[Bug 244478] Review Request: qt4-theme-quarticurve - Unofficial port of the Bluecurve widget theme to Qt 4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qt4-theme-quarticurve - Unofficial port of the Bluecurve widget theme to Qt 4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244478 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 04:51 EST --- 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 244478] Review Request: qt4-theme-quarticurve - Unofficial port of the Bluecurve widget theme to Qt 4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qt4-theme-quarticurve - Unofficial port of the Bluecurve widget theme to Qt 4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244478 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 244478] Review Request: qt4-theme-quarticurve - Unofficial port of the Bluecurve widget theme to Qt 4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qt4-theme-quarticurve - Unofficial port of the Bluecurve widget theme to Qt 4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244478 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 244478] Review Request: qt4-theme-quarticurve - Unofficial port of the Bluecurve widget theme to Qt 4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qt4-theme-quarticurve - Unofficial port of the Bluecurve widget theme to Qt 4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244478 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 04:59 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: qt4-theme-quarticurve Short Description: Unofficial port of the Bluecurve widget theme to Qt 4 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 248854] New: change package owner request.
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=248854 Summary: change package owner request. Product: Fedora Version: f7 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: low Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Package Change Request == Package Name: bc [Updated Fedora Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have been asigned this package in RHEL an will maintain it in fedora. EPEL is not needed as it is in RHEL. -- 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 248854] change package owner request.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: change package owner request. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248854 [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 248857] New: Review Request: schedtool - A tool to query or alter process scheduling policy
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=248857 Summary: Review Request: schedtool - A tool to query or alter process scheduling policy Product: Fedora Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://tgmweb.at/gadllah/schedtool.spec SRPM URL: http://tgmweb.at/gadllah/schedtool-1.2.9-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: schedtool interfaces with the Linux CPU scheduler. It allows the user to set and query the CPU-affinity and nice-levels of processes, as well as all scheduling policies, like batch or real-time (RR/FIFO) classes and their priorities Note: This is my first package so I need a sponsor. -- 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 248857] Review Request: schedtool - A tool to query or alter process scheduling policy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: schedtool - A tool to query or alter process scheduling policy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248857 [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 248858] New: Review Request: cupsddk - CUPS Driver Development Kit
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=248858 Summary: Review Request: cupsddk - CUPS Driver Development Kit 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://twaugh.fedorapeople.org/cupsddk/cupsddk.spec SRPM URL: http://twaugh.fedorapeople.org/cupsddk/cupsddk-1.2.0-1.src.rpm Description: The CUPS Driver Development Kit (DDK) provides a suite of standard drivers, a PPD file compiler, and other utilities that can be used to develop printer drivers for CUPS and other printing environments. CUPS provides a portable printing layer for UNIX(r)-based operating systems. The CUPS DDK provides the means for mass-producing PPD files and drivers/filters for CUPS-based printer drivers. The CUPS DDK is licensed under the GNU General Public License. Please contact Easy Software Products for commercial support and binary distribution rights. -- 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 248857] Review Request: schedtool - A tool to query or alter process scheduling policy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: schedtool - A tool to query or alter process
scheduling policy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248857
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 06:52 EST ---
There are two problems with your package
- please use the full URL
(http://freequaos.host.sk/schedtool/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 for instance) in
the Source tag
- RPM_OPT_FLAGS are not used:
make CFLAGS=-Os -fomit-frame-pointer -s -pipe -DHAVE_AFFINITY schedtool
make[1]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/schedtool-1.2.9'
gcc -Os -fomit-frame-pointer -s -pipe -DHAVE_AFFINITY -c -o schedtool.o
schedtool.c
schedtool.c: In function 'set_process':
schedtool.c:450: warning: pointer/integer type mismatch in conditional
expression
gcc -Os -fomit-frame-pointer -s -pipe -DHAVE_AFFINITY -c -o error.o error.c
gcc schedtool.o error.o -o schedtool
make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/schedtool-1.2.9'
--
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 248857] Review Request: schedtool - A tool to query or alter process scheduling policy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: schedtool - A tool to query or alter process scheduling policy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248857 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 07:03 EST --- Fixed both: http://tgmweb.at/gadllah/schedtool.spec http://tgmweb.at/gadllah/schedtool-1.2.9-2.fc7.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 248649] Review Request: alliance - Alliance VLSI CAD Sytem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: alliance - Alliance VLSI CAD Sytem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248649 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 07:25 EST --- New Upstream Release: SRPM: http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/alliance/alliance-5.0-3.20070718snap.src.rpm SPEC: http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/alliance/alliance.spec -- 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 248857] Review Request: schedtool - A tool to query or alter process scheduling policy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: schedtool - A tool to query or alter process scheduling policy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248857 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 07:29 EST --- Quick glance at http://tgmweb.at/gadllah/schedtool-1.2.9-3.fc7.src.rpm - the rpm_opt_flags problem is still there: Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.28294 + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd schedtool-1.2.9 + LANG=C + export LANG + unset DISPLAY + make make CFLAGS=-Os -fomit-frame-pointer -s -pipe -DHAVE_AFFINITY schedtool make[1]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/schedtool-1.2.9' gcc -Os -fomit-frame-pointer -s -pipe -DHAVE_AFFINITY -c -o schedtool.o schedtool.c schedtool.c: In function 'set_process': schedtool.c:450: warning: pointer/integer type