[Bug 236642] Review Request: Revisor - Revisor GUI
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: Revisor - Revisor GUI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236642 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 02:06 EST --- You really really really need to do something about the SOURCE tag as mentioned in comment #2. Since the source tarball is being generated from a source control system (git in this case if im reading the revisor development webpages correctly) and its not available at an established static URL address as an identifiable 'release' then the spec file must contain a comment blog which details the actual steps that need to be taken to pull the appropriated tagged git entity and then repackage it as a tarball. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL has an example of how to do a comment block for a public svn server. You should do something similar for your git tree. I cannot initiate a formal review if I can't confirm that the md5sum of the tarball is as it should be. -jef -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235925] Review Request: dnssec-tools - Is a tool set for use with signed DNS zones
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: dnssec-tools - Is a tool set for use with signed DNS zones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235925 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 02:34 EST --- I'll take the macro out of the changelog (it was just documenting something) The no-documentation error can't go away because there is none! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237062] New: Review Request: perl-MooseX-Params-Validate - Extension of Params::Validate using Moose's types
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=237062 Summary: Review Request: perl-MooseX-Params-Validate - Extension of Params::Validate using Moose's types Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/MooseX-Params-Validate/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-MooseX-Params-Validate-0.01-1.fc6.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-MooseX-Params-Validate.spec Description: This module fills a gap in Moose by adding method parameter validation to Moose. This is just one of many developing options, it should be considered the official one by any means though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235764] Review Request: perl-CGI-Ex - CGI utility suite - makes powerful application writing fun and easy
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-CGI-Ex - CGI utility suite - makes powerful application writing fun and easy Alias: perl-CGI-Ex https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235764 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 02:40 EST --- Additional BR's packaged and submitted; they're blocking this bug. I'll post the updated sources for this package after some needed sleep :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205306] Review Request: perl-SUPER - Control superclass method dispatch
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-SUPER - Control superclass method dispatch Alias: perl-SUPER https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205306 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||perl-SUPER -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205314] Review Request: perl-Class-C3 - Pragma to use the C3 method resolution order algorithm
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-Class-C3 - Pragma to use the C3 method resolution order algorithm Alias: perl-Class-C3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205314 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||perl-Class-C3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205309] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-C3 - Module for merging hierarchies using the C3 algorithm
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-Algorithm-C3 - Module for merging hierarchies using the C3 algorithm Alias: perl-Algorithm-C3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205309 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||perl-Algorithm-C3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235764] Review Request: perl-CGI-Ex - CGI utility suite - makes powerful application writing fun and easy
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-CGI-Ex - CGI utility suite - makes powerful application writing fun and easy Alias: perl-CGI-Ex https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235764 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 02:46 EST --- No big rush. I'm leaving town tomorrow and won't be back until Wednesday. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226276] Merge Review: 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: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 02:58 EST --- Robin: The rationale behind the Provides: cpan escapes me. Packages wanting to use perl(CPAN) should require perl(CPAN), packages wanting to use /usr/bin/cpan should directly depend on /usr/bin/cpan (which would be the only correct solution) or can Requires: perl-CPAN. If your intention is to provide a virtual cpan package, then it should be a versioned Provides. I would not add Provides: cpan. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237043] Review Request: perl-Hash-Case - Base class for hashes with key-casing requirements
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-Hash-Case - Base class for hashes with key-casing requirements Alias: perl-Hash-Case https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237043 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 03:05 EST --- Nothing much to say about it. 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 235925] Review Request: dnssec-tools - Is a tool set for use with signed DNS zones
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: dnssec-tools - Is a tool set for use with signed DNS zones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235925 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 03:07 EST --- * Wed Apr 18 2007 Wes Hardaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1.1.1-4 - Fix changelog so it doesn't have a macro in the documentation - Added a dnsval.conf starting file. - Remove include subdir wildcard expansion since the entire directory is owned. Spec URL: http://www.hardakers.net/dnssec-tools/dnssec-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://www.hardakers.net/dnssec-tools/dnssec-tools-1.1.1-4.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 236642] Review Request: Revisor - Revisor GUI
