[Bug 252110] Review Request: wstx - Woodstox Stax Implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wstx - Woodstox Stax Implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252110 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-26 02:51 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > Hans, given that Vivek hasn't responded at all to any of the reviews he > opened, > might I suggest you consider just submitting this yourself? I would love to but currently I'm investing all my time into: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BetterWebcamSupport So maybe sometime in the future. -- 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 250971] Review Request: ivtv - userspace tools for iTVC15/16 and CX23415/16 driven devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ivtv - userspace tools for iTVC15/16 and CX23415/16 driven devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250971 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|MODIFIED Priority|medium |high Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |net)| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-26 00:51 EST --- (In reply to comment #33) > I see there's a relatively new ivtv 1.2.0 out now, which ATrpms packaged up a > few days ago. Axel, where should I pick up the review at? (i.e., with what > spec?) I'll package up a separate one for Fedora inclusion, as 1.2.x still has kos inside. On a different note: Conexant has been granting permissions on using the firmware at the kernel source level (and other firmwares as well), so probably some future kernel will need to Obsolete ivtv-firmware. But let's get there first. :) -- 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 450054] Review Request: liblinebreak - A Unicode line-breaking 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: liblinebreak - A Unicode line-breaking library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450054 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-26 00:50 EST --- One thing to note is that you should include info about checking out the actual version that you're packaging. Since upstream doesn't even bother to tag anything, you should probably use -D and pass the checkout date. You might as well remove the commented-out bits of the spec like the empty BuildRequires: and Requires: and the scriptlets. These are minor, though. * source files match upstream (verified by manual comparison). * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * BuildRequires are proper (none). * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: liblinebreak-static = 0.9.6-2.fc10 liblinebreak-devel = 0.9.6-2.fc10 = (no non-glibc dependencies) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. Can't test this without building something which uses it. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers OK in -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. * static libraries present: no dynamic libs present, so OK in the -devel package. -static provide is present. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED -- 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 250971] Review Request: ivtv - userspace tools for iTVC15/16 and CX23415/16 driven devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ivtv - userspace tools for iTVC15/16 and CX23415/16 driven devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250971 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||net) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-26 00:36 EST --- Oh, crap. Seems I've completely dropped the ball on this one. The firmware is in, but I think the last time I looked at this, I was halfway waiting on a reply to comment #31 (and by extension, #22), and then forgot about it. My sincere apologies. I see there's a relatively new ivtv 1.2.0 out now, which ATrpms packaged up a few days ago. Axel, where should I pick up the review at? (i.e., with what 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 449393] Review Request: prism - make web apps standalone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: prism - make web apps standalone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449393 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 23:23 EST --- Additional info: [B] is the binary download from pmo/~mfinkle (32 bit) [F] is the fedora package (64 bit) xulrunner[B]+application.ini[F] does not work xulrunner[F]+application.ini[B] does work xulrunner[F]+application.ini[F] does not work xulrunner[B]+application.ini[B] does work -- 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 436147] Review Request: mairix - A program for indexing and searching email messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mairix - A program for indexing and searching email messages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436147 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 23:12 EST --- I'm not really sure why this has been sitting around for so long; it's a small package, it builds fine and rpmlint finds nothing to complain about. I can't really test it because all of my mail is locked away in a cyrus server, but I can review the packaging. Everything looks fine to me. * source files match upstream: e1d28459531ce30ce8dd41215cb0e6351ea81767cf4bbf1e8dbd22618f4de1d7 mairix-0.21.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: mairix = 0.21-1.fc10 = libbz2.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I do not have the means to test this package. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED -- 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 446102] Review Request: xdialog - X11 drop in replacement for cdialog
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xdialog - X11 drop in replacement for cdialog https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446102 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 22:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > Adding gettext-devel as BR solves that. gettext is enough. -- 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 449393] Review Request: prism - make web apps standalone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: prism - make web apps standalone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449393 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 22:26 EST --- The package builds cleanly under mock and installs OK, but it doesn't seem to *do* anything, whether invoked with a "-webapp ..." argument or without. I've tested it on two x86_64 systems, each running F9 in a fairly clean configuration, and get the same result on both: no UI appears, and no error messages appear. mfinkle suggested running "xulrunner /usr/lib64/prism-0.9/application.ini", but that produces the same effect. The binary download from http://people.mozilla.org/~mfinkle/prism/prism-0.9.en-US.linux-i686.tar.bz2 does present a UI in a window. Also, I am getting SELinux alerts when run in enforcing mode due to /tmp access. -- 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 441141] Review Request: antlr3 - ANother Tool for Language Recognition
