[Bug 436239] Review Request: joda-time - Java date and time API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: joda-time - Java date and time API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436239 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 02:17 EST --- Yes, but the way their build process is set up it tries to fetch junit from the web instead of using the system junit -- or something. I'm not completely sure how to fix this yet, but I'm working on it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 04:24 EST --- Have you tried to install your package? :-) ERROR: Failed dependencies: perl(configure.pl) is needed by dspam-3.8.0-21.i386 dspam-backend-sqlite3 = 3.8.0 is needed by dspam-devel-3.8.0-21.i386 Why all backends are required to install dspam-devel package? There is an typo for sqlite backend. You require sqlite3 backend but provides just sqlite (without number). Can you move dspam libraries into separate subpackage? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 231809] Review Request: xmlrpc-epi - An implementation of the xmlrpc protocol in C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xmlrpc-epi - An implementation of the xmlrpc protocol in C Alias: xmlrpc-epi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=231809 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 05:12 EST --- callum: have you made further progress ? would you like some patches to address the above issues ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 424841] Review Request: ndisc6 - IPv6 diagnostic 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: ndisc6 - IPv6 diagnostic tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=424841 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 06:19 EST --- Synchronized the package with upstream version. Patches are removed as original package doesn't contain absolute paths anymore. Spec URL: http://www.zemris.fer.hr/~sgros/stuff/fedora/ndisc6/ndisc6.spec SRPM URL: http://www.zemris.fer.hr/~sgros/stuff/fedora/ndisc6/ndisc6-0.9.7-1.fc8.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 434642] Review Request: xastir - Amateur Station Tracking and Reporting system for amateur radio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xastir - Amateur Station Tracking and Reporting system for amateur radio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434642 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 07:24 EST --- Assigning back to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 435227] Review Request: xpsk31 - GTK+ graphical version of lpsk31
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xpsk31 - GTK+ graphical version of lpsk31 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435227 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||g) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 07:23 EST --- Changing status to NEEDINFO from Reporter -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 434547] Review Request: aprsd - Internet gateway and client access to amateur radio APRS packet 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: aprsd - Internet gateway and client access to amateur radio APRS packet data https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434547 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 07:25 EST --- Assigning back to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 436356] Review Request: openoffice.org-extendedPDF - Create PDF with hyperlinks, bookmarks and more
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openoffice.org-extendedPDF - Create PDF with hyperlinks, bookmarks and more https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436356 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 07:59 EST --- (In reply to comment #15) of course The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec doesn't really hold now. I still don't think there was a problem with the -2 version, the jar wasn't installed Forgive me for jumping the gun then, but I couldn't tell that from the %files list. If it's not installed, then it's OK I guess. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 437626] New: Review Request: miredo - Implementation of Teredo proposed standard
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/show_bug.cgi?id=437626 Summary: Review Request: miredo - Implementation of Teredo proposed standard Product: Fedora Version: rawhide 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://www.zemris.fer.hr/~sgros/stuff/fedora/miredo/miredo.spec SRPM URL: http://www.zemris.fer.hr/~sgros/stuff/fedora/miredo/miredo-1.1.5-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: Miredo is an Unix daemon program which mostly implements the “Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through NATs” Internet proposed standard (RFC 4380). It can provide either client or relay functionality. A separate program, miredo-server is also included in the package; it consists of a Teredo server. Miredo can be used to provide IPv6 connectivity to users behind NAT devices, such as broadband routers. Most of these device do not support IPv6, and do not allow forwarding of proto-41 (including 6to4). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 437626] Review Request: miredo - Implementation of Teredo proposed standard
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: miredo - Implementation of Teredo proposed standard https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437626 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] BugsThisDependsOn||177841 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 08:16 EST --- rpmlint gives the following messages for the base package: miredo.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libteredo.so miredo.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libtun6.so miredo.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /etc/miredo/miredo.conf 0644 But, as I understand it, dynamic libraries do not belong to development packages? Also, why is miredo.conf treated as a script when in the spec file it's explicitly marked as config? What is missing is init.d script (are there any templates? Also, there is possibility for this packate to be split into client and server packages? Should I do it? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 433253] Review Request: dotconf - Required for speech dispatcher on OLPC XO
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dotconf - Required for speech dispatcher on OLPC XO https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433253 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 08:29 EST --- (In reply to comment #18) (In reply to comment #17) Perhaps now I am sponsoring you. Please follow wiki page again. What I meant is that please follow Join wiki page again. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join I didnt get you. In my account it is showing that I have been approved by you for cvsextra and by Jonathan Stanley for fedora bugs. Do you mean to create another account? I tried but couldnt cannot register another account with same EmailID. And links on that page -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 433253] Review Request: dotconf - Required for speech dispatcher on OLPC XO
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dotconf - Required for speech dispatcher on OLPC XO https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433253 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 08:33 EST --- Sorry the last post got submitted accidentally. Links on that page are still not working. Did you mean to submit package for CVS. I have planned to do that once my school exam gets over. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 432205] Review Request: exe - eXe eLearning XHTML editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: exe - eXe eLearning XHTML editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432205
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 10:06 EST ---
1.) You install the .desktop file with desktop-file-install;
Please add BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils
2.) Requires: firefox
This doesn't seem correct to me. It doesn't work with seamonkey or konqueror?
