[Bug 241081] Review Request: R-widgetTools-1.12.0-2 - Tools to support the construction of tcltk widgets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: R-widgetTools-1.12.0-2 - Tools to support the construction of tcltk widgets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241081 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 02:24 EST --- Well my computer is still under FC6... Can I ask for a F7 branch without being able to test the package on my computer ? If I can ask for the F7 branch, then I do :-) Thanks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 211336] Review Request: adesklets - A simple architecture for desktop applets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: adesklets - A simple architecture for desktop applets Alias: adeskets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211336 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 02:35 EST --- I am stooping working on this package as there is another development seeing on http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-mentors-list/2007-June/msg0.html. I apologize for delaying packaging as I have lost interesting of packaging this application. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226666] Merge Review: yum
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: yum https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 02:41 EST --- Ok, with me -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247615] Review Request: TECkit - Conversion library and mapping compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: TECkit - Conversion library and mapping compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247615 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 02:52 EST --- Ok, here we go with the new fixed TECkit: http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/files/teckit/ The only remaining issue is: W: teckit unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libTECkit_Compiler.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libexpat.so.0 W: teckit unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libTECkit_Compiler.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 W: teckit unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libTECkit.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libexpat.so.0 W: teckit unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libTECkit.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 but according to: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-January/msg00158.html and the following discussion it could be safely neglected. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 246539] Review Request: R-BufferedMatrix - A matrix data storage object held in temporary 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: R-BufferedMatrix - A matrix data storage object held in temporary files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246539 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 02:57 EST --- I think that I have fixed the error, I just added tetex-latex has a BR. I have also change the macro to the normal one, there are the new files: SPEC: http://pingoured.dyndns.org/public/RPM/R-BufferefMatrix/R-BufferedMatrix.spec SRPM: http://pingoured.dyndns.org/public/RPM/R-BufferefMatrix/R-BufferedMatrix-1.0.1-4.fc6.src.rpm Thanks :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238379] Review Request: Emesene - Emesene is an MSN Messenger client written in python and GTK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Emesene - Emesene is an MSN Messenger client written in python and GTK Alias: Emesene https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238379 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 04:21 EST --- Some fixed already for review: - naming convention for svn checkout present - Fixed summary, description, and files in %docs rpmlint is silent, package builds in mock is ok. Here is the update: Spec URL: http://www.linuxtachira.org/review/emesene.spec SRPM URL: http://www.linuxtachira.org/review/emesene-1.0-2.20070711svn.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 176581] Review Request: fnord -- A very fast HTTP server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fnord -- A very fast HTTP server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176581 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 04:40 EST --- #176582#c6 says that FESCo voted against allowing ipsvd to link statically against dietlibc in Fedora. I don't see how the outcome could be different for this package, but if you want it to also be voted upon, please say so. Same for this package. Packages depending on this were revoked, so I am refusing also this one. If you feel that it was an incorrect decision, please reopen and let me know. Also, if you would use the same reasoning as in #176582#c2, please do not bother to reopen. Arguments like are implemented correctly are not only just not good enough FESCo, but for everyone. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226167] Merge Review: mutt
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: mutt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226167 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 04:47 EST --- Urlview is removed from mutt-1.5.16-2.fc8. Description and requires should be also fixed. I didn't remove the noreplace flag for /etc/Muttrc as I still think it's better to allow the users to have a different system-wide config without forcing them to undo the settings provided by the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 244086] Review Request: gconf-cleaner - A Cleaning tool for GConf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gconf-cleaner - A Cleaning tool for GConf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244086
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 07:30 EST ---
MUST Items:
- MUST: rpmlint's output is clean
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}
- MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package is licensed (GPL) with an open-source compatible license
and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- MUST: the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own
file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is
included in %doc.
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
- MUST: The spec file for the package is be legible.
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must matches the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL.
- MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least i386.
- MUST: All build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires.
- MUST: The spec file handles locales properly.
- MUST: If the package does not contain shared library files located in the
dynamic linker's default paths
- MUST: the package is not designed to be relocatable
- MUST: the package owns all directories that it creates.
- MUST: the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
- MUST: Permissions on files are set properly.
- MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content. This is described
in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: There are no Large documentation files
- MUST: %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If
it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
- MUST: There are no Header files or static libraries
- MUST: The package does not contain library files with a suffix
- MUST: Package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives
- MUST: Package containing GUI applications includes a %{name}.desktop file,
and
that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install
section.
- MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
SHOULD Items:
- SHOULD: The source package does include license text(s)
- SHOULD: mock builds succcessfully in i386.
- SHOULD: The reviewer tested that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
- SHOULD: No scriptlets were used, those scriptlets must be sane.
- SHOULD: No subpackages present.