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: antlr3 - ANother Tool for Language Recognition https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441141 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 22:22 EST --- This failed to build due to a missing dependency on python; I added it and then it failed to build in ant: + ant Buildfile: build.xml generator-prepare: [mkdir] Created dir: /builddir/build/BUILD/antlr-3.0.1/codegen [copy] Copying 6 files to /builddir/build/BUILD/antlr-3.0.1/codegen generator: BUILD FAILED /builddir/build/BUILD/antlr-3.0.1/build.xml:102: The following error occurred while executing this line: /builddir/build/BUILD/antlr-3.0.1/build.xml:55: Problem: failed to create task or type antlr Cause: the class org.apache.tools.ant.taskdefs.optional.ANTLR was not found. This looks like one of Ant's optional components. Action: Check that the appropriate optional JAR exists in -/usr/share/ant/lib -/builddir/.ant/lib -a directory added on the command line with the -lib argument Do not panic, this is a common problem. The commonest cause is a missing JAR. This is not a bug; it is a configuration problem Total time: 0 seconds Unfortunately that's totally bewildering to me. -- 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 452559] Review Request: zfuzz - Z fuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zfuzz - Z fuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452559 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 22:13 EST --- Sigh, release 5 had a bug; if zfuzz was already installed, it wouldn't always rebuild. Irrelevant in a mock build, but now it should work all the time. Since I had to fix it, I also added a patch that eliminated a compiler warning. New release 6 available here: http://www.dwheeler.com/zfuzz-20070911-6.fc9.src.rpm http://www.dwheeler.com/zfuzz.spec rpmlint, koji build clean on all architectures. -- 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 285801] Review Request: simias - Collection-Oriented Data Storage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: simias - Collection-Oriented Data Storage https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=285801 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:38 EST --- This is terribly old; it landed right in the middle of one of the java carpet bombs and I always skipped over it when looking for tickets to review. Are you still interested in having this reviewed? Do you have an updated package incorporating those patches? -- 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 446102] Review Request: xdialog - X11 drop in replacement for cdialog
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xdialog - X11 drop in replacement for cdialog https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446102 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:11 EST --- I have tried a mock build and it gives the following error: Making all in po make[2]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/Xdialog-2.3.1/po' test -z "fr.gmo de.gmo ru.gmo es.gmo hu.gmo pt_BR.gmo no_NO.gmo id.gmo nl.gmo it.gmo pl.gmo ca.gmo sv_SE.gmo" || make fr.gmo de.gmo ru.gmo es.gmo hu.gmo pt_BR.gmo no_NO.gmo id.gmo nl.gmo it.gmo pl.gmo ca.gmo sv_SE.gmo make[3]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/Xdialog-2.3.1/po' rm -f fr.gmo && : -c --statistics -o fr.gmo fr.po rm -f de.gmo && : -c --statistics -o de.gmo de.po mv: cannot stat `t-de.gmo': No such file or directory rm -f ru.gmo && : -c --statistics -o ru.gmo ru.po mv: cannot stat `t-fr.gmo': No such file or directory make[3]: *** [de.gmo] Error 1 make[3]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs make[3]: *** [fr.gmo] Error 1 mv: cannot stat `t-ru.gmo': No such file or directory make[3]: *** [ru.gmo] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/Xdialog-2.3.1/po' make[2]: *** [stamp-po] Error 2 make[2]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/Xdialog-2.3.1/po' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/Xdialog-2.3.1' make: *** [all] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.71846 (%build) Adding gettext-devel as BR solves that. Once adding that I see no real blockers except for one small problem. On one hand, the guidelines require the presence of a desktop file. On the other hand this application (which works OK in Fedora 7, BTW) needs arguments to be provided to it, so a mere desktop file will be useless. Maybe we could add a comment to the spec specifying why no desktop file is included ? -- 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 252119] Review Request: picocontainer - Dependency-injection 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: picocontainer - Dependency-injection container https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252119 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:13 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252116] Review Request: berkeleydb - Berkeley DB Java Edition
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: berkeleydb - Berkeley DB Java Edition https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252116 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:13 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252109] Review Request: wsdl4j16 - Web Services Description Language Toolkit for Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wsdl4j16 - Web Services Description Language Toolkit for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252109 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:06 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252089] Review Request: oscache - High performance J2EE caching solution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: oscache - High performance J2EE caching solution https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252089 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:09 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252047] Review Request: jakarta-commons-transaction - Commons Transaction
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jakarta-commons-transaction - Commons Transaction https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252047 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:10 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252107] Review Request: snmptrapappender - SNMP Trap Appender extension for log4j
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: snmptrapappender - SNMP Trap Appender extension for log4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252107 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:06 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252106] Review Request: servletapi6 - Java servlet and JSP implementation classes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: servletapi6 - Java servlet and JSP implementation classes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252106 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:06 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252095] Review Request: hessian - Hessian binary web service protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hessian - Hessian binary web service protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252095 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:08 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252092] Review Request: swarmcache - Cluster-aware Caching for Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: swarmcache - Cluster-aware Caching for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252092 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:08 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252083] Review Request: jdbm - JDBM transactional persistence engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jdbm - JDBM transactional persistence engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252083 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:10 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252103] Review Request: odmg - ODMG 3.0 Java Binding
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: odmg - ODMG 3.0 Java Binding https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252103 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:07 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252093] Review Request: xercesjarv - JARV driver for Xerces-2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xercesjarv - JARV driver for Xerces-2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252093 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:08 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252048] Review Request: xml-im-exporter - XML Im-/Exporter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xml-im-exporter - XML Im-/Exporter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252048 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:10 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252101] Review Request: joesnmp - Java SNMP class 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: joesnmp - Java SNMP class library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252101 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:07 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252084] Review Request: jgraph - JGraph Diagram Component