Wouldn't requiring webclient be better?
3.) This could possibly be conditionally present for fedora 9
%{python_sitelib}/%{name}*.egg-info
4.) RPMLint:
Needs some love; either address those or explain why are they harmless:
exe.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/exe/twisted/internet/iocpreactor/_iocp.c
exe.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/exe/twisted/spread/cBanana.c
exe.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/share/exe/templates/mimetex.cgi
exe.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/exe/templates/geogebra.jar
By the way -- java file? You don't depend on java.
exe.src:37: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
exe.src: E: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
Move rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT from %build to %install
5.) Did you check the functionality? The package seemed to be problematic with
my Firefox setup; I couldn't close the window, etc. I'll be more specific if it
worked for you.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 429221] Review Request: dzcomm - Dzcomm a RS-232 API/lib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dzcomm - Dzcomm a RS-232 API/lib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 11:18 EST --- ping again? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 428718] Review Request: pysvn - Python bindings for Subversion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pysvn - Python bindings for Subversion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428718 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 11:49 EST --- I am waiting for your pre-review of other person's review request or your another review request of another software as said in comment 15. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 435155] Review Request: fuse-s3fs - Fuse filesystem for amazon.com's S3 storage service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fuse-s3fs - Fuse filesystem for amazon.com's S3 storage service https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435155 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 11:57 EST --- Hey Neil. I would love to formally review this package... look for a full review in a bit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 437481] Review Request: ocaml-newt - OCaml library for using newt text mode window system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocaml-newt - OCaml library for using newt text mode window system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437481 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 437481] Review Request: ocaml-newt - OCaml library for using newt text mode window system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocaml-newt - OCaml library for using newt text mode window system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437481 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 12:35 EST --- Confirmed rpmlint is clean [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpmlint ~/rpm/RPMS/x86_64/ocaml-newt-0.6-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpmlint ~/rpm/RPMS/x86_64/ocaml-newt-devel-0.6-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpmlint ~/rpm/SRPMS/ocaml-newt-0.6-1.fc9.src.rpm [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 432817] Review Request: greyhounds - Greyhounds is a greyhounds racing and breeding game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: greyhounds - Greyhounds is a greyhounds racing and breeding game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432817 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 12:35 EST --- This package has been built and imported from what I can see... closing this review now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 435155] Review Request: fuse-s3fs - Fuse filesystem for amazon.com's S3 storage service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fuse-s3fs - Fuse filesystem for amazon.com's S3 storage service https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435155 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 12:42 EST --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPLv2) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. See below - Sources match upstream md5sum: See below - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. Your sources don't match with upstream: d5904f2d8feae8c1e946b5cc3f4af82e fuse-s3fs-0.4.tbz2 0821843e99f686a2854b2b12b3c5b06a fuse-s3fs-0.4.tbz2.orig I am looking at the src.rpm from comment #19. Have you changed the upstream source since then without changing the release? 2. rpmlint says: fuse-s3fs.src: W: strange-permission fuse-s3fs.spec 0600 Can you make the spec mode 644 or the like? 3. Do you really need BuildRequires: python ? Nothing in the build seems to be needing python that I can see. 4. Might use '-p' with your install lines to preserve the timestamps from the upstream package on install. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 225792] Merge Review: gfs2-utils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gfs2-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225792 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 12:52 EST --- Yeah, anyone who is a current maintainer... ie, everyone in the 'cvsextras' group. See: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/group/view/cvsextras However, I am in a reviewing mood... so I will go ahead and do a review for you... :) Look for a full review in a bit here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225792] Merge Review: gfs2-utils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: gfs2-utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225792
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 13:23 EST ---
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPLv2)
See below - License field in spec matches
See below - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
See below - Sources match upstream md5sum:
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
See below - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane.
SHOULD Items:
OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described.