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 190189] Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190189 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 07:37 EST --- all that's missing is a review(er), only outstanding issues are those from comment #27. Patches welcome. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226667] Merge Review: yum-metadata-parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: yum-metadata-parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226667 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 07:40 EST --- Fine with me -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 244086] Review Request: gconf-cleaner - A Cleaning tool for GConf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gconf-cleaner - A Cleaning tool for GConf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244086 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 07:40 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: gconf-cleaner Short Description: A Cleaning tool for GConf Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: F-7 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 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 07:40 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: hippo-canvas New Branches: OLPC-2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226666] Merge Review: yum
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: yum https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|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 226667] Merge Review: yum-metadata-parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: yum-metadata-parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226667 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|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 235203] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235203 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 07:57 EST --- 1. sourceforge url should be corrected as stated in: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL?highlight=%28sourceforge%29#head-e27982f18a3bfd26b5b6ecbee113d2d8f3f006f2 2. URL should now be: http://bluetooth.kmobiletools.org/ 3. I'm experiencing crashes (everytime) on clicking on: * Configuration - Input Devices * connect (crash) * Add new devices - setup (crash) (The application KInputWizard (kinputwizard) crashed and caused the signall 11 (SIGSEGV) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247467] Review Request: isabella-coq - An AGI adventure 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: isabella-coq - An AGI adventure game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247467 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 08:02 EST --- Whoops. Good catch, one i should have made. This one requires AGIMouse, which I can't find. So do a few others I haven't submitted, and now won't. I thought there was a keyboard workaround, but there isn't. Withdrawn. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 246460] Review request: qtpfsgui - A Qt4 graphical user interface that provides a workflow for HDR imaging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review request: qtpfsgui - A Qt4 graphical user interface that provides a workflow for HDR imaging https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246460 [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 on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247775] New: Review Request: naturette - An AGI adventure game
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=247775 Summary: Review Request: naturette - An AGI adventure game Product: Fedora Version: devel 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] Spec URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/naturette/naturette.spec SRPM URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/naturette/naturette-1.3-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: Naturette was made using AgiStudio. Naturette must find eight diamonds to go back to her house. Contains nude scenes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225575] Review Request: roundcubemail - Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: roundcubemail - Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225575 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 08:25 EST --- Built for EPEL5. Brandon, any ETA on building Mail-Mime for 4? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247115] Review Request: ldapvi - An interactive LDAP client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ldapvi - An interactive LDAP client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247115 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 08:32 EST --- This hasn't appeared in updates even though I requested it via the new F7 webtool. Thoughts? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247268] Review Request: python-proctor - Proctor is a tool for running unit tests
Please 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-proctor - Proctor is a tool for running unit tests https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247268 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235203] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235203 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 08:52 EST --- Gilboa, please consider Chitlesh's suggestions 1,2 as SHOULD items as well. (3) looks like a bug, that afaic, can be addressed post-review (provided the app WORKSFORU, I don't have bluetooth to test myself). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238994] Review Request: memcached - High Performance, Distributed Memory Object Cache
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: memcached - High Performance, Distributed Memory Object Cache https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238994 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 09:18 EST --- Okay, here's the modification request. For some reason I still do not have access rights to modify the fedora-cvs flag. Could someone with privileges do that? Thanks Package Change Request == Package Name: memcached Updated Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] Updated CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247115] Review Request: ldapvi - An interactive LDAP client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ldapvi - An interactive LDAP client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247115 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 09:25 EST --- If you mean you've marked it as stable yet, you still need to wait for rel-eng to push it into the repo. [The bodhi terminology is highly confusing. ldapvi-1.7-1.fc7 is listed as a Pending update here https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pending?tg_paginate_limit=63 with a - in the submitted column, although ghenry is listed as the submitter.] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231315] Review Request: fcgi - fastcgi development kit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fcgi - fastcgi development kit Alias: fcgi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231315 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |me) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 09:28 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) It doesn't look like this has been built yet. Please build it and either close the ticket or reference this ticket when you push to F7 and bodhi will close it. Yes, the first time I wanted to build it, koji had an unexpected outage, than I forgot and now it will not build on x86_64 and therefore it does not build for any arch. Buildlog: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=61510name=build.log I will try to build it sometime only for i386 to see, whether this would fail on the buildsystem, too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238994] Review Request: memcached - High Performance, Distributed Memory Object Cache
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: memcached - High Performance, Distributed Memory Object Cache https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238994 [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 247405] Review Request: compiz-bcop - Compiz option code generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: compiz-bcop - Compiz option code generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247405 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 10:35 EST --- Fixed the group entry , http://devel.foss.org.my/~kagesenshi/repo/private/testing/compiz-bcop/compiz-bcop-0.1.3-0.6.20070711git.fc7.src.rpm I have a question about devel package, compiz-bcop is used only by people who are going to build compiz plugins and the package only contains 3 files. A shell script, a xslt file, and the .pc file (which is mainly to tell Makefiles of compiz plugins that the bcop script is installed). Is it really required to separate the script and the pkgconfig file to different rpms? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247482] Review Request: pwsafe - A unix command line utility that manages encrypted password databases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pwsafe - A unix command line utility that manages encrypted password databases https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247482 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 10:46 EST --- The UTF-8 issue seems to be fixed. But I disagree agains you opion about the changelog entry. You should write: %changelog * Sun Jul 08 2007 Ralf Ertzinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.2.0-0.2 - Initial build for Fedora Ths dist tag should not appear in the changelog entry. As far as I understand the warning, I have complainted, the program try to use an unswappable chunk of memory to store the password. It will be nice, if you can examinate this, but his will not be a blocker for approving your package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229180] Review Request: texlive-texmf - Architecture independent parts of the TeX formatting 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: texlive-texmf - Architecture independent parts of the TeX formatting system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229180 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 10:54 EST --- The new version (0.5) of texlive-texmf is now available from: http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/files/texlive/ Main features are that the style list is derived directly from teTeX so no important one should be missing. Also the total size of the texmf srpm is now about 180M. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 242416] Review Request: texlive - Binaries for the TeX formatting 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: texlive - Binaries for the TeX formatting system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=242416 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||247615 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 11:05 EST --- The new TeXLive binaries package (0.5) is now available again from: http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/files/texlive/ and thanks to cooperation with David Walluck it contains many enhancements: - separated kpathsea from texlive-fonts - applied patches from Debian, SuSE and Mandriva TeXLive distros - TeXLive now links against system freetype2/t1lib - removed kpathsea library building hacks - disabled ttf2pk, so that a dependency on type1 is no more needed - fixed perl requires Jochen, the principle of the texlive-errata scheme is to ship only updated styles to the texmf tree so that the huge texmf package needn't to be pushed as a whole when only a few styles are updated. deltarpm is tricky here as some files are configs/ghosted and frequently modified and so that deltarpm would download the whole package anyway in most cases, therefore the texlive-errata scheme. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247615] Review Request: TECkit - Conversion library and mapping compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: TECkit - Conversion library and mapping compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247615 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||242416 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241403] Review Request: qgis - A user friendly Open Source Geographic Information 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: qgis - A user friendly Open Source Geographic Information System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241403 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 11:18 EST --- qgis-0.8.1-11.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 245081] Review Request: libp11 - a small library for dealing with PKCS#11 tokens
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libp11 - a small library for dealing with PKCS#11 tokens https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245081 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 11:17 EST --- libp11-0.2.2-5.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 243631] Review Request: msmtp - an SMTP client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: msmtp - an SMTP client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243631 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 11:18 EST --- msmtp-1.4.12-7.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 246460] Review request: qtpfsgui - A Qt4 graphical user interface that provides a workflow for HDR imaging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review request: qtpfsgui - A Qt4 graphical user interface that provides a workflow for HDR imaging https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246460 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 11:18 EST --- qtpfsgui-1.8.9-5.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207896] Review Request: astyle - Source code formatter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: astyle - Source code formatter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207896 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 11:19 EST --- astyle-1.21-5.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207896] Review Request: astyle - Source code formatter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: astyle - Source code formatter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207896 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |CLOSED Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA Fixed In Version||1.21-5.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 223422] Review Request: mrxvt - Multi-tabbed terminal emulator.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mrxvt - Multi-tabbed terminal emulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223422 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |CLOSED Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA Fixed In Version||0.5.2-9.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 223422] Review Request: mrxvt - Multi-tabbed terminal emulator.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mrxvt - Multi-tabbed terminal emulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223422 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 11:20 EST --- mrxvt-0.5.2-9.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247615] Review Request: TECkit - Conversion library and mapping compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: TECkit - Conversion library and mapping compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247615
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|242416 |
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 11:20 EST ---
Fixed:
+ %{_smp_mflags} added
+ Empty file was removed from the %doc section
+ Include whole directory %{_include]/teckit/
+ Mock build works fine for Devel (x86_64, i386, ppc64, ppc)
Need work:
- License.txt refers to two other files which contains the verbatim text of the
licenses
Accepted unfixed issues:
The ununsed-direct-shlib-dependency issue is not a blocker for approvement.
It may be nice, if you can notify upstream for fixing it.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 242416] Review Request: texlive - Binaries for the TeX formatting 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: texlive - Binaries for the TeX formatting system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=242416 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|247615 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247273] Review Request: coco-coq - An AGI Adventure 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: coco-coq - An AGI Adventure game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247273 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 11:21 EST --- coco-coq-0.1-3.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247273] Review Request: coco-coq - An AGI Adventure 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: coco-coq - An AGI Adventure game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247273 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |CLOSED Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA Fixed In Version||0.1-3.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247615] Review Request: TECkit - Conversion library and mapping compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: TECkit - Conversion library and mapping compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247615 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 11:38 EST --- The remaining licenses are now added in 0.3. I notified upstream about it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247775] Review Request: naturette - An AGI adventure 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: naturette - An AGI adventure game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247775 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 11:44 EST --- Package doesn't fullfill the licensing requirements of the Fedora project. The License tas says 'Redistributable, no modification permitted' If you not permitted to make modifications, then this is not a open source license. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247467] Review Request: isabella-coq - An AGI adventure 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: isabella-coq - An AGI adventure game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247467 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 11:45 EST --- Looking through /etc/nagi it looks like it supports mouse input but needs to be enabled somehow. Perhaps with some experimentation you could get it working. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247775] Review Request: naturette - An AGI adventure 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: naturette - An AGI adventure game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247775 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 11:47 EST --- This license was specifically OKd by Spot, see:https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240195 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231315] Review Request: fcgi - fastcgi development kit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fcgi - fastcgi development kit Alias: fcgi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231315 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 11:55 EST --- I know I built this on x86_64 but it now doesn't build in mock for me either. Try disabling parallel make; it seems to have worked for me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 211336] Review Request: adesklets - A simple architecture for desktop applets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: adesklets - A simple architecture for desktop applets Alias: adeskets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211336 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 176581] Review Request: fnord -- A very fast HTTP server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fnord -- A very fast HTTP server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176581 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| 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 247775] Review Request: naturette - An AGI adventure 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: naturette - An AGI adventure game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247775 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords||Reopened Resolution|WONTFIX | Flag|fedora-review- | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 12:00 EST --- I cant see any comment from Spot on the link you fefer too. Because you review request don't agree with my opion of the open source distribution, I will reopen the bug for anyone else who want to review your package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247775] Review Request: naturette - An AGI adventure 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: naturette - An AGI adventure game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247775 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 12:05 EST --- This is content, not source, and the license, while perhaps not optimal, is acceptable for content in Fedora, just the same as the firmware licenses are. I'll review this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247775] Review Request: naturette - An AGI adventure 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: naturette - An AGI adventure game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247775 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 12:06 EST --- My mistake, I was thinking of discussion around nagi. Redistributable, no modification permitted is a valid Fedora license. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241081] Review Request: R-widgetTools-1.12.0-2 - Tools to support the construction of tcltk widgets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: R-widgetTools-1.12.0-2 - Tools to support the construction of tcltk widgets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241081 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 12:10 EST --- It's ok to ask for a branch without being able to test, except if you have reason to think that it wont work. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241081] Review Request: R-widgetTools-1.12.0-2 - Tools to support the construction of tcltk widgets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: R-widgetTools-1.12.0-2 - Tools to support the construction of tcltk widgets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241081 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 12:16 EST --- Then :-)... New Package CVS Request === Package Name: R-widgetTools Short Description: Tools to support the construction of tcltk widgets Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-6 F-7 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 247482] Review Request: pwsafe - A unix command line utility that manages encrypted password databases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pwsafe - A unix command line utility that manages encrypted password databases https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247482 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 12:18 EST --- Leaving the dist tag out of the changelog entry does not make rpmlint happy, either. It will complain as long as the E-V-R of the package and the E-V-R of the latest changelog entry do not match. As I said, the final build will not have this problem since both the package E-V-R and the changelog E-V-R will be 0.2.0-1.fc8 (for the rawhide build) The secure ram warning is about mlock() (marking a part of memory unswappable). mlock() requires root privileges. This seems to be used all over the place in pwsafe, and I do not feel comfortable at all about letting this effectively run as root. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247775] Review Request: naturette - An AGI adventure 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: naturette - An AGI adventure game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247775 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 12:29 EST --- From my view, I have interpreted AGI like an interpreter, which should execute the game, which you will package in your review request. In this case the situation is simular to for example a perl programm which will be executed by a perl interpreter. AFAIK in this case the above license may be not valid for this case. So I think, this is a boundary issue between pasive content and code which will be interpreted by a game engine like a program by an interpreter. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247775] Review Request: naturette - An AGI adventure 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: naturette - An AGI adventure game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247775 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 12:29 EST --- From my view, I have interpreted AGI like an interpreter, which should execute the game, which you will package in your review request. In this case the situation is simular to for example a perl programm which will be executed by a perl interpreter. AFAIK in this case the above license may be not valid for this case. So I think, this is a boundary issue between pasive content and code which will be interpreted by a game engine like a program by an interpreter. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247704] Review Request: gifsicle - Powerful program for manipulating GIF images and animations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gifsicle - Powerful program for manipulating GIF images and animations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247704 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 12:33 EST --- Imported and built for devel. Added to comps. Closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216536] Review Request: FuzzyOcr - Checks for specific keywords in image attachments
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: FuzzyOcr - Checks for specific keywords in image attachments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216536 Bug 216536 depends on bug 247704, which changed state. Bug 247704 Summary: Review Request: gifsicle - Powerful program for manipulating GIF images and animations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247704 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247840] New: php-pear maintainer update
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=247840 Summary: php-pear maintainer update Product: Fedora Version: devel 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- [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] t.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Package Change Request == Package Name: php-pear Updated Fedora Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247840] php-pear maintainer update
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: php-pear maintainer update https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247840 [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 on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 236297] Review Request: xoo - Xoo is a graphical wrapper around xnest.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xoo - Xoo is a graphical wrapper around xnest. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236297 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs- |fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 12:36 EST --- Oops. sorry. didnt know about the new template issue. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: xoo Short Description: Xoo is a graphical wrapper around xnest Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-6 F-7 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 235203] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235203 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 12:39 EST --- I just got a bluetooth usb stick for my birthday. I can take up the review but will only approve if i can get minimum my usb stick working (It's working with gnome-bluetooth, up to now). However I would recommend anyone helping this review to take a look how kubuntu got its kdebluetooth integrated into the distribution. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 240090] Review Request: ftgl - OpenGL frontend to Freetype 2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ftgl - OpenGL frontend to Freetype 2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240090 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247482] Review Request: pwsafe - A unix command line utility that manages encrypted password databases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pwsafe - A unix command line utility that manages encrypted password databases https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247482 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 12:46 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) Leaving the dist tag out of the changelog entry does not make rpmlint happy, either. It will complain as long as the E-V-R of the package and the E-V-R of the latest changelog entry do not match. I have to disagree with your. For demonstration please look at: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/pwsafe/pwsafe-0.2.0-0.2.fc7.src.rpm You will find out, that this source rpm makes rpmlint happy. The secure ram warning is about mlock() (marking a part of memory unswappable). mlock() requires root privileges. This seems to be used all over the place in pwsafe, and I do not feel comfortable at all about letting this effectively run as root. That is ok. It may be nice, if you can contact the upstream to make your improvements. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235203] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235203 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 12:46 EST --- Chitlesh, thanks. I think we've got things pretty well in hand review-wise, but feedback on functionality is certainly always welcome. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237338] Review Request: perl-Net-DNS-SEC -- Perl support for DNSSEC
Please 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-Net-DNS-SEC -- Perl support for DNSSEC
Alias: perl-Net-DNS-SEC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237338
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 12:49 EST ---
I grabbed them from devel.
Missing BuildRequires:
Checking if your kit is complete...
Looks good
Warning: prerequisite Digest::SHA 5.23 not found.
Writing Makefile for Net::DNS::SEC
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: x86_64/f7
[x] Rpmlint output:
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL or Artistic
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package: a87e3e4c8467ea2d64408abae2abcfc6
MD5SUM upstream package: a87e3e4c8467ea2d64408abae2abcfc6
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR:
Arches excluded:
Why:
[!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Missing Digest::SHA = 5.23
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[x] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: not tested because some BuildRequires haven't propagated yet
[ ] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: x86_64/f7
[x] Package functions as described.
[x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[ ] File based requires are sane.