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: Revisor - Revisor GUI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236642 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 04:11 EST --- No I've not updated, for some reason it won't update. New location is http://revisor.fedoraunity.org/releases/revisor-2.0/revisor-2.0.1.spec Thank you Jef, for your patience ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208250] Review Request: piklab - Development environment for applications based on PIC and dsPIC microcontrollers
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: piklab - Development environment for applications based on PIC and dsPIC microcontrollers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208250 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 04:37 EST --- 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 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] 2007-04-19 05:47 EST --- FYI pypar2 1.4 is 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 236798] Review Request: ballz - Platform game with some puzzle elements
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: ballz - Platform game with some puzzle elements https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236798 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2007-04-19 07:17 EST --- Yep, i'm working on. I still have a problem. In reply to comment #29, i've changed Utilities in Utility, but there is something I don't understand. Shouldn't desktop-file-install --vendor \ --add-category Utility \ [...] modify the desktop file? Because since i don't use the patch (for the desktop file) ther is no entry in thefedora menu for pypar2. Do I need to use both patch and desktop-file-install options (--add-category and --remove-category)? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235588] Review Request: escape - an extensible puzzle game
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: escape - an extensible puzzle game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235588 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 07:58 EST --- Oh, so it is. I didn't know that. Nevermind. :) No duplicate files. Permissions are ok. %clean present and correct. Macros OK. Code, not content. No huge docs. No runtime doc issues. No shared or static libs, or headers. No pkgconfig files. No devel package. No .la. .desktop file handled properly. No cross-ownership. %install starts right. Good filenames. All MUSTS met. Builds in mock of FC-6 i386. Runs as advertised. 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 220979] Review Request: tesseract - Raw OCR Engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tesseract - Raw OCR Engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220979 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[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 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] 2007-04-19 08:24 EST --- (In reply to comment #33) Yep, i'm working on. Do I need to use both patch and desktop-file-install options (--add-category and --remove-category)? I just saw 1.4 desktop file and both --add-category Utility --remove-category Application seems needed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220979] Review Request: tesseract - Raw OCR Engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tesseract - Raw OCR Engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220979 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 08:38 EST --- Please take a look at tis link: http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=672344 They said that address of Tesseract OCR was changed to http://code.google.com/p/tesseract-ocr/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218599] Review Request: klibido - NNTP (Usenet) file grabber for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: klibido - NNTP (Usenet) file grabber for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218599 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 09:42 EST --- Ok, the content has moved to a new host: Spec URL: http://fna.vel4.com/rpm/klibido.spec SRPM URL: http://fna.vel4.com/rpm/klibido-0.2.5-5.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 234490] Review Request: VDrift - VDrift is a cross-platform, open source driving/drift racing simulation
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: VDrift - VDrift is a cross-platform, open source driving/drift racing simulation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234490 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 09:55 EST --- That's great, but it looks like they all have reviewers assigned, though it looks like Andrea and Peter haven't done much in awhile. Have you looked at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Policy/StalledReviews? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 233256] Review Request: asc-music - Background music for the game asc
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: asc-music - Background music for the game asc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233256
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|normal |medium
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 09:56 EST ---
- Package meets naming and packaging guidelines. OK
- Spec file matches base package name. OK
- Spec has consistant macro usage. OK
- Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK
- License. SEE BELOW
- License field in spec matches. SEE BELOW
- License file included in package. SEE BELOW
- Spec in American English. OK
- Spec is legible. OK
- Sources match upstream md5sum: N/A transcoded from original files
- Package needs ExcludeArch. N/A
- BuildRequires correct. OK
- Spec handles locales/find_lang. N/A
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. N/A
- Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK
- Package has a correct %clean section. OK
- Package has correct buildroot. OK
- Package is code or permissible content. OK
- Doc subpackage needed/used. N/A
- Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK
- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. N/A
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun. N/A
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig. N/A
- .so files in -devel subpackage. N/A
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}. N/A
- .la files are removed. N/A
- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file. N/A
- Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK fc6/i386
- Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK
- Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK
- Package owns all the directories it creates. OK
- No rpmlint output. OK
- final provides and requires are sane:
asc-music-1.0-1.noarch.rpm
asc-music = 1.0-1
=
asc
SHOULD Items:
- Should build in mock. OK fc6/i386
- Should build on all supported archs. OK package is noarch
- Should function as described. OK
- Should have sane scriptlets. N/A
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. NO,
but OK
- Should have dist tag. NO, but OK
- Should package latest version. OK
Issues:
