /usr/share/bacula-web/external_packages/smarty/Smarty.class.php on line 1088 Need to make sure apache can write to that dir -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225726] Merge Review: emacs
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: emacs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225726 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] BugsThisDependsOn||224627 OtherBugsDependingO||182235 nThis|| Bug 225726 depends on bug 224627, which changed state. Bug 224627 Summary: emacs 22: trademark issue with Tetris https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224627 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NOTABUG Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|NOTABUG | Status|CLOSED |NEW Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|RAWHIDE | Status|CLOSED |NEW --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 19:10 EST --- Slapping an FE-Legal block on this package. This package can't go into F7 until 224627 is properly resolved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227081] Review Request: maven-jxr-1.0-2jpp - Maven JXR is a source cross referencing tool.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: maven-jxr-1.0-2jpp - Maven JXR is a source cross
referencing tool.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227081
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 19:23 EST ---
MUST:
* package is named appropriately
- match upstream tarball or project name
OK
- try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
OK
- specfile should be %{name}.spec
OK
- non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
something)
OK
- for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
OK
- if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be
not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name
OK
* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
- OSI-approved
OK
- not a kernel module
OK
- not shareware
OK
- is it covered by patents?
OK
- it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
OK
- no binary firmware
OK
* license field matches the actual license.
OK
* license is open source-compatible.
- use acronyms for licences where common
OK
* specfile name matches %{name}
OK
* verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
- if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on
how to generate the the source drop; ie.
# svn export blah/tag blah
# tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah
OK
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
OK
* correct buildroot
- should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
OK
* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
OK
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
OK
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
OK
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
OK
X * rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output
- justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
W: maven-jxr non-standard-group Development/Java
W: maven-jxr no-documentation
W: maven-jxr non-standard-group Development/Java
W: maven-jxr mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 47)
First 3 are OK. Last one should be fixed.
* changelog should be in one of these formats:
OK
* Packager tag should not be used
OK
* Vendor tag should not be used
OK
* Distribution tag should not be used
OK
* use License and not Copyright
OK
* Summary tag should not end in a period
OK
* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
OK
* specfile is legible
- this is largely subjective; use your judgement
OK
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
OK (with %define _without_maven
* BuildRequires are proper
- builds in mock will flush out problems here
OK
X * summary should be a short and concise description of the package
These could use expanding, but nothing more is available on project side, so
OK.
Would be nice to have summary be just: Source cross referencing tool
though
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
OK (see above)
* make sure lines are = 80 characters
OK
* specfile written in American English
OK
* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
- see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
OK
* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
OK
* don't use rpath
OK
* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
OK
* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
OK
* should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
OK
* use macros appropriately and consistently
- ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
OK
* don't use %makeinstall
OK
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
- if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
end of %install
OK
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
OK
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
OK
* package should probably not be relocatable
OK
* package contains code
- see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
- in general, there should be no offensive content
OK
* package should own all directories and files
OK
* there should be no %files duplicates
OK
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
OK
* %clean should be present
OK
* %doc files should not affect runtime
OK
* if it is a web apps, it should be in
[Bug 231174] Review Request: nrg2iso - Convert Nero Burning Rom image files into ISO
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: nrg2iso - Convert Nero Burning Rom image files into ISO https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231174 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 19:36 EST --- GOOD - rpmlint is silent on source and binary rpm - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPL ) OK, text in %doc (as gpl.txt), matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream, is latest version, sha1sum 26dfa9b489c9165dbc578ef3fddf6e491349df12 nrg2iso-0.4.tar.gz - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of foreign files/directories - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs (no docs at all but the GPL license and a very very short Changelog) - nothing in %doc affects runtime - not a GUI so no need for .desktop file - no libtool,pkgconfig,static files - no scriptlets - no need for separate -devel SHOULD - builds fine in mock for Centos-4/x86, Fedora 6 and devel/x86 - runs OK in Centos 4 and FC6 Package 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 231174] Review Request: nrg2iso - Convert Nero Burning Rom image files into ISO
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: nrg2iso - Convert Nero Burning Rom image files into ISO https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231174 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 19:39 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: nrg2iso Short Description: Convert Nero Burning Rom image files into ISO Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-5 FC-6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231174] Review Request: nrg2iso - Convert Nero Burning Rom image files into ISO
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: nrg2iso - Convert Nero Burning Rom image files into ISO https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231174 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 19:40 EST --- Sindre, I suggest asking for a branch for EPEL-4, too, if you feel like maintaining it over there. If this a problem for you, I will be glad to take it over (or co-maintain it with you) for EPEL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227081] Review Request: maven-jxr-1.0-2jpp - Maven JXR is a source cross referencing tool.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: maven-jxr-1.0-2jpp - Maven JXR is a source cross referencing tool. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227081 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 19:46 EST --- Also, at the top of the spec file, change '%define _with_gcj_support 0' to: %define _with_gcj_support 1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227082] Review Request: maven-scm-1.0-0.b3.2jpp - Basic API for lightweight logging
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: maven-scm-1.0-0.b3.2jpp - Basic API for lightweight logging https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227082 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 20:19 EST --- Also, delete the %define gcj_support 0 there.. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher
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: jokosher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 20:30 EST ---
(In reply to comment #63)
I've found David's issue and will attach a patch that you can take upstream.