APPROVED if the missing buildrequire is added.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235203] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235203 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 13:02 EST --- (In reply to comment #46) 3. I'm experiencing crashes (everytime) on clicking on: * Configuration - Input Devices * connect (crash) * Add new devices - setup (crash) (The application KInputWizard (kinputwizard) crashed and caused the signall 11 (SIGSEGV) Someone on suse is experiencing the same crashes: http://bluetooth.kmobiletools.org/uieforum?c=showthreadThreadID=8 http://bluetooth.kmobiletools.org/uieforum?c=showthreadThreadID=9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 245708] Review Request: scsi-target-utils - SCSI target daemon and tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: scsi-target-utils - SCSI target daemon and tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245708 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 13:08 EST --- (In reply to comment #15) tgtd.init needs an 'echo' after the daemon call. Fixed. I also found another missing echo. My only question is with the versioning - if this will use 'normal' versioning and the date is just a prerelease snapshot, it's fine. Yeah, the date versioning is temporary. Those data based tarballs are for users that do not want to grab what is in git and so distros can download something right now. When we do a real first release, we will use a more normal X.Y.Z naming. SPEC http://people.redhat.com/mchristi/target/FC7/rpm/scsi-target-utils/take3/scsi-target-utils.spec SRC RPM http://people.redhat.com/mchristi/target/FC7/rpm/scsi-target-utils/take3/scsi-target-utils-0.0-0.20070620snap.fc7.src.rpm Here are links to the updated rpms and spec (spec is the same, just a udpdated tgtd.init in the src rpm). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247775] Review Request: naturette - An AGI adventure 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: naturette - An AGI adventure game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247775 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 13:13 EST --- Builds OK, installs and plays fine. rpmlint says: E: naturette zero-length /usr/share/naturette/snddir which is normal for AGI games which don't include sound. * source files manually compared with upstream. * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is acceptable for content. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: naturette = 1.3-1.fc8 = /bin/bash /bin/sh hicolor-icon-theme nagi * %check is not present; no upstream test suite. Seems fine with manual testing. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * desktop file looks OK and installs without errors. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235203] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235203 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 13:18 EST --- beta3 should not be released as-is; there is more fixes in the SVN repo at http://websvn.kde.org/branches/extragear/kde3/pim/kdebluetooth that should be used, including what appears to be fixed for the kinputwizard crash. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231315] Review Request: fcgi - fastcgi development kit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fcgi - fastcgi development kit Alias: fcgi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231315 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 13:21 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) I know I built this on x86_64 but it now doesn't build in mock for me either. Try disabling parallel make; it seems to have worked for me. This makes koji happy, too: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=10928 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247775] Review Request: naturette - An AGI adventure 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: naturette - An AGI adventure game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247775 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 13:33 EST --- Thanks! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: naturette Short Description: An AGI adventure game Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-6 F-7 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247775] Review Request: naturette - An AGI adventure 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: naturette - An AGI adventure game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247775 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 13:43 EST --- Re 6/7: In what way would licensing restrictions differ between code and content? In any case, AGI files are best described as a mix between code and content. Open an AGI game in agistudio and look at LOGDIR and VIEWDIR to see what I mean. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238994] Review Request: memcached - High Performance, Distributed Memory Object Cache
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: memcached - High Performance, Distributed Memory Object Cache https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238994 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 13:44 EST --- Hey Paul, so am I. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247852] New: Review Request: R-systemfit - Simultaneous Equation Estimation R Package
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=247852 Summary: Review Request: R-systemfit - Simultaneous Equation Estimation R Package Product: Fedora Version: devel 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] Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/R-systemfit.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/R-systemfit-0.8-3.src.rpm Description: This R package contains functions for fitting simultaneous systems of linear and nonlinear equations using Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), Weighted Least Squares (WLS), Seemingly Unrelated Regressions (SUR), Two-Stage Least Squares (2SLS), Weighted Two-Stage Least Squares (W2SLS), Three-Stage Least Squares (3SLS), and Weighted Three-Stage Least Squares (W3SLS). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247858] New: Review Request: R-mvtnorm - Multivariate normal and T distrubution R Package
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=247858 Summary: Review Request: R-mvtnorm - Multivariate normal and T distrubution R Package Product: Fedora Version: devel 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] Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/R-mvtnorm.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/R-mvtnorm-0.7-2.src.rpm Description: This R package computes multivariate normal and t probabilities, quantiles and densities. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 246138] Review Request: eclipse-QuickREx - QuickREx is a regular-expression test Eclipse Plug-In
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: eclipse-QuickREx - QuickREx is a regular-expression
test Eclipse Plug-In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246138
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 14:42 EST ---
Hi Alphonse,
I've finished the review. Lines prefixed with a '?' are where I have a
question. Those beginning with a '*' are fine and those marked with an
'X' indicate they must be fixed. The 'MUST' and 'SHOULD' headers just
reflect the sections here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines?action=showredirect=PackageReviewGuidelines
MUST:
? package is named appropriately
- can we get confirmation from upstream about the capitalization issue?
I just don't want to go against their wishes. Otherwise, it's fine.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible
* specfile name matches %{name}
X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
- while I can't verify the md5sum of your tarball, I don't get any
differences on a diff of the exploded tarball so I think we're fine.
The instructions are also clear.
- my only concern is the build.properties and feature.xml files -- did
upstream author these or did you? can they not be included upstream?
I thought package-build worked fine with packages that didn't have
features - does it not? I guess I just want to know what the purpose
of these files is and whether or not they will go upstream at some
point :) .
* no typos in the summary or description
* buildroot fine, although this is now the most recommended value:
%(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XX)
* %{?dist} used properly
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
X rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output
$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/eclipse-quickrex-3.5.0-2.fc7.src.rpm
eclipse-quickrex.src:145: W: strange-permission fetch-quickrex.sh 0764
Can we make it 0755 or something?