OK - Should have dist tag
See below - check for outstanding bugs on package.
Issues:
1. The License tag is not right. Should be GPLv2
2. You might ask upstream to include a copy of the GPL with the package.
Not a blocker.
3. Is there an upstream download URL you can place in the
Source0 line? Or can you comment where to get the source?
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
4. The URL seems to no longer be correct. That redirects me to:
http://sources.redhat.com/cluster/wiki
5. Does parallel make not work with this package?
If it does, please change the 'make' to 'make %{?_smp_mflags}'
If not, please add a note that it doesn't work.
6. You might add:
Requires(preun): /sbin/service
and stop the service in preun?
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#head-a6d7a1ed9d77dbb8d4af067378a79b838aebb20a
7. rpmlint says:
gfs2-utils.src: W: invalid-license GPL
gfs2-utils.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL
gfs2-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL
These will be fixed by changing to 'GPLv2'
gfs2-utils.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/man/man8/gfs2_convert.8.gz
gfs2-utils.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/man/man8/gfs2_fsck.8.gz
gfs2-utils.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/man/man8/gfs2_mount.8.gz
gfs2-utils.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/man/man8/gfs2_tool.8.gz
gfs2-utils.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/man/man8/mkfs.gfs2.8.gz
gfs2-utils.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/man/man8/gfs2_grow.8.gz
gfs2-utils.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/man/man8/gfs2_quota.8.gz
gfs2-utils.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/man/man8/gfs2_jadd.8.gz
gfs2-utils.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man8/gfs2.8.gz
For some reason your man pages are not the right mode.
Can you file a bug upstream to install them as 644?
gfs2-utils.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /sbin/gfs2_jadd 0775
Why 775 here and not 755?
gfs2-utils.x86_64: E: missing-mandatory-lsb-keyword Description in
/etc/rc.d/init.d/gfs2
gfs2-utils.x86_64: E: missing-mandatory-lsb-keyword Short-Description in
/etc/rc.d/init.d/gfs2
Might fix up the init script to have the lsb keywords in it.
gfs2-utils.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name gfs2
This is due to the init script not being the same name as the package.
Ignore, unless you want to re-name it to 'gfs2-utils' instead?
8. Looking at the outstanding bugs against this package I see two:
224154 - Should just be closed now?
429769 - Can this be closed now? Is rawhide up to date?
If you could address all the above, then let me know I will re-run my checks
and we can get this closed out. Let me know if there are any questions.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 427674] Review Request: themonospot -application that can be used to scan an avi file and extract some informations about audio and video data flow
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: themonospot -application that can be used to scan an
avi file and extract some informations about audio and video data flow
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427674
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 13:24 EST ---
For 0.6.5-8:
* Source
- Source tag must point to the URL from which we can actually
receive the source used in the srpm by wget -N, for example.
When I try to download the source from the URL written as Source
by wget -N,
---
$ LANG=C wget -N
http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.tar.gz
--01:11:59--
http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.tar.gz
= `themonospot-0.6.5.tar.gz'
Resolving www.integrazioneweb.com... 151.13.66.154, 83.103.22.154
Connecting to www.integrazioneweb.com|151.13.66.154|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Permanently
Location:
http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot%2D0.6.5.tar.gz/
[following]
--01:12:01--
http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot%2D0.6.5.tar.gz/
= `index.html'
Reusing existing connection to www.integrazioneweb.com:80.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 139,900 (137K) [application/octet-stream]
100%[===]
139,900 76.78K/s
Last-modified header missing -- time-stamps turned off.
01:12:03 (76.63 KB/s) - `index.html' saved [139900/139900]
---
Why is the file downloaded named as index.html?
- Also,
---
131143 2008-01-18 18:06 themonospot-0.6.5-7/themonospot-0.6.5.tar.gz
139900 2008-03-13 18:00 themonospot-0.6.5-8/themonospot-0.6.5.tar.gz
---
the source changed.
- You should not change the source tarball without changing version
once it is published formally because this causes confusion for
people using the tarball.
- Or is 0.6.5 not formally published?
Apart from Source problem:
* Disttag
- Please consider to use %?dist tag.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag
* License tag
- The license tag should be GPLv2+ (GPL version 2 and any later)
judging from the contents of the files in the tarball.
* ExcludeArch:
- mono-core is currently not available on ppc64.
* %configure
--
%configure --prefix=%{_usr}
--
- --prefix=%_usr is not needed. Please check what %configure actually
does by $ rpm --eval %configure.