1. Let's try to clear out under what license the audio files are released.
I read the following on the upstream site: ASC is distributed under
the terms of the Gnu General Public License (the license Linux
uses too), which basically means the game is free, the complete source
code is available and you can do everything with it as long as it
remains free.
There is no indication on download section of what license is used for
the audio files.
The best would be to have such a statement from the author and include
it in your source package.
BTW, the debian package also state that this is GPL'ed, but again,
without any further explaination.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226387] Merge Review: samba
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: samba
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226387
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|normal |medium
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 10:44 EST ---
(In reply to comment #30)
Still pending remarks:
- Does /usr/lib* instead of %{_libdir} hack still needed for the latest
upstream versions?
I am trying to change it to %{_libdir}, let's see what happens.
- docs/manpages contain non-ascii non-UTF8 symbols (yet not checked out for
3.0.25 :) ). Non-UTF8 is deprecated now.
(BTW, run f.e. man smbd and see the man's warning in the first 3 lines).
This is an upstream problem, trying to fix it there.
- Init scripts: /etc/rc.d/init.d/finctions existance is checked hardly,
whereas /etc/sysconfig/network is not... Since the init scripts are separate
sources for Fedora, it can be fixed easily.
Ok, fixind this.
- winbind.init: /var/lock/subsys name should match the initscript name, i.e.
should be /var/lock/subsys/winbind, not .../winbindd (rmplint complains
about it).
Sorry but I can change the subsystem file name in the lock dir or upgrades would
fail to condrestart. Or I would have to check for both which is not pretty.
But you made me see that we don't start winbindd if networking is set to no.
With the winbindd offline mode, I think we may want to start it anyway.
Thougths about this?
Since /var/cache/samba is no more used, maybe create a symlink to
/var/lib/samba? (at least for compatibility reasons :) ) Perhaps this way
(old and new places are playing together) the migration procedure could be
simplified...
No, the migration would just break, as the script will find stuff in
/var/cache/samba and in /var/lib/samba, it will move the stuff in /var/lib/samba
to a backup and try to move /var/cache/samba to /var/lib/samba.
But as we moved away that stuff to backup it, the script will fail finiding
anything in /var/cache/samba and as result we just break new installtion by
leaving them without files in the real /var/lib/samba
Besides I want to see the absence of a /var/cache/samba directory as a mark we
have upgraded.