X changelog fine except for extra space in first line:
* Thu Jul 5 2007 Alphonse Van Assche [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3.5.0-2
^
* Packager tag not used
* Vendor tag not used
* Distribution tag should not be used
* use License and not Copyright
* Summary tag does not end in a period
* no PreReq
* specfile is legible
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
* description expands upon summary
* make sure lines are = 80 characters
- lines that are 80 are necessary IMO
* specfile written in American English
* no -doc sub-package necessary
* no static libraries
* no rpath
* no config files
* not a GUI app
* no -devel sub-package necessary
X macros used appropriately and consistently
- %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -- pick one :)
* no %makeinstall
* install section begins with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
* no locale data
X consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
* Requires(pre,post) split into two separate lines
* package not relocatable
* package contains code and documentation
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
* file permissions okay; %defattrs present
* %clean present
* %doc files do not affect runtime
* not a web app
* final provides and requires of the binary RPMs fine
$ rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/i386/eclipse-quickrex-3.5.0-2.fc7.i386.rpm
QuickREx.jar.so
eclipse-QuickREx = 3.5.0-2.fc7
eclipse-quickrex = 3.5.0-2.fc7
$ rpm -qp --requires ../RPMS/i386/eclipse-quickrex-3.5.0-2.fc7.i386.rpm
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
eclipse-platform = 3.2.1
jakarta-oro
java-gcj-compat
java-gcj-compat
libc.so.6
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)
libdl.so.2
libgcc_s.so.1
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)
libgcj_bc.so.1
libm.so.6
libpthread.so.0
librt.so.1
libz.so.1
regexp
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) = 3.0.3-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
* rpmlint output when run on the binary RPMs
$ rpmlint ../RPMS/i386/eclipse-quickrex-3.5.0-2.fc7.i386.rpm
eclipse-quickrex.i386: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/eclipse/plugins/de.babe.eclipse.plugins.QuickREx_3.5.0/lib/jakarta-regexp-1.4.jar
/usr/share/java/regexp.jar
eclipse-quickrex.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
[Bug 216536] Review Request: FuzzyOcr - Checks for specific keywords in image attachments
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: FuzzyOcr - Checks for specific keywords in image attachments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216536 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 14:42 EST --- You could name it 3.5.1 and add the SVN changes as a patch - you can get that from the upstream's trac. Eg: http://fuzzyocr.own-hero.net/changeset? format=diffnew=131old=125new_path=trunk%2Fdevelold_path=trunk%2Fdevel Revision 125 was 3.5.1 You can see a summary of all the changes here: http://fuzzyocr.own-hero.net/log/trunk/devel -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 246539] Review Request: R-BufferedMatrix - A matrix data storage object held in temporary 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: R-BufferedMatrix - A matrix data storage object held in temporary files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246539 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 14:48 EST --- Normally I don't care at all about Group:, but I do wonder why you think Applications/Productivity is appropriate The -devel package must have a dependency on the non-devel package. The manual R dependency unnecessary for arch-specific R packages, but I don't think it's a blocker. You are missing some %doc directories. These are all listed out in the template. You don't own the top-level directory of the package. This, too, is listed in the template. Review: * source files match upstream: 452483454bf11c7d6484164776feccb26e10597df78a9eb7dd8111c209f88af3 BufferedMatrix_1.0.1.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. X final provides and requires: R-BufferedMatrix-1.0.1-4.fc8.x86_64.rpm BufferedMatrix.so()(64bit) R-BufferedMatrix = 1.0.1-4.fc8 = /bin/sh R libR.so()(64bit) R-BufferedMatrix-devel-1.0.1-4.fc8.x86_64.rpm R-BufferedMatrix-devel = 1.0.1-4.fc8 = X (no dependencies) * %check is present and all tests pass: checking tests ... Running 'Rcodetesting.R' Running 'c_code_level_tests.R' Running 'objectTesting.R' Running 'rawCalltesting.R' OK * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. X doesn't own ..R/library/BufferedMatrix * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets OK (R index creation) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel subpackage. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238994] Review Request: memcached - High Performance, Distributed Memory Object Cache
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: memcached - High Performance, Distributed Memory Object Cache https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238994 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 14:49 EST --- Amended change request: Package Change Request == Package Name: memcached Updated Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] Updated CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 244623] Review Request: OggConvert - OggConvert is a small GNOME utility that uses GStreamer to convert media files to the licence-free Theora and Vorbis formats.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: OggConvert - OggConvert is a small GNOME utility that uses GStreamer to convert media files to the licence-free Theora and Vorbis formats. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244623 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 14:53 EST --- ping. are you still interested in submitting this to Fedora? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247705] Review Request: perl-Mail-SPF - Object-oriented implementation of Sender Policy Framework
Please 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-Mail-SPF - Object-oriented implementation of Sender Policy Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247705 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 15:05 EST --- Another clean Perl module * source files match upstream: b8ffb09c538bf4fe3b79ff45dad942879fec9c975a08243c0a59ab3e92439b8a Mail-SPF-v2.005.