mismatch in conditional expression gcc -Os -fomit-frame-pointer -s -pipe -DHAVE_AFFINITY -c -o error.o error.c gcc schedtool.o error.o -o schedtool make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/schedtool-1.2.9' + exit 0 Executing(%install): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.28294 + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd schedtool-1.2.9 + LANG=C + export LANG + unset DISPLAY + rm -rf /var/tmp/schedtool-1.2.9-3.fc7-root-mockbuild + make install 'CFLAGS=-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic' D ESTPREFIX=/usr DESTDIR=/var/tmp/schedtool-1.2.9-3.fc7-root-mockbuild make CFLAGS=-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -DHAVE_AFFIN ITY schedtool make[1]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/schedtool-1.2.9' make[1]: `schedtool' is up to date. solution: you have to pass the RPM_OPT_FLAGS flag at build time, not at install - the timestamp of the files is not preserved. you'd better revert to %doc and remove the docdir line - schedtool-debuginfo is empty -- 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 248857] Review Request: schedtool - A tool to query or alter process scheduling policy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: schedtool - A tool to query or alter process scheduling policy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248857 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 08:27 EST --- fixed package and spec: http://tgmweb.at/gadllah/schedtool.spec http://tgmweb.at/gadllah/schedtool-1.2.9-5.fc7.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 248857] Review Request: schedtool - A tool to query or alter process scheduling policy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: schedtool - A tool to query or alter process scheduling policy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248857 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 09:02 EST --- [Un]official package review (due to needsponsor status) coming soon -- 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 248857] Review Request: schedtool - A tool to query or alter process scheduling policy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: schedtool - A tool to query or alter process
scheduling policy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248857
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 09:04 EST ---
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:devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output: none
[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 G
uidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type:GPL v2
[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.
SHA1SUM of package: ab7743cba970d16ebe6ea8039e4bb57bd26027c8
/home/wolfy/schedtool-1.2.9.tar.bz2
[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.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[-] 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).
[-] 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.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on:devel/x86_64 and F7/x86_64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on:devel/x86_64 and F7/x86_64
[x] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
=== Issues ===
1. None
=== Final Notes ===
1. Everything seems OK
I would approve this package if the packager would not be in NEEDSPONSOR status.
--
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] 2007-07-19 09:16 EST --- http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/bacula/bacula-2.0.3-8.src.rpm * Wed Jul 19 2007 Andreas Thienemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.0.3-8 - Moved some files around in the %%files section and refactored spec parts a bit - Fixed up the catalog-backup scripts by including them in the alternatives system - Applied tls patch fixing some tls disconnection issues. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 245485] Review Request: fityk-0.8.1 - curve-fitting program for X-Y data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fityk-0.8.1 - curve-fitting program for X-Y data https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245485 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 10:03 EST --- I have added fityk to the fedora CVS and have successfully build in the 'devel' branch and it looks like it will build OK in F-7. I had an error message with plague-client (below), but it looks like it is building now as well. What do I need to do now? Do I close this bug? - [EMAIL PROTECTED] FC-6]$ plague-client list Error: connection to the server timed out. '(110, 'Operation timed out.')' [EMAIL PROTECTED] FC-6]$ make build /usr/bin/plague-client build fityk fityk-0_8_1-9_fc6 fc6 Package fityk enqueued. Job ID: 35037. [EMAIL PROTECTED] FC-6]$ -- 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 245485] Review Request: fityk-0.8.1 - curve-fitting program for X-Y data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fityk-0.8.1 - curve-fitting program for X-Y data https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245485 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 10:16 EST --- Yes. Follow the last step in the Contributor process documented here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageReviewProcess -- 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 248898] New: Review Request: kdepimlibs - K Desktop Environment - PIM Libraries
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=248898 Summary: Review Request: kdepimlibs - K Desktop Environment - PIM Libraries 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://kdeforge.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SOURCES/kdepimlibs/devel/kdepimlibs.spec SRPM URL: http://kdeforge.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SOURCES/kdepimlibs/devel/kdepimlibs-3.91.0-3.src.rpm Description: Personal Information Management (PIM) libraries for the K Desktop Environment 4. -- 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 245342] Review Request: perl-Gnome2 - Perl interface to the 2.x series of the GNOME libraries
Please 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-Gnome2 - Perl interface to the 2.x series of the GNOME libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245342 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 11:10 EST --- OK, fixed up the problem with the debuginfo package generation. New spec file and SRPM are at the URL listed in the opening comment. Let me know if it's approved or not. 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 248898] Review Request: kdepimlibs - K Desktop Environment - PIM Libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdepimlibs - K Desktop Environment - PIM Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248898 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 11:11 EST --- The spec URL doesn't work, it's actually at: http://kdeforge.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SOURCES/kdepimlibs/devel/kdepimlibs4.spec -- 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 248898] Review Request: kdepimlibs - K Desktop Environment - PIM Libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdepimlibs - K Desktop Environment - PIM Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248898 [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 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 248899] New: Review Request: kdelibs3 - K Desktop Environment 3 - Libraries