Simo.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226387] Merge Review: samba
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: samba https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226387 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #152814|0 |1 is obsolete|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226387] Merge Review: samba
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: samba https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226387 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #152907|0 |1 is obsolete|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235895] Review Request: perl-Text-Aspell - spell check interface for perl
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-Text-Aspell - spell check interface for perl Alias: perl-Text-Aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235895 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 10:51 EST --- Thanks, Chris. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Text-Aspell Short Description: Perl interface to the GNU Aspell library 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 237043] Review Request: perl-Hash-Case - Base class for hashes with key-casing requirements
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-Hash-Case - Base class for hashes with key-casing requirements Alias: perl-Hash-Case https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237043 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 11:12 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Hash-Case Short Description: Base class for hashes with key-casing requirements Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-5, FC-6, devel InitialCC: [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 237043] Review Request: perl-Hash-Case - Base class for hashes with key-casing requirements
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-Hash-Case - Base class for hashes with key-casing requirements Alias: perl-Hash-Case https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237043 [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 226553] Merge Review: xdoclet
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: xdoclet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226553
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|normal |medium
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 11:19 EST ---
Please fix item(s) mared by X:
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}
* 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
* 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)
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output
W: xdoclet non-standard-group Development/Framework
This is OK
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* changelog should be in one of these formats:
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* 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
- please get rid of section tag
* 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
* install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
* 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 this when I can build in mock
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
will do this when I
[Bug 231774] Review Request: perl-DBIx-POS - Define a dictionary of SQL statements in a POD dialect (POS)
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-DBIx-POS - Define a dictionary of SQL statements in a POD dialect (POS) Alias: perl-DBIx-POS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231774 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 11:28 EST --- Point well taken. That text is also in the source file (lib/DBIx/POS.pm) itself. The author intends to license this module under perl terms (dual GPL/Artistic) under the clear text of the licensing statement, and this module includes code copyrighted under a strictly Artistic license. This is a not derivative work, however, not a modification of the package Class::Singleton, so this appears to me to be kosher under the Artistic license. It is my assessment that this package (DBIx-POS) is properly licensed by the author under both the GPL and the Artistic license. This is just based on my reading of the Artistic license -- that is, that fragments of code licensed under the Artistic license may be reliscensed under the GPL (as would be the case if someone opted to use this package under the terms of the GPL). Comment is invited :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler 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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|normal |medium
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 11:47 EST ---
(In reply to comment #26)
3) What does release_func accomplish? It obfusticates the fact that the
release
tag violates policy. It should be a single integer followed by the release
tag,
unless you're bumping an old tree in which case you can add a number after
the
release tag.
Actually, if %release_func is not defined, the default %release_func:
%global release_func() %1%{?dist}
seems to do the right thing.
However, that macro is obfuscating. It should be removed from the spec file,
and Release: should be:
Release: 6%{?dist}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231011] Review Request: cowpatty - Audit Wpa pre-shared keys
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: cowpatty - Audit Wpa pre-shared keys https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231011 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 12:13 EST --- when running genpmk with cowpatty 4.0 : *** buffer overflow detected ***: genpmk terminated This seems not to be usable yet... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237062] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Params-Validate - Extension of Params::Validate using Moose's types
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-MooseX-Params-Validate - Extension of Params::Validate using Moose's types https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237062 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 12:35 EST --- Good: + Naming seems ok. + License ok. + Tar ball matches with upstream. + Local build works fine. + Rpmlint quite on source rpm. + Rpmlint quite on binary rpm. + Rpmlint quite on installed package. + Local install and uninstall works fine. *** 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 234490] Review Request: VDrift - VDrift is a cross-platform, open source driving/drift racing simulation
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: VDrift - VDrift is a cross-platform, open source driving/drift racing simulation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234490 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 12:36 EST --- Release or Version? Would not 0.0.0.20070323-3 be better than 20070323-0.0.0.3? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226387] Merge Review: samba
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: samba https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226387 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 12:36 EST --- I can change the subsystem file name in the lock dir or upgrades would fail to condrestart. Or I would have to check for both which is not pretty. Since /var/cache/samba is already moved, does subsys renaming look like just an addition for this process?.. Anyway, if you decided to cleanup samba, don't stop at the half of the way. Let's do all the hard changes at once! BTW, it seems that you can just rename lock files somewhere in the samba-common %post script, because all condrestarts will be invoked later. But you made me see that we don't start winbindd if networking is set to no. With the winbindd offline mode, I think we may want to start it anyway. If winbind offline mode is designed not for temporary network absence only, then maybe yes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237062] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Params-Validate - Extension of Params::Validate using Moose's types
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-MooseX-Params-Validate - Extension of Params::Validate using Moose's types https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237062 [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 236287] Review Request: python-genshi - Toolkit for stream-based generation of output for the web
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-genshi - Toolkit for stream-based generation of output for the web https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236287 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 12:57 EST --- Spec URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/python-genshi-0.4-1.fc6.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/python-genshi-0.4-1.fc6.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 235925] Review Request: dnssec-tools - Is a tool set for use with signed DNS zones
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: dnssec-tools - Is a tool set for use with signed DNS zones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235925 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 235741] Review Request: hippo-canvas - Crossplatform canvas using cairo