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(Mail::SPF) perl(Mail::SPF::Base) perl(Mail::SPF::EAbstractClass) perl(Mail::SPF::EClassMethod) perl(Mail::SPF::EDNSError) perl(Mail::SPF::EDNSTimeout) perl(Mail::SPF::EDuplicateGlobalMod) perl(Mail::SPF::EInstanceMethod) perl(Mail::SPF::EInvalidMacro) perl(Mail::SPF::EInvalidMacroString) perl(Mail::SPF::EInvalidMech) perl(Mail::SPF::EInvalidMechQualifier) perl(Mail::SPF::EInvalidMod) perl(Mail::SPF::EInvalidOptionValue) perl(Mail::SPF::EInvalidRecordVersion) perl(Mail::SPF::EInvalidScope) perl(Mail::SPF::EInvalidTerm) perl(Mail::SPF::EJunkInRecord) perl(Mail::SPF::EJunkInTerm) perl(Mail::SPF::EMacroExpansionCtxRequired) perl(Mail::SPF::ENoAcceptableRecord) perl(Mail::SPF::ENoUnparsedText) perl(Mail::SPF::ENothingToParse) perl(Mail::SPF::EOptionRequired) perl(Mail::SPF::EProcessingLimitExceeded) perl(Mail::SPF::EReadOnlyValue) perl(Mail::SPF::ERecordSelectionError) perl(Mail::SPF::ERedundantAcceptableRecords) perl(Mail::SPF::ESyntaxError) perl(Mail::SPF::ETermDomainSpecExpected) perl(Mail::SPF::ETermIPv4AddressExpected) perl(Mail::SPF::ETermIPv4PrefixLengthExpected) perl(Mail::SPF::ETermIPv6AddressExpected) perl(Mail::SPF::ETermIPv6PrefixLengthExpected) perl(Mail::SPF::EUnexpectedTermObject) perl(Mail::SPF::Exception) perl(Mail::SPF::GlobalMod) perl(Mail::SPF::MacroString) perl(Mail::SPF::Mech) perl(Mail::SPF::Mech::A) perl(Mail::SPF::Mech::All) perl(Mail::SPF::Mech::Exists) perl(Mail::SPF::Mech::IP4) perl(Mail::SPF::Mech::IP6) perl(Mail::SPF::Mech::Include) perl(Mail::SPF::Mech::MX) perl(Mail::SPF::Mech::PTR) perl(Mail::SPF::Mod) perl(Mail::SPF::Mod::Exp) perl(Mail::SPF::Mod::Redirect) perl(Mail::SPF::PositionalMod) perl(Mail::SPF::Record) perl(Mail::SPF::Request) perl(Mail::SPF::Result) perl(Mail::SPF::Result::Error) perl(Mail::SPF::Result::Fail) perl(Mail::SPF::Result::Neutral) perl(Mail::SPF::Result::NeutralByDefault) perl(Mail::SPF::Result::None) perl(Mail::SPF::Result::Pass) perl(Mail::SPF::Result::PermError) perl(Mail::SPF::Result::SoftFail) perl(Mail::SPF::Result::TempError) perl(Mail::SPF::SenderIPAddrMech) perl(Mail::SPF::Server) perl(Mail::SPF::Term) perl(Mail::SPF::UnknownMod) perl(Mail::SPF::Util) perl(Mail::SPF::v1::Record) perl(Mail::SPF::v2::Record) perl-Mail-SPF = 2.005-1.fc8 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Error) perl(Mail::SPF::Exception) perl(Mail::SPF::MacroString) perl(Mail::SPF::Mod) perl(Mail::SPF::Record) perl(Mail::SPF::Request) perl(Mail::SPF::Result) perl(Mail::SPF::Server) perl(Mail::SPF::Util) perl(Net::DNS) = 0.58 perl(Net::DNS::Resolver) perl(NetAddr::IP) perl(Sys::Hostname) perl(URI) = 1.13 perl(URI::Escape) perl(base) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(utf8) perl(version) perl(warnings) * %check is present and all tests pass: t/00.00-class-miscok t/00.01-class-utilok t/00.02-class-request.ok t/00.03-class-result..ok t/00.04-class-server..ok t/00.05-class-macrostring.ok t/00.99-class-miscok t/10.00-rfc4408...skipped all skipped: Mail::SPF::Test required for testing Mail::SPF's RFC compliance t/10.01-rfc4406...skipped all skipped: Mail::SPF::Test required for testing Mail::SPF's RFC compliance t/90-author-pod-validationok All tests successful, 2 tests skipped.
[Bug 240090] Review Request: ftgl - OpenGL frontend to Freetype 2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ftgl - OpenGL frontend to Freetype 2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240090 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 15:07 EST --- By the way, would you have a time to review my package ( bug 246716 )? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 240090] Review Request: ftgl - OpenGL frontend to Freetype 2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ftgl - OpenGL frontend to Freetype 2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240090
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 15:03 EST ---
For 2.1.2-2:
* Timestamps
- For this package, please add 'INSTALL=%{__install} -p' option
to make install to keep timestamps.
* Requires
- Requires: freetype2 in pkgconfig .pc file means that -devel
package must have Requires: freetype-devel
- And more Requires is needed for .pc file (so -devel package).
Please check: /usr/include/FTGL/FTGL.h
* BuildRequires
- Remove redundant BuildRequires.
For example:
- freeglut-devel Requires libGL-devel, libGLU-devel
- libXmu-devel Requires libX11-devel
? Demo program
- Still demo program has to be removed?
* %clean
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT unix/__doc
- Why unix/__doc is needed here? At the end, all files
under building directory will be removed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 246387] Review Request: libibcommon - OpenFabrics Alliance InfiniBand management common library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libibcommon - OpenFabrics Alliance InfiniBand management common library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246387 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 15:21 EST --- Ping. Any updates on this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 246356] Review Request: perl-Gearman-Client-Async - Asynchronous Client for the Gearman distributed job 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: perl-Gearman-Client-Async - Asynchronous Client for the Gearman distributed job system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246356 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 15:24 EST --- OK, looks good to me. * source files match upstream: 8f8fa7722c82a27130224828629b8c680eb99e15e562d17e02d57c3f097826ea Gearman-Client-Async-0.94.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(Gearman::Client::Async) = 0.94 perl(Gearman::Client::Async::Connection) perl(Gearman::ResponseParser::Async) perl-Gearman-Client-Async = 0.94-3.fc8 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(Danga::Socket) = 1.52 perl(Gearman::Client::Async::Connection) perl(Gearman::JobStatus) perl(Gearman::Objects) perl(Gearman::ResponseParser) perl(Gearman::Task) perl(Gearman::Util) perl(IO::Handle) perl(List::Util) perl(Scalar::Util) perl(Socket) perl(base) perl(constant) perl(fields) perl(strict) perl(vars) perl(warnings) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=11, Tests=32, 26 wallclock secs ( 1.48 cusr + 0.55 csys = 2.03 CPU) * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226666] Merge Review: yum
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: yum
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 15:44 EST ---
You should keep timestamps of installed files, for example
you could use
install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE2}
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_sysconfdir}/yum/yum-updatesd.conf
For the file are installed by make install nothing can be done,
maybe it should be suggested to upstream to use $(INSTALL) instead
of install, and set
INSTALL = install
In any case, this is not blocking.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247615] Review Request: TECkit - Conversion library and mapping compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: TECkit - Conversion library and mapping compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247615 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 15:49 EST --- I think you understand me not in the right way. I saw, that the license.txt doesn't contains the verbatim copy of ever the LGPL or the CPL. But the package should comtains the verbatim text of the license if abailable. So your statement make no sense from my point of view. If you say, that the package should release under the term of the LGPL, you have to distribute the file with the verbatim text of the LGPL with your package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 244936] Review Request: dbench - Filesystem load benchmarking 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: dbench - Filesystem load benchmarking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244936 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 15:52 EST --- Spec: http://dev.laptop.org/pub/sugar/rpms/dbench.spec SRPM: http://dev.laptop.org/pub/sugar/rpms/dbench-3.04-2.src.rpm New rpms - patch added to have the Makefile.in install the client.txt to the correct location and have dbench.c look for the file in the correct location. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 246539] Review Request: R-BufferedMatrix - A matrix data storage object held in temporary 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: R-BufferedMatrix - A matrix data storage object held in temporary files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246539 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 16:01 EST --- Ok I have the requires on the devel package I have corrected the files section I have change the Group I have change the Requires to: Requires(post): R Requires(postun): R Sorry for these stupids mistakes I should have been more carreful... There are the new files: SPEC: http://pingoured.dyndns.org/public/RPM/R-BufferefMatrix/R-BufferedMatrix.spec SRPM: http://pingoured.dyndns.org/public/RPM/R-BufferefMatrix/R-BufferedMatrix-1.0.1-5.fc6.src.rpm Thanks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 246403] Review Request: mysql-proxy - A proxy for the MySQL Client/Server protocol