* optflags
--
make RPM_OPT_FLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS %{?_smp_mflags}
--
- From build.log I don't think compiling this actually needs
$RPM_OPT_FLAGS (this is usually used by gcc or g++)
* --delete-original
---
desktop-file-install --vendor=fedora \
--dir=%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications\
--delete-original\
%{name}-gui/resources/%{name}.desktop
---
- You don't have to delete the desktop file in the source tarball
(and usually you should not as this breaks rpmbuild -bi --short-circuit)
* empty %post, %postun
- From $ rpmlint themonospot
---
themonospot.i386: W: empty-%post
themonospot.i386: W: empty-%postun
---
Please remove these.
* Directory ownership issue
- Please make it sure that the directories created when installing
this package are correctly owned by this package.
For example:
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ LANG=C rpm -qf /usr/lib/themonospot/themonospot.exe
themonospot-0.6.5-8.i386
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ LANG=C rpm -qf /usr/lib/themonospot/
file /usr/lib/themonospot is not owned by any package
---
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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
[Bug 433915] Review Request: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility 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: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility package) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433915 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 13:30 EST --- Humm. Before I do a full review here... shouldn't this package be named: unison213 ? See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-48ca801d3f8b9f46713343760949349fba78e644 Note that we do not use delimiters in the name in this situation, we remove the period '.' from the version number and attach it to the name. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 433915] Review Request: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility 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: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility package) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433915 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 13:26 EST --- ok, since no one else is wanting to review, I will give it a shot. ;) Look for a full review here in a few. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 437419] Review Request: edrip-fonts - Edrip decorative fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: edrip-fonts - Edrip decorative fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437419 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 13:41 EST --- Can you get Spot/Fedora legal to check over the license here? The note in the spec file makes my head spin. ;) Also, note that this package needs xgridfit, which is not yet available in rawhide due to the beta freeze. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 433199] Review Request: anjuta - A GNOME development IDE for C/C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: anjuta - A GNOME development IDE for C/C++ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433199 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 13:55 EST --- Well, I hope I can check your newest srpm within 2 days. (In reply to comment #20) Do you have any comments on the multi-lib conflicts bug? I am not very knowledgeable about multi-lib problems. Your Patch1 should solve the multiarch issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 437419] Review Request: edrip-fonts - Edrip decorative fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: edrip-fonts - Edrip decorative fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437419 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||182235 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 13:57 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) Can you get Spot/Fedora legal to check over the license here? The note in the spec file makes my head spin. ;) I'm blocking FE-LEGAL now. It made my head spin too, I hoped the note would be clear enough Also, note that this package needs xgridfit, which is not yet available in rawhide due to the beta freeze. You can test build in mock if you configure the koji repositories directly -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 433915] Review Request: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility 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: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility package) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433915 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 14:16 EST --- Re: naming unison213. Yes, those rules do apply. That's unfortunate, since it makes the package name less meaningful to me, and inconsistent with other distros. Hopefully there won't be a version 21.3, because then the package names will collide. But, since these are the rules, I'll rename the package. It also states that there should be a package names plain unison instead of unison227. I'm not convinced I like that idea, since that package will continually get upgraded with incompatible versions, which is what triggered adding the new packages in the first place. Would an exception be OK for the latest package name due to the way upstream works? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 435598] Review Request: joni - Java regexp library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: joni - Java regexp library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435598 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 433915] Review Request: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility 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: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility package) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433915 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 15:12 EST --- Alternatively, one could create a compat-unison-2.13 package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 431098] Review Request: gambas2 - IDE based on a basic interpreter with object extensions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gambas2 - IDE based on a basic interpreter with object extensions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431098 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 16:22 EST --- OK, so here is -4: New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/gambas2-2.2.1-4.fc9.src.rpm New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/gambas2.spec With -4, here is the explanation for the remaining rpmlint errors: W: no-documentation E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib The gambas2 subpackages don't have any documentation, and due to the nature of gambas2, has non-binaries in /usr/lib. Some of the subpackages actually have .so files here, so they don't trigger the second error. gambas2-ide.x86_64: E: world-writable /usr/share/gambas2/examples/Drawing/Sensor/.lang 0777 gambas2-ide.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/gambas2/examples/Drawing/Sensor/.lang 0777 gambas2-ide.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gambas2/examples/Drawing/Sensor/.lang Inside the gambas2-ide subpackage are all of the example programs. The gambas2 IDE interface actually displays these examples, and offers to load them into the IDE. In order for them to actually work, several directories need to be world writable (0777). Also, several important files (important to gambas2, not to me) are named with a . at the beginning, so they trigger the hidden warning. All of these are reasonably safe to ignore, I've minimized the directories and files that are 777, none of the example code is set 777. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 431098] Review Request: gambas2 - IDE based on a basic interpreter with object extensions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gambas2 - IDE based on a basic interpreter with object extensions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431098 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 16:40 EST --- Well, actually I was just trying to rebuild -3 again (not -4) however it failed. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=518041 It seems adjusting this package to new poppler is needed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 437659] New: Review Request: pyke - Knowledge-based inference engine