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=248899 Summary: Review Request: kdelibs3 - K Desktop Environment 3 - Libraries 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://kdeforge.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SOURCES/kdelibs3/kdelibs3.spec SRPM URL: n/a, still missing kdelibs-3.5.7-kde3compat.patch Description: Libraries for the K Desktop Environment: KDE Libraries included: kdecore (KDE core library), kdeui (user interface), kfm (file manager), khtmlw (HTML widget), kio (Input/Output, networking), kspell (spelling checker), jscript (javascript), kab (addressbook), kimgio (image manipulation). -- 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 248899] Review Request: kdelibs3 - K Desktop Environment 3 - Libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdelibs3 - K Desktop Environment 3 - Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248899 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 11:15 EST --- Than, couldn't make a srpm, I'm missing kdelibs-3.5.7-kde3compat.patch (what's that for?) -- 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 248648] Review Request: atlantikdesigner - Atlantik Designer (from KDE 3 kdeaddons)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: atlantikdesigner - Atlantik Designer (from KDE 3 kdeaddons) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248648 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 11:48 EST --- I'd feel better if this were named kdeaddons3, offers more flexibility what can be included. Then, this would simply produce (as is now): kdeaddons3-atlantikdesigner But, if you think that's just silly-talk, feel free to ignore me here. -- 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 248648] Review Request: atlantikdesigner - Atlantik Designer (from KDE 3 kdeaddons)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: atlantikdesigner - Atlantik Designer (from KDE 3 kdeaddons) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248648 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 11:50 EST --- A subpackage with no main package? Will that work? I found it's pretty silly to have a kdeaddons3 package with only a single addon in it. ;-) But I'm open to changing 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 248778] Review Request: gtkperf - Test GTK+ performance
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gtkperf - Test GTK+ performance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248778
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 12:45 EST ---
there some problems with this package:
1) don't use /usr/share use %{_datadir} instead
2) use _smp_mflags for make
3) use RPM_OPT_FLAGS or %{optflags}
4) no rpmlint warnings/errors ;)
--
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 248301] Review Request: lzma - lzma compression 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: lzma - lzma compression tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248301
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 12:50 EST ---
use %{?dist} as a suffix to the release
add %{?_smp_mflags} to make.
--
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 12:52 EST --- Package finally marked as going to testing after getting prereqs into koji. closing! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237333] Review Request: perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-DSA -- Perl OpenSSL bindings for DSA support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-DSA -- Perl OpenSSL bindings for DSA support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237333 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Extras |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 237332] Review Request: perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-Bignum -- Perl OpenSSL bindings for big numbers support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-Bignum -- Perl OpenSSL bindings for big numbers support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237332 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Extras |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 248899] Review Request: kdelibs3 - K Desktop Environment 3 - Libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdelibs3 - K Desktop Environment 3 - Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248899 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 13:17 EST --- Created an attachment (id=159597) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=159597action=view) the missing patch the missing patch -- 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 248301] Review Request: lzma - lzma compression 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: lzma - lzma compression tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248301 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 13:18 EST --- Ok, this is fixed in the following links: Spec URL: http://patrice.bouchand.free.fr/rpm/lzma.spec SRPM URL: http://patrice.bouchand.free.fr/rpm/lzma-4.32.0-0.3.beta3.fc7.src.rpm Thanks for your help. Patrice -- 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 248899] Review Request: kdelibs3 - K Desktop Environment 3 - Libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdelibs3 - K Desktop Environment 3 - Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248899 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 13:19 EST --- Thanks. I'll review this once I'm done with kdepimlibs. -- 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 188740] Review Request: python-paramiko - a SSH2 protocol library for python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-paramiko - a SSH2 protocol library for python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188740 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 13:27 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-paramiko Updated Fedora Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] Updated EPEL Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] Adding myself as co-maintainer, ref #247626 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188740] Review Request: python-paramiko - a SSH2 protocol library for python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-paramiko - a SSH2 protocol library for python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188740 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 13:28 EST --- I always forget to set the CVS flag... Package Change Request == Package Name: python-paramiko Updated Fedora Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] Updated EPEL Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] Adding myself as co-maintainer, ref #247626 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 248898] Review Request: kdepimlibs - K Desktop Environment - PIM Libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdepimlibs - K Desktop Environment - PIM Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248898 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 13:32 EST --- The build (in mock for Rawhide) fails because of this: Error: Missing Dependency: kdelibs = 3.91.0-5.fc8 is needed by package kdelibs-devel Missing epoch there. So I can't really review this without a fixed kdelibs 4 SRPM. -- 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 248898] Review Request: kdepimlibs - K Desktop Environment - PIM Libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdepimlibs - K Desktop Environment - PIM Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248898 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 13:36 EST --- ok. -- 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 248899] Review Request: kdelibs3 - K Desktop Environment 3 - Libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdelibs3 - K Desktop Environment 3 - Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248899 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 13:38 EST --- Rex, are you preparing a SRPM or should I do 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 248778] Review Request: gtkperf - Test GTK+ performance