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: hippo-canvas - Crossplatform canvas using cairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235741 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 13:16 EST --- The spec file looks fine in general, just a few minor comments: A full source url is generally preferred, if you have one. I wondered about the fact that the -devel package does not install a .pc 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 233598] Review Request: elisa - Media Center
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: elisa - Media Center https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233598 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221675] Review Request: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for wireless devices based on zd1211 chipset
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: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for wireless devices based on zd1211 chipset https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221675 [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 228298] Review Request: python-louie - Dispatches signals between Python objects in a wide variety of contexts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-louie - Dispatches signals between Python objects in a wide variety of contexts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228298 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium [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 228301] Review Request: python-nevow - Web application construction kit written in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-nevow - Web application construction kit written in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228301 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium [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 226565] Merge Review: xmlrpc
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: xmlrpc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226565
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|normal |medium
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 13:37 EST ---
Please fix item(s) mared by X:
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)
- Source0 doesn't exist
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
* correct buildroot
- should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
X if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
- Please fix Release tag by adding %{?dist}
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output
- W: xmlrpc non-standard-group Development/Java - this is OK
* changelog should be in one of these formats:
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* 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)
* specfile is legible
* 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
* install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
- if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
end of %install
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package should probably not be relocatable
* package contains code
- see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
- in general, there should be no offensive content
* package should own all directories and files
* there should be no %files duplicates
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
* %clean should be present
* %doc files should not affect runtime
* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] pcheung]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xmlrpc-2.0.1-3jpp.3.x86_64.rpm
xmlrpc-applet-2.0.1.jar.so()(64bit)
xmlrpc = 0:2.0.1-3jpp.3
[EMAIL PROTECTED] pcheung]$ rpm -qp
[Bug 229321] Review Request :postgresql-pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL
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 :postgresql-pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229321 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium [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 229728] Review Request: polyml - Poly/ML compiler and runtime 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: polyml - Poly/ML compiler and runtime system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229728 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium [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 230394] Review Request: mysql++ - C++ wrapper for the MySQL C API
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: mysql++ - C++ wrapper for the MySQL C API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230394 [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 236537] Review Request: gpsbabel - A tool to convert between various formats used by GPS devices
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: gpsbabel - A tool to convert between various formats used by GPS devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236537 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 13:59 EST --- Built in devel, FC-5, FC-6, and EL-5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234826] Review Request: FlightGear - Flight Simulator
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: FlightGear - Flight Simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234826 [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 235783] Review Request: perl-GraphViz - Interface to the GraphViz graphing 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: perl-GraphViz - Interface to the GraphViz graphing tool Alias: perl-GraphViz https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235783 [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 235895] Review Request: perl-Text-Aspell - spell check interface for perl
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-Text-Aspell - spell check interface for perl Alias: perl-Text-Aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235895 [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 236854] Review Request: python-kaa-base - The Kaa Media - base package for python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-kaa-base - The Kaa Media - base package for python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236854 [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 236877] Review Request: perl-bioperl-run - Perl interface to various bioinformatics 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: perl-bioperl-run - Perl interface to various bioinformatics applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236877 [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 236976] Review Request: python-kaa-imlib2 - The Kaa Media - imlib2 binding for python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-kaa-imlib2 - The Kaa Media - imlib2 binding for python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236976 [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 236977] Review Request: python-kaa-metadata - The Kaa Media - metadata binding for python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-kaa-metadata - The Kaa Media - metadata binding for python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236977 [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 237043] Review Request: perl-Hash-Case - Base class for hashes with key-casing requirements
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-Hash-Case - Base class for hashes with key-casing requirements Alias: perl-Hash-Case https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237043 [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 229321] Review Request :postgresql-pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL
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 :postgresql-pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229321 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 14:24 EST --- Opps, fixing package name: New Package CVS Request === Package Name: postgresql-pgpool-II Short Description: Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-5 FC-6 EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, Devrim -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237062] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Params-Validate - Extension of Params::Validate using Moose's types
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-MooseX-Params-Validate - Extension of Params::Validate using Moose's types https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237062 [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 226230] Merge Review: parted
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: parted
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226230
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|normal |medium
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED
Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|om) |
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 14:52 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
[!] Rpmlint output:
#rpmlint parted-1.8.6-4.src.rpm
W: parted no-url-tag
rpmlint ~/reports/parted/parted-1.8.6-4.fc7.x86_64.rpm
W: parted no-url-tag
-- an URL tag should be provided
Fixed.