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/show_bug.cgi?id=437659 Summary: Review Request: pyke - Knowledge-based inference engine Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/pyke.spec SRPM URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/pyke-0.2-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: Pyke is a knowledge-based inference engine (expert system) written in 100% python that can: * Do both forward-chaining (data driven) and backward-chaining (goal directed) inferencing. * Automatically generate python programs by assembling individual python functions into complete call graphs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 437658] New: Review Request: python-ply - Python Lex-Yacc
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/show_bug.cgi?id=437658 Summary: Review Request: python-ply - Python Lex-Yacc Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/python-ply.spec SRPM URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/python-ply-2.3-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: PLY is a straightforward lex/yacc implementation. Here is a list of its essential features: * It is implemented entirely in Python. * It uses LR-parsing which is reasonably efficient and well suited for larger grammars. * PLY provides most of the standard lex/yacc features including support for empty productions, precedence rules, error recovery, and support for ambiguous grammars. * PLY is straightforward to use and provides very extensive error checking. * PLY doesn't try to do anything more or less than provide the basic lex/yacc functionality. In other words, it's not a large parsing framework or a component of some larger system. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 433915] Review Request: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility 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: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility package) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433915 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 17:01 EST --- The reason I don't like having: unison2.13 and unison as opposed to: unison2.13 and unison2.27 is that in the former case, if unison switches from packageing 2.27 to a hypothetical 2.28 that's not compatible, we'll have to create (compat-)unison2.27, and users will have to manually install that. If they get a versioned package from the get-go in all cases, then they won't have to do this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 431098] Review Request: gambas2 - IDE based on a basic interpreter with object extensions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gambas2 - IDE based on a basic interpreter with object extensions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431098 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 17:38 EST --- -5 has a patch for the new poppler: New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/gambas2-2.2.1-5.fc9.src.rpm New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/gambas2.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 435572] Review Request: gnome-hearts - Hearts game for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-hearts - Hearts game for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435572 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 18:13 EST --- Okay, are those the only things wrong with the spec? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 433915] Review Request: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility 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: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility
package)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433915
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 18:12 EST ---
Yeah, I agree with Stephen's rationale in comment #16 overall.
The remaining question in my mind is: Should there be any kind of Provides for
unison so users who don't care about versions can simply install it.
That would introduce some annoying corner cases however:
1. Current installs that have 'unison' installed.
I would guess we would make the newest version in each dist
Provides: unison = %{version}-%{release}
This would upgrade current installs to the newest version for that dist.
2. Dist upgrades (ie, from f8 to f9 or f9 to f10)
The above would mean that if you had the newest unison package installed,
you could be upgraded to an incompatible version on dist upgrade.
Of course users could then simply install the 'unisonXYZ' to maintain
compatibility.
That all could be too much trouble however. Might be better to just have users
install the exact unison package they want specifically. Thoughts?
Or a more clever way to handle things?
Anyhow, Stephen: Can you spin up a new 'unison213' package?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 437667] New: Review Request: dvipdfm - A DVI to PDF converter
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/show_bug.cgi?id=437667 Summary: Review Request: dvipdfm - A DVI to PDF converter Product: Fedora Version: rawhide 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://jgu.fedorapeople.org/dvipdfm.spec SRPM URL: http://jgu.fedorapeople.org/dvipdfm-0.13.2d-35.fc9.src.rpm Description: DVIPDFM is a DVI to PDF translator developed by Mark A. Wicks Commentary: Another package currently part of texlive, for which texlive is not upstream, hence the desire to split it out as a separate package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 435572] Review Request: gnome-hearts - Hearts game for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gnome-hearts - Hearts game for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435572
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-15 23:23 EST ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Okay, are those the only things wrong with the spec?
Please also fix the issue below:
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
For 0.2.1-1:
* License
- Please change the license tag to GPLv2+ aned GFDL.
* Document files under %{_datadir}/gnome/help/ are licensed
under GFDL.
* The rest parts are licensed under GPLv2+
* Documents
- COPYING file is rather mandatory for %doc if it
exists.
Above two items OK.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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