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtkperf - Test GTK+ performance https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248778 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 13:34 EST --- Fixed in the following links. Spec URL: http://patrice.bouchand.free.fr/rpm/gtkperf.spec SRPM URL: http://patrice.bouchand.free.fr/rpm/gtkperf-0.40-2.fc7.src.rpm Thanks again for your help. -- 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 248899] Review Request: kdelibs3 - K Desktop Environment 3 - Libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdelibs3 - K Desktop Environment 3 - Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248899 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 14:34 EST --- Before you prepare that SRPM, please make a pass of s/qt3/qt/g as we decided not to rename Qt. Or are you preparing Qt 3 for a future rename (that will need both Provides in the package name and a symlink for qt.sh-qt3.sh)? Moreover, if Qt does get renamed to qt3, do we really need the epoch? -- 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 248778] Review Request: gtkperf - Test GTK+ performance
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gtkperf - Test GTK+ performance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248778
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 15:01 EST ---
here is a unofficial/incomplete review (I am not sponsored yet):
MUST items:
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
- ok (no output)
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- ok
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming
Guidelines.
-ok
MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
-ok
MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
-ok
MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
- NOT ok; please package COPYING
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
-ok
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
- ok
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
- ok (4331dde4bb83865e15482885fcb0cc53)
MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
-ok (tested on F7 x86_64)
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
-ok
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
-ok
MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
-ok
MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
-ok
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
-ok
MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
-ok (no large documentation)
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of
that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a
blocker.
-ok (not relocatable)
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
-ok (no libs in this package)
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
-ok (no devel package)
MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
-NOT ok (no desktop file found!)
MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
-ok
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
-ok (no header files)
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
-ok (no static libs;no libs at all)
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
-ok
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
-NOT ok, (no desktop file, license file not installed)
--
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 248778] Review Request: gtkperf - Test GTK+ performance
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtkperf - Test GTK+ performance https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248778 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 15:03 EST --- Summary: Please Package COPING and include a .desktop file. -- 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 188740] Review Request: python-paramiko - a SSH2 protocol library for python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-paramiko - a SSH2 protocol library for python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188740 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 16:02 EST --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 16:10 EST --- cvs done. -- 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 248854] change package owner request.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: change package owner request. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248854 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED], ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 16:14 EST --- Could I get an ack from the current maintainer who is listed for this? twoerner at redhat dot com (I have added him to cc here). -- 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 244478] Review Request: qt4-theme-quarticurve - Unofficial port of the Bluecurve widget theme to Qt 4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qt4-theme-quarticurve - Unofficial port of the Bluecurve widget theme to Qt 4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244478 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 16:18 EST --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 248301] Review Request: lzma - lzma compression 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: lzma - lzma compression tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248301 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 16:41 EST --- ok some more issues: 1) description to long. 2) don't package .a/.la files 3) package the COPYING file -- 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 247312] Review Request: MyPasswordSafe - A graphical password management 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: MyPasswordSafe - A graphical password management tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247312 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 16:50 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.skytale.net/files/MyPasswordSafe/MyPasswordSafe.spec SRPM URL: http://www.skytale.net/files/MyPasswordSafe/MyPasswordSafe-0.6.7-0.2.20061216.sky.src.rpm Fixes QT environment Fixes dist-in-changelog -- 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 248898] Review Request: kdepimlibs - K Desktop Environment - PIM Libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: kdepimlibs - K Desktop Environment - PIM Libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248898
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 17:11 EST ---
kdelibs 4 fixed now, so here's the review:
MUST Items:
! rpmlint output:
* W: kdepimlibs no-documentation
- At least the license should be included as %doc. (I'll take the blame for
that one. ;-) )
* W: kdepimlibs-devel no-documentation
- OK, this one is acceptable, but like for Soprano, we should generate
apidocs for kdelibs and kdepimlibs before the F8 release.
* W: kdepimlibs-debuginfo
spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/kdepimlibs-3.91.0/mailtransport/servertest.h
- OK, this one is upstream's fault.
+ named and versioned according to the Package Naming Guidelines
! spec file name doesn't match base package name, please rename to
kdepimlibs.spec before import
+ Packaging Guidelines:
+ License LGPL OK, matches actual license
+ No known patent problems
+ No emulator, no firmware, no binary-only or prebuilt components
+ Complies with the FHS
+ proper changelog, tags, BuildRoot, Requires, BuildRequires, Summary,
Description
+ no non-UTF-8 characters
! relevant documentation not included
See rpmlint output above.