[!] Duplicate BR: automake (by libtool), libsepol-devel (by libselinux-devel)
Fixed.
[!] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Fixed.
[!] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
Fixed.
1. Summary ends with dot. As far as I remember (rpmlint does not say anything,
and it is latest version) it was preffered to not end sumaries with dot. Not a
big deal.
Fixed.
2. parted-devel should require pkconfig. MUSTFIX
Fixed.
3. there is a texinfo file (doc/parted-pt_BR) which might be shipped but is
not.
Don't think this file is correct anymore, so that's why it isn't installed.
Will check on that.
4. %files has a duplicate line: %{_libdir}/libparted-*.so.* is included twice.
MUSTFIX
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 237062] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Params-Validate - Extension of Params::Validate using Moose's types
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-MooseX-Params-Validate - Extension of Params::Validate using Moose's types https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237062 [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 235783] Review Request: perl-GraphViz - Interface to the GraphViz graphing 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: perl-GraphViz - Interface to the GraphViz graphing tool Alias: perl-GraphViz https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 237043] Review Request: perl-Hash-Case - Base class for hashes with key-casing requirements
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-Hash-Case - Base class for hashes with key-casing requirements Alias: perl-Hash-Case https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237043 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 15:02 EST --- Thanks for the review, Ralf! :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237046] Review Request: perl-Config-IniHash - Perl extension for reading and writing INI files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Config-IniHash - Perl extension for reading and writing INI files Alias: perl-Config-IniHash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237046 Bug 237046 depends on bug 237043, which changed state. Bug 237043 Summary: Review Request: perl-Hash-Case - Base class for hashes with key-casing requirements https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237043 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2007-04-19 15:16 EST --- Kevin Fenzi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Oh, I see that -14 is out now. If you would like me to look over the updated package before you import it, I would be happy to do so. I added a PAM module that can be used to automatically insert the user's key (based on his login passphrase) into his keyring at login. This can be used to perform automatic eCryptfs mounts. Updated spec: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils.spec New source RPM package (version 15): http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils-15-0.src.rpm Thanks, Mike -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 236854] Review Request: python-kaa-base - The Kaa Media - base package for python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-kaa-base - The Kaa Media - base package for python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236854 [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 226276] Merge Review: 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: perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 15:59 EST ---
x86_64 build of 16.2 fails, looks like a %{_prefix}/lib vs %{_libdir} mixup:
RPM build errors:
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Embed.pm
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Command
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Install.pm
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Installed.pm
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Liblist
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Liblist.pm
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/MakeMaker
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/MakeMaker.pm
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/MANIFEST.SKIP
File not found by glob:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/MM*.pm
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/MY.pm
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Manifest.pm
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Mkbootstrap.pm
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Mksymlists.pm
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/NOTES
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/Packlist.pm
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/PATCHING
File not found:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/ExtUtils/testlib.pm
File not found by glob:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/Test/Harness*
File not found by glob:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/Test/More*
File not found by glob:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/Test/Builder*
File not found by glob:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/Test/Simple*
File not found by glob:
/var/tmp/perl-5.8.8-16.2.cmn6-root-machbuild/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/Test/Tutorial*
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237170] New: Review Request: repoman - Tool for configuring yum(8) settings and repositories