As
for getting this in, I don't have time for a complete review but I do have a
few
comments. Maybe after you fix these and apply the patch, David can continue
to
do the review::
I have submitted your patch upstream Toshio, thank you for that.
* Cosmetic: The tarball you've created is really a .tar file, not a .tar.gz.
Rpm knows how to handle it, however, and also compresses its payload so it's
not
strictly necessary to fix this. It would be nice to be accurate when a human
extracts the source rpm and tries to look at the sources, though. So having
jokosher-0.9.tar or actually gzipping the tarball would be appropriate :-)
Done.
* A recent addition to the Packaging Guidelines is that for packaging
snapshots
you need to show how to recreate the snapshot either in a script that you
include as another Source line or in a comment. ie::
# This tarball is a snapshot. You can recreate it by doing:
# svn co -r 321 http://svn.jokosher.org/trunk jokosher-0.9
# tar -czvf jokosher-20070225.snap.tar.gz jokosher-0.9
This allows reviewers to easily check that the sources are coming from
upstream.
Done.
* The BuildArch: noarch is missing from the spec file
Fixed.
* You aren't cleaning the buildroot prior to installing (rpmlint warns about
this)
Fixed.
* You aren't installing the omf file and registering with scrollkeeper within
the %post/%postun in the spec file so the help files won't be found.
Fixed.
* You aren't calling update-mime-database or update-desktop-database in the
spec
file's %post/%postun so jokosher's mimetype and mailcap entries aren't being
created.
Fixed.
* You have a raft of unowned directories. As an example, changing your file
entries from this:
%{_datadir}/%{name}/pixmaps/*.png
into this:
%{_datadir}/%{name}/
will own the jokosher directory and all of its subdirectories and files.
Where you cannot do this because you don't want all of the files inside the
directories you can change from this::
%exclude %{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/Profiler.py
%{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/*.py
%{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/*.pyo
%{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/*.pyc
into this:
%exclude %{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/Profiler.py
%dir %{python_sitelib}/Jokosher
%{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/*.py
%{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/*.pyo
%{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/*.pyc
Fixed.
* It looks like you've got the jokosher help in three places:
/usr/share/gnome/help/jokosher, /usr/share/doc/jokosher-0.9/userguide, and
/usr/share/doc/jokosher-0.9/jokosher
It probably only neds to be in /usr/share/gnome/help/
Fixed.
* You need to use the %find_lang macro to include the *.mo files, not just
include them in the %files section. The way you've currently got it setup,
people won't be able to specify which languages they're interested in when
they
install this.
Done.
* David's error is coming from the section of setup.py dealing with installing
omf files. However, the whole handling of omf files has issues. Attaching a
patch.
Thank you for taking the time to respond Toshio. I have run through rpmlint and
receive no errors. It also appears to build cleanly under mock development on
i386. I will notify as and when your patch is accepted upstream however for the
moment the new packages are in the usual location at:
http://www.iammetal.co.uk/jokosher
Regards
Chris
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227081] Review Request: maven-jxr-1.0-2jpp - Maven JXR is a source cross referencing tool.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: maven-jxr-1.0-2jpp - Maven JXR is a source cross
referencing tool.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227081
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 20:34 EST ---
Sorry for so many updates.. just caught something in another package that
applies here too (missed because it'll happen only when built with maven):
Change:
%if %{with_maven}
%if %{gcj_support}
%dir %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
%attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}/maven-jxr-1.0.jar.*
%endif
to
%if %{gcj_support}
%dir %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
%attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}/maven-jxr-1.0.jar.*
%endif
%if %{with_maven}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229600] Review Request: specto - An desktop application that will watch configurable events
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: specto - An desktop application that will watch configurable events https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229600 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-06 20:40 EST --- So, here are updated/fixed files where you can also check out my fix for doc dorectory. SPEC:http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/SPECS/specto.spec SRPM:http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/RPMs/specto-0.2.0-3.fc7.src.rpm * Tue Mar 06 2007 Xavier Lamien [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.2.0-3 - Removed 'gnome-python2' as redundant require. - Fixed default doc directory and added VERSION file in it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