Please 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-proxy - A proxy for the MySQL Client/Server protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246403 [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 on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 246356] Review Request: perl-Gearman-Client-Async - Asynchronous Client for the Gearman distributed job 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: perl-Gearman-Client-Async - Asynchronous Client for the Gearman distributed job system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246356 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 16:12 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Gearman-Client-Async Short Description: Asynchronous Client for the Gearman distributed job system Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-6 F-7 EL-4 EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237338] Review Request: perl-Net-DNS-SEC -- Perl support for DNSSEC
Please 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-Net-DNS-SEC -- Perl support for DNSSEC
Alias: perl-Net-DNS-SEC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237338
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 16:20 EST ---
Spec URL: http://www.hardakers.net/FE/perl-Net-DNS-SEC.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.hardakers.net/FE/perl-Net-DNS-SEC-0.14-2.src.rpm
Also added some example scripts into the documentation. Full diff of the spec
file (the only thing changed) is below:
diff -u perl-Net-DNS-SEC.spec.old perl-Net-DNS-SEC.spec
--- perl-Net-DNS-SEC.spec.old 2007-07-11 13:19:40.0 -0700
+++ perl-Net-DNS-SEC.spec 2007-07-11 13:17:30.0 -0700
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Net-DNS-SEC
Version:0.14
-Release:1%{?dist}
+Release:2%{?dist}
Summary:DNSSEC modules for Perl
License:GPL or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
BuildRequires: perl(Math::BigInt)
BuildRequires: perl(Time::Local)
BuildRequires: perl(Digest::BubbleBabble)
-BuildRequires: perl(Digest::SHA1)
+BuildRequires: perl(Digest::SHA)
# neither are picked up automagically.
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
@@ -59,10 +59,15 @@
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
-%doc Changes README TODO demo/*
+%doc Changes README TODO
+%doc demo/
%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Wed Jul 11 2007 Wes Hardaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.14-2
+- BuildRequire Digest::SHA
+- include the demo scripts in the documentation
+
* Wed Apr 18 2007 Wes Hardaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.14-1
- Initial version
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230344] Review Request: bacula - Cross platform network backup for Linux, Unix, Mac and Windows.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bacula - Cross platform network backup for Linux, Unix, Mac and Windows. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230344 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 16:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #31) i will review this thanks. final upload is at http://home.bawue.net/~ixs/bacula/bacula-2.0.3-4.src.rpm Please review that build, it has the known problems basically fixed, the major rpmlint problems have been fixed, the remaining warnings and errors should be ignorable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 245708] Review Request: scsi-target-utils - SCSI target daemon and tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: scsi-target-utils - SCSI target daemon and tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245708 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 16:29 EST --- Works for me. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 246748] Review Request: ohm - open hardware manager (as to be used on OLPC)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ohm - open hardware manager (as to be used on OLPC)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246748
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 16:32 EST ---
rpmlint output:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Desktop]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386/result/ohm-0.1.1-0.fc8.i386.rpm
W: ohm service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/ohmd
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Desktop]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386/result/ohm-devel-0.1.1-0.fc8.i386.rpm
W: ohm-devel no-documentation
both are ignorable, imo
package name: ok
spec file name: ok
packaging guidelines: ok
license: ok
license file: ok
license file included: ok
spec file language: ok
spec file readability: excellent
upstream sources: ok
buildable: ok
BRs: ok
locale handling: ok
ldconfig: ok
relocatable: n/a
directory ownership: BAD, -devel must require pkgconfig for /usr/lib/pkgconfig
file list dupes: ok
defattr: ok
%clean: ok
macro use: ok
permissible content: ok
doc package: n/a
%doc: ok
headers: ok
static libs: n/a
.pc files: BAD, see above
shared libs: ok
-devel requires base: ok
la files: ok
desktop file: n/a
directory ownership: ok
%install: BAD, must do rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install
utf8 filenames: ok
Two mustfix items, and one whishlist item, then you are good to go:
- Must require pkgconfig in -devel
- Must clean buildroot in %install
- Should include AUTHORS and README in %doc
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230344] Review Request: bacula - Cross platform network backup for Linux, Unix, Mac and Windows.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bacula - Cross platform network backup for Linux, Unix, Mac and Windows. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230344 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-11 16:34 EST --- (In reply to comment #23) The script /usr/libexec/bacula/make_catalog_backup only works for the mysql-backend. It should be rewritten to use the alternatives system. I have installed the following director packages: Noticed that problem. During building different variables are changed in the file. I'm not sure what the right solution is ATM, whether I'll just roll a new backup-catalog script to select the right database at runtime or if the script should be packaged for each backend and added to the alternatives system. This will be fixed before initial import into fedora though and should not be a blocker for the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