+ RPM_OPT_FLAGS are used (%cmake macro)
+ debuginfo package is valid
+ no static libraries nor .la files
+ no duplicated system libraries
+ no rpaths, at least on i386 (I ran readelf -d on the shared objects)
+ no configuration files, so %config guideline doesn't apply
+ no init scripts, so init script guideline doesn't apply
+ no executables, so no .desktop file present or needed
+ no timestamp-clobbering file commands
+ _smp_mflags used
+ scriptlets are valid
+ not a web application, so web application guideline doesn't apply
+ no conflicts
+ complies with all the legal guidelines
! license not included as %doc (see rpmlint output above)
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ source matches upstream:
MD5SUM: 978712ededae818f2b9225897684b752
SHA1SUM: 9bb8202db3a7a5ee968cfb26c24800e3d08103de
+ builds on at least one arch (F8 i386 mock)
+ no known non-working arches, so no ExcludeArch needed
+ all build dependencies listed in CMakeLists.txt as well as cmake itself are
listed in BuildRequires
(However, an additional BuildRequires: doxygen will be needed for
the -apidocs.)
+ no translations in original tarball, so translation/locale guidelines don't
apply
+ ldconfig correctly called in %post and %postun
+ package not relocatable
+ ownership correct (owns package-specific directories, doesn't own directories
owned by another package)
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ permissions set properly
+ %clean section present and correct
+ macros used where possible
+ no non-code content
+ no large documentation files, so no -doc package needed
+ no %doc files, so no possible issues with %doc files required at runtime
+ all header files in -devel
+ no static libraries, so no -static package needed
+ no .pc files, so no Requires: pkgconfig needed
+ /usr/lib/*.so symlinks are correctly in -devel
+ /usr/lib/kde4/*.so plugins (NOT symlinks) are correctly NOT in -devel
+ -devel requires %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ no .la files
+ no GUI programs (in fact, no executables at all), so no .desktop file needed
+ buildroot is deleted at the beginning of %install
But you know my usual nitpick by now. ;-) I recommend a:
mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
after the:
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
to prevent a potential symlink attack as pointed out by the OpenSUSE folks.
Though in this case my original packages didn't have it either, so I take
part of the blame.
Anyway, it's not required by the guidelines, so this is definitely not a
blocker.
+ all filenames are valid UTF-8
SHOULD Items:
+ license already included upstream
+ no translations for description and summary provided by upstream
+ package builds in mock (Rawhide i386)
* Skipping the all architectures test.
+ package functions as expected (at least the F7 version I tested did ;-) )
+ scriptlets are sane
+ no subpackages other than -devel, so Usually, subpackages other than devel
should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. is
irrelevant
+ no .pc files, so placement of .pc files is irrelevant
+ no file dependencies
Please fix these before import:
* add at least the license(s) as %doc
* rename the specfile to kdepimlibs.spec
With these changes, the package is APPROVED.
These can be addressed at a later time:
* add BuildRequires: doxygen
* create an -apidocs subpackage
--
[Bug 202334] Review Request: jetty5 - The Jetty Webserver and Servlet Container
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jetty5 - The Jetty Webserver and Servlet Container https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202334 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229391] Review Request: system-config-kdump - graphical tool for configuring kernel crash dumps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: system-config-kdump - graphical tool for configuring
kernel crash dumps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229391
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |medium
Priority|normal |medium
Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 18:32 EST ---
I am not sponsored yet so this is no real review:
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
-ok (no output)
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
-ok
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming
Guidelines.
-ok
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
-NOT ok:
- please add %{?_smp_mflags} to make
- use a URL for Source and not just the tarball's name
MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
- ok
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
-ok
MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
-ok
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
-ok
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
-ok
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
-NOT ok: no url provided for Source and URL results in 404 Error = can't check
MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
- ok (builds fine on x86_64; is a noarch package)
MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture.
-NOT ok: s390 s390x excluded without comments I think this is due to no kdump
support on this arches correct?
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional.
-ok
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
-ok
MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
-ok (no libs)
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of
that specific package.
-ok (not relocateable)
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
-ok
MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
-ok
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
-ok
MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
-ok
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
-ok
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
-ok
MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
-ok (no large docs)
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
-ok
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
-ok (no devel package)
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
-ok (no static libs)
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).