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=237170 Summary: Review Request: repoman - Tool for configuring yum(8) settings and repositories Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.boston.burdell.org/repoman/RPMS/source/repoman.spec SRPM URL: http://www.boston.burdell.org/repoman/RPMS/source/repoman-0.7-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: repoman is a graphical application for configuring yum(8) settings, enabling and disabling repositories, and configuring yum(8) plug-ins. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226230] Merge Review: parted
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: parted https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226230 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+, ||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||om) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 16:42 EST --- All problems seem fixed in release 5, 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 205306] Review Request: perl-SUPER - Control superclass method dispatch
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-SUPER - Control superclass method dispatch Alias: perl-SUPER https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205306 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 16:42 EST --- Please branch for EL-4, EL-5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205304] Review Request: perl-Sub-Identify - Retrieve names of code references
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-Sub-Identify - Retrieve names of code references Alias: perl-Sub-Identify https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205304 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 16:43 EST --- Please branch for EL-4, EL-5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221906] Review Request: gmediaserver - UPnP compatible media server for the GNU 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: gmediaserver - UPnP compatible media server for the GNU system Alias: gmediaserver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221906 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 16:36 EST --- I am sorry, I was very bussy last time, so I can not fix/update package. (In reply to comment #20) [!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Build is not picking up the uuid libraries. These are not the ossp-uuid libraries that you added to the BR, but the e2fsprogs uuid libraries. Please remove uuid-devel from the BR and add e2pfsprogs-devel. BR also does not contain pkgconfig which is required for the uuid detection. I wrote BRs based on configure. Now it is fixed. 1. Package source file timestamp does not match upstream. Consider downloading with wget -N. Update sources (download by wget -cN ) 2. Missing/incorrect BR noted above. Fixed 3. init file line wraps on line 4-5, please pick a better break point I set break point in description between sentences. 4. init file / LSB info requires $syslog - not needed since it does not use syslog Deleted http://karlik.nonlogic.org/gmediaserv/gmediaserver.spec http://karlik.nonlogic.org/gmediaserv/gmediaserver-0.12.0-7.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 205318] Review Request: perl-Class-MOP - Class::MOP Perl module
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-Class-MOP - Class::MOP Perl module Alias: perl-Class-MOP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 16:44 EST --- Please branch for EL-4, EL-5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205060] Review Request: perl-Sub-Name - Name -- or rename -- a sub
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-Sub-Name - Name -- or rename -- a sub Alias: perl-Sub-Name https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205060 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 18:16 EST --- Please branch for EL-4, EL-5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205060] Review Request: perl-Sub-Name - Name -- or rename -- a sub
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-Sub-Name - Name -- or rename -- a sub Alias: perl-Sub-Name https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205060 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 18:16 EST --- Please branch for EL-4, EL-5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201494] Review Request: perl-Smart-Comments
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-Smart-Comments Alias: perl-Smart-Comments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201494 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 18:44 EST --- Please branch for EL-4, EL-5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227946] Review Request: stgit - StGIT provides similar functionality to Quilt on top of GIT
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: stgit - StGIT provides similar functionality to Quilt on top of GIT https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227946 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 19:34 EST --- Updated files: Spec URL: http://jbowes.dangerouslyinc.com/tmp/stgit.spec SRPM URL: http://jbowes.dangerouslyinc.com/tmp/stgit-0.12.1-1.src.rpm Sorry for the delay. I've updated to the new version, and chmod -x'd the shell script after install. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234490] Review Request: VDrift - VDrift is a cross-platform, open source driving/drift racing simulation
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: VDrift - VDrift is a cross-platform, open source driving/drift racing simulation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234490 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 20:13 EST --- yeah exactly. to prefix means to put it beforehand :) so i completly agree with you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231774] Review Request: perl-DBIx-POS - Define a dictionary of SQL statements in a POD dialect (POS)