-ok (no pkgconfig files)
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
-ok (no libs)
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
-ok (no devel package)
MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the
[Bug 248301] Review Request: lzma - lzma compression 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: lzma - lzma compression tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248301 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 18:35 EST --- Correction: You can package the static libs but in a different package (-static) but the .la files need to be removed. -- 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 248980] New: owners.list changes
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=248980 Summary: owners.list changes Product: Fedora Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: low Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] The lvm team has requested that owners.list be updated to have the lvm-team user own several lvm related packages. These changes are attached in lvm.patch. I've checked the pkg.acl files and the ownership changes will not affect anyone's ability to commit. Additionally, some packages were branched for epel and olpc without entries being made for them in owners.epel.list and owners.olpc.list. These changes are attached in owner-cleanup.patch --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 19:57 EST --- Created an attachment (id=159625) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=159625action=view) Changes to lvm ownership -- 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 248980] owners.list changes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: owners.list changes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248980 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 19:58 EST --- Created an attachment (id=159626) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=159626action=view) Add owners to olpc and epel lists. -- 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 248980] owners.list changes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: owners.list changes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248980 [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 225356] fonts-thai
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: fonts-thai https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225356 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||m) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 20:15 EST --- Well, it's been another month with no commentary; setting NEEDINFO. I'll close in a week if there's no further response. -- 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 193712] Review Request: sos
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193712 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 20:34 EST --- Umm, ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 211761] Review Request: dfu-programmer - USB DFU based programmer for Atmel chips
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dfu-programmer - USB DFU based programmer for Atmel chips https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211761 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||mni.purdue.edu) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 20:35 EST --- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230802] Review Request: perl-Callback - Object interface for function callbacks
Please 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-Callback - Object interface for function callbacks Alias: perl-Callback https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230802 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 20:39 EST --- Any reason this hasn't been built yet? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 245485] Review Request: fityk-0.8.1 - curve-fitting program for X-Y data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fityk-0.8.1 - curve-fitting program for X-Y data https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245485 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 20:39 EST --- Closed as 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 243665] Review Request: perl-Geo-IP - Efficient GeoIP bindings for Perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Geo-IP - Efficient GeoIP bindings for Perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243665 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||tenment.com) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 20:40 EST --- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 246312] Review Request: Pygments - A syntax highlighting engine written in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Pygments - A syntax highlighting engine written in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246312 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs- |fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 20:43 EST --- Nothing's going to happen with fedora-cvs still set to -... -- 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 247852] 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. Summary: Review Request: R-systemfit - Simultaneous Equation Estimation R Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247852 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||m) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 20:45 EST --- Ping? -- 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 247894] Review Request: R-multcomp - Simultaneous inference for general liner hypotheses R Package
Please 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-multcomp - Simultaneous inference for general liner hypotheses R Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247894 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||m) -- 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 244951] Review Request: apr-api-docs - Apache Portable Runtime API documentation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: apr-api-docs - Apache Portable Runtime API documentation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244951 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 23:09 EST --- The package in comment #17 looks good to me. This package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this once it's been imported and built. -- 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 244951] Review Request: apr-api-docs - Apache Portable Runtime API documentation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: apr-api-docs - Apache Portable Runtime API documentation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244951 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 23:22 EST --- Thanks! Shall do. -- 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 248393] Review Request: perl-Text-WordDiff - Track changes between documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-WordDiff - Track changes between documents https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248393 [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 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 248393] Review Request: perl-Text-WordDiff - Track changes between documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-WordDiff - Track changes between documents https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248393 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 23:43 EST --- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url e4ad90ec41816be47db9dd1b55af3fbb Text-WordDiff-0.02.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test outputs t/ansicolorok t/base.ok t/html.ok t/pod..ok All tests successful. Files=4, Tests=41, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.40 cusr + 0.07 csys = 0.47 CPU) + Provides: perl(Text::WordDiff) = 0.02 perl(Text::WordDiff::ANSIColor) = 0.02 perl(Text::WordDiff::Base) perl(Text::WordDiff::HTML) = 0.02 + Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Algorithm::Diff) perl(Algorithm::Diff) = 1.19 perl(Carp) perl(HTML::Entities) perl(HTML::Entities) perl(IO::File) perl(Term::ANSIColor) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(vars) 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 244951] Review Request: apr-api-docs - Apache Portable Runtime API documentation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: apr-api-docs - Apache Portable Runtime API documentation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244951 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 23:46 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: apr-api-docs Short Description: Apache Portable Runtime API documentation 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 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 248394] Review Request: perl-Text-LevenshteinXS - XS implementation of the Levenshtein edit distance
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-LevenshteinXS - XS implementation of the Levenshtein edit distance https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248394 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are 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 248400] Review Request: perl-Test-File-Contents - Test routines for examining the contents of files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-File-Contents - Test routines for examining the contents of files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248400 [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 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 248858] Review Request: cupsddk - CUPS Driver 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: cupsddk - CUPS Driver Development Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248858 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 23:53 EST --- got following mock build error /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -ltiff -- 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 248394] Review Request: perl-Text-LevenshteinXS - XS implementation of the Levenshtein edit distance
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-LevenshteinXS - XS implementation of the Levenshtein edit distance https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248394 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-19 23:49 EST --- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 576d6dc3e6aa9e80686f244969e885e6 Text-LevenshteinXS-0.03.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test outputs PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl -Iblib/lib -Iblib/arch test.pl 1..6 # Running under perl version 5.008008 for linux # Current time local: Thu Jul 19 23:39:29 2007 # Current time GMT: Fri Jul 20 03:39:29 2007 # Using Test.pm version 1.25 ok 1 ok 2 ok 3 ok 4 ok 5 ok 6 + exit 0 + Provides: LevenshteinXS.so perl(Text::LevenshteinXS) = 0.03 + Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(AutoLoader) perl(Carp) perl(DynaLoader) perl(Exporter) perl(strict) perl(warnings) rtld(GNU_HASH) 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 248396] Review Request: perl-Text-Diff-HTML - XHTML format for Text::Diff::Unified
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-Diff-HTML - XHTML format for Text::Diff::Unified https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248396 [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 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 248403] Review Request: perl-Test-Class - Easily create test classes in an xUnit/JUnit style
Please 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-Test-Class - Easily create test classes in an xUnit/JUnit style https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248403 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are 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 248396] Review Request: perl-Text-Diff-HTML - XHTML format for Text::Diff::Unified
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-Diff-HTML - XHTML format for Text::Diff::Unified https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248396 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-20 00:00 EST --- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url cd8a50dd2f9d90be1f949906441035c1 Text-Diff-HTML-0.04.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test outputs t/baseok t/pod.ok All tests successful. Files=2, Tests=9, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.12 cusr + 0.03 csys = 0.15 CPU) + Provides: perl(Text::Diff::HTML) = 0.04 + Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(HTML::Entities) perl(Text::Diff) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(vars) 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 248403] Review Request: perl-Test-Class - Easily create test classes in an xUnit/JUnit style
Please 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-Test-Class - Easily create test classes in an xUnit/JUnit style https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248403 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- 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 248425] Review Request: perl-File-Sync - Perl access to fsync() and sync() function calls
Please 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-File-Sync - Perl access to fsync() and sync() function calls https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248425 [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 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 248410] Review Request: perl-Params-CallbackRequest - Functional and object-oriented callback architecture
Please 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-Params-CallbackRequest - Functional and object-oriented callback architecture https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248410 [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 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 248400] Review Request: perl-Test-File-Contents - Test routines for examining the contents of files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-File-Contents - Test routines for examining the contents of files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-20 00:06 EST --- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 6bdc15a6345a3ef693a6e2326331b6ec Test-File-Contents-0.05.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test outputs t/00.load.# Testing Test::File::Contents 0.05 ok t/10.basicok t/pod-coverageok t/pod.ok All tests successful. Files=4, Tests=28, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.24 cusr + 0.05 csys = 0.29 CPU) +Provides: perl(Test::File::Contents) = 0.05 +Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Digest::MD5) perl(Exporter) perl(File::Spec) perl(Test::Builder) perl(strict) perl(vars) perl(warnings) 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 248403] Review Request: perl-Test-Class - Easily create test classes in an xUnit/JUnit style
Please 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-Test-Class - Easily create test classes in an xUnit/JUnit style https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248403 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-20 00:13 EST --- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url dc27881e002abb283b96e083e7eb49c4 Test-Class-0.24.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test outputs t/00-load..