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-DBIx-POS - Define a dictionary of SQL statements in a POD dialect (POS) Alias: perl-DBIx-POS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231774 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 22:58 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) that is, that fragments of code licensed under the Artistic license may be reliscensed under the GPL (as would be the case if someone opted to use this package under the terms of the GPL). This is where I don't quite follow you. What part of the Artistic license allows this? And why would you consider the portion under the Artistic license a fragment? Note: I think we both understand that this is not a blocker on the package itself because mixing these two licenses is certainly compatible. It's just a matter of getting the tag to reflect the realistic licensing of the package as a whole. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221906] Review Request: gmediaserver - UPnP compatible media server for the GNU 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: gmediaserver - UPnP compatible media server for the GNU system Alias: gmediaserver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221906 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 23:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #21) I wrote BRs based on configure. Now it is fixed. Yeah, it took me a while to figure out why configure wasn't picking it up. Most everything is fixed at this point, so this package is *** APPROVED *** One last thing that I notice that you probably want to fix before your first build: all the scriptlet lines should end with || : otherwise spurious errors on any of the commands will cause scriptlet errors and package install/upgrade/uninstall failures. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231774] Review Request: perl-DBIx-POS - Define a dictionary of SQL statements in a POD dialect (POS)
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-DBIx-POS - Define a dictionary of SQL statements in a POD dialect (POS) Alias: perl-DBIx-POS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231774 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-20 00:34 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #4) that is, that fragments of code licensed under the Artistic license may be reliscensed under the GPL (as would be the case if someone opted to use this package under the terms of the GPL). This is where I don't quite follow you. What part of the Artistic license allows this? And why would you consider the portion under the Artistic license a fragment? That's a good question. The Artistic license is very clear about what can and cannot be done with the package, both as provided (Standard Version) and derivative works... If we treat D::P as a derivative work of C::S, then I think this usage falls under the scope of clause 3(a): 3. You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package in any way, pro- vided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file stat- ing how and when you changed that file, and provided that you do at least ONE of the following: a) place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise make them Freely Available, such as by posting said modifications to Usenet or an equivalent medium, or placing the modifications on a major archive site such as uunet.uu.net, or by allowing the Copyright Holder to include your modifications in the Standard Version of the Package. Parts of C::S are aggregated (totally embedded, even) within D::P; and the author clearly states which parts, where they came from, and the original copyright. Furthermore, the author satisfied 3a by making such modifications freely available, etc. So, I'm certanly not a copyright lawyer, but that's my reading. Note: I think we both understand that this is not a blocker on the package itself because mixing these two licenses is certainly compatible. It's just a matter of getting the tag to reflect the realistic licensing of the package as a whole. Yep :) If we decide we can't go with the author's original dual-licensing as is, we can just term it Artistic and I'll take the matter upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2007-04-20 00:48 EST --- I see in the build log: ... PAM directory: [/lib/security] ./configure: line 20473: gtk-config: command not found ./configure: line 20474: gtk-config: command not found ./configure: line 20475: gtk-config: command not found GTK not found Is there a missing BuildRequires: on gtk? (Not sure what it would be used for though). Also, the permissions don't look right on the pam module. It's mode 644, but should be 755? This results in it not appearing in the debuginfo since it's not executable. All the other pam modules appear to be 755... Other than that it looks good... ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237216] New: PUP future feature
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=237216 Summary: PUP future feature Product: Fedora Core Version: test3 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Description of problem: Would like to see more control of the package updater service. If one has a older copy of Fedora Core the list of updates available could be very long. Would like to change the default selection, so that one can check packages you wish to update rather than to have to uncheck all the packages that you do not want to have updated at that moment in time. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