# Testing Test::Class::Load 0.02, Perl 5.008008, /usr/bin/perl ok t/20-load-classes..ok t/Testsok t/_new.ok t/bad-autoloadsPrototype mismatch: sub CORE::GLOBAL::caller (;$) vs none at /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/Contextual/Return.pm line 12. ok t/bailout..ok t/builder..ok t/compile..ok t/current_method...ok t/diag_on_failure..ok t/die_before_plan..ok t/expected_tests...ok t/fail1ok t/fail2ok t/fail3ok t/header...ok t/late_header..ok t/methodinfo...ok t/named_test...ok t/num_method_tests.ok t/num_testsok t/override.ok t/rt15870..ok t/rt17264..ok t/run_all_testsok t/runtests.ok t/runtests_die.ok t/runtests_extra...ok t/runtests_noplan..ok t/runtests_of..ok t/runtests_result..ok t/runtests_return..ok t/runtests_trailingok t/skip1ok t/skip2ok t/skip_class_reasonok t/spaces...ok t/startup..ok t/startup_that_diesok t/test_classes.ok t/test_deepok t/test_method..ok t/test_verbose.ok t/todo.ok All tests successful. Files=44, Tests=160, 4 wallclock secs ( 2.93 cusr + 0.60 csys = 3.53 CPU) + exit 0 +Provides: perl(Test::Class) = 0.24 perl(Test::Class::Load) = 0.02 perl(Test::Class::MethodInfo) = 0.02 +Requires: perl = 0:5.006 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Attribute::Handlers) perl(Carp) perl(Class::ISA) perl(Devel::Symdump) perl(Devel::Symdump) = 2.03 perl(File::Find) perl(File::Spec) perl(Storable) perl(Test::Builder) perl(Test::Class) perl(Test::Class::MethodInfo) perl(Test::Exception) = 0.15 perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(warnings) 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 244951] Review Request: apr-api-docs - Apache Portable Runtime API documentation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: apr-api-docs - Apache Portable Runtime API documentation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244951 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-20 00:22 EST --- cvs done. -- 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 246312] Review Request: Pygments - A syntax highlighting engine written in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Pygments - A syntax highlighting engine written in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246312 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-20 00:28 EST --- cvs done. -- 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 248410] Review Request: perl-Params-CallbackRequest - Functional and object-oriented callback architecture
Please 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-Params-CallbackRequest - Functional and object-oriented callback architecture https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248410 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-20 00:57 EST --- Got following all skipped: Testing of apache_req requires Apache::FakeRequest Can you add Apache::FakeRequest as BR? -- 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 248980] owners.list changes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: owners.list changes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248980 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-20 00:57 EST --- cvs done. -- 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 248451] Review Request: perl-MasonX-Interp-WithCallbacks - Mason callback support via Params::CallbackRequest
Please 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-MasonX-Interp-WithCallbacks - Mason callback support via Params::CallbackRequest https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248451 [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 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 248431] Review Request: perl-Net-FTPServer - Secure, extensible and configurable Perl FTP 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: perl-Net-FTPServer - Secure, extensible and configurable Perl FTP server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248431 [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 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 244951] Review Request: apr-api-docs - Apache Portable Runtime API documentation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: apr-api-docs - Apache Portable Runtime API documentation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244951 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-20 01:03 EST --- Thanks everyone involved! This bug will now be closed. -- 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 248427] Review Request: perl-Authen-PAM - Authen::PAM Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Authen-PAM - Authen::PAM Perl module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248427 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-20 01:04 EST --- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 7278471dfa694d9ef312bc92d7099af2 Authen-PAM-0.16.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test outputs nothing. + Provides: PAM.so perl(Authen::PAM) = 0.16 + Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libpam.so.0 libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0) perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(DynaLoader) perl(Exporter) perl(POSIX) perl(strict) perl(vars) rtld(GNU_HASH) 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 248425] Review Request: perl-File-Sync - Perl access to fsync() and sync() function calls
Please 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-File-Sync - Perl access to fsync() and sync() function calls https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248425 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-20 01:13 EST --- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 4f5aca0ccff4bf28ca1d039e5ed01fa2 File-Sync-0.09.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test outputs PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl -MExtUtils::Command::MM -e test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch') t/*.t t/01_fsyncok t/02_errorok t/03_sync.ok All tests successful. Files=3, Tests=17, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.07 cusr + 0.04 csys = 0.11 CPU) + exit 0 +Provides: Sync.so perl(File::Sync) = 0.09 +Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(AutoLoader) perl(Carp) perl(DynaLoader) perl(Exporter) perl(Symbol) perl(strict) perl(vars) rtld(GNU_HASH) 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 248431] Review Request: perl-Net-FTPServer - Secure, extensible and configurable Perl FTP 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: perl-Net-FTPServer - Secure, extensible and configurable Perl FTP server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248431 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-20 01:27 EST --- Got many errors in make test Can you check SRPM in mock build? some of few lines I got in mock build are t/330perlok t/350filters.which: no uudecode in (/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin) skipped all skipped: no reason given t/350generatorlist...ok t/350generatorziperror: Tried to add member with zero or undef value for time at /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/Archive/Zip/Member.pm line 487 -- 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 248427] Review Request: perl-Authen-PAM - Authen::PAM Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Authen-PAM - Authen::PAM Perl module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248427 [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 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 248457] Review Request: perl-Devel-Profiler - Perl profiler compatible with dprofpp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Devel-Profiler - Perl profiler compatible with dprofpp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248457 [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 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 248434] Review Request: perl-HTTP-DAV - WebDAV client library for Perl5
Please 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-HTTP-DAV - WebDAV client library for Perl5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248434 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-20 01:47 EST --- I got tests skipped PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl -MExtUtils::Command::MM -e test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch') t/*.t t/1_loadme..ok t/1_utils...ok t/2_options.ok 6/6 skipped: no test server t/3_put_get_delete..ok 6/6 skipped: no test server t/4_multistatus.ok t/5_propfindok 9/9 skipped: no test server t/5_proppatch...ok 14/14 skipped: no test server t/6_dav_copy_move...ok 14/14 skipped: no test server t/6_dav_get_callbackok 19/19 skipped: no test server t/6_dav_globs...ok 11/11 skipped: no test server t/6_dav_lockok 13/13 skipped: no test server t/6_dav_lock2...ok 11/11 skipped: no test server t/6_dav_open_put_getok 39/39 skipped: no test server t/6_dav_options.ok 6/6 skipped: no test server All tests successful, 148 subtests skipped. Files=14, Tests=175, 3 wallclock secs ( 2.37 cusr + 0.31 csys = 2.68 CPU) + exit 0 -- 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