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jgraph - JGraph Diagram Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252084 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:09 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252110] Review Request: wstx - Woodstox Stax Implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wstx - Woodstox Stax Implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252110 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:06 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. Hans, given that Vivek hasn't responded at all to any of the reviews he opened, might I suggest you consider just submitting this yourself? -- 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 252098] Review Request: jacorb - Free Java implementation of OMG's CORBA 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: jacorb - Free Java implementation of OMG's CORBA standard https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252098 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:08 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252097] Review Request: gnu-trove - High performance collections for Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnu-trove - High performance collections for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252097 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:08 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252100] Review Request: jakarta-slide-webdavclient - Slide WebDAV client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jakarta-slide-webdavclient - Slide WebDAV client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:07 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252090] Review Request: proxool - Proxool Java connection pool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: proxool - Proxool Java connection pool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252090 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:08 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252105] Review Request: quartz - Quartz Enterprise Job Scheduler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: quartz - Quartz Enterprise Job Scheduler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252105 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:07 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252111] Review Request: xml-commons-resolver12 - Resolver subproject of xml-commons
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xml-commons-resolver12 - Resolver subproject of xml-commons https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252111 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:05 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252115] Review Request: jfreechart - Charts Generation 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: jfreechart - Charts Generation library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252115 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:04 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 251428] Review Request: aopalliance - Java/J2EE AOP standards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aopalliance - Java/J2EE AOP standards https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251428 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 21:03 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252052] Review Request: bsh2 - Lightweight Scripting for Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bsh2 - Lightweight Scripting for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 20:58 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252054] Review Request: c3p0 - JDBC DataSources/Resource Pools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: c3p0 - JDBC DataSources/Resource Pools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252054 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 20:58 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252050] Review Request: aspectwerkz - AOP for Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aspectwerkz - AOP for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252050 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 20:57 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252077] Review Request: ivy - Dependency manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ivy - Dependency manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252077 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 20:59 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252051] Review Request: avalon-excalibur - Java development components
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: avalon-excalibur - Java development components https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252051 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 20:57 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252080] Review Request: jakarta-poi - Java API To Access Microsoft Format 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: jakarta-poi - Java API To Access Microsoft Format Files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252080 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 20:59 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252059] Review Request: derby - Derby DB (ex Cloudscape)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: derby - Derby DB (ex Cloudscape) Alias: derby https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252059 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 20:58 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252062] Review Request: ehcache - Easy Hibernate Cache
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ehcache - Easy Hibernate Cache https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252062 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 20:58 EST --- Closing as detailed in bug 252049 after a complete lack of response. -- 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 252049] Review Request: asm2 - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: asm2 - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252049 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEEDINFO|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG Status Whiteboard||NotReady Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 20:54 EST --- Well, no response in over six months, and no response to additional prompting and needinfo. I've no choice but to close the Java package reviews that Vivek has opened. If someone feels the urge to flame me, please instead expend the effort updating these packages to current guidelines and reopening the tickets. -- 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 250971] Review Request: ivtv - userspace tools for iTVC15/16 and CX23415/16 driven devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ivtv - userspace tools for iTVC15/16 and CX23415/16 driven devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250971 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 20:31 EST --- So did anything ever happen here? -- 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 452559] Review Request: zfuzz - Z fuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zfuzz - Z fuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452559 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 20:13 EST --- Okay, new version. I haven't changed the package name (per my comments above), but I did change other things (as noted above). New SRPM and spec file (release 5) here: http://www.dwheeler.com/zfuzz-20070911-5.fc9.src.rpm http://www.dwheeler.com/zfuzz.spec rpmlint clean. koji clean for all f9 architectures. Comments? -- 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 452559] Review Request: zfuzz - Z fuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: zfuzz - Z fuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z
spec language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452559
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 20:04 EST ---
In reply to comment #11)
>Now that I have read the fuzz manual I understand that I was wrong, the
>fuzz checker needs the latex part. In fact this is a latex package with
>a syntax checker. It seems to me that it should better be called
>tex-zfuzz
>and there is no reason to split it.
I'm don't think that's a good idea. It's not part of any typical
TeX distribution, and the upstream name is "fuzz" not "tex-zfuzz".
Besides, when I contacted upstream, he recommended "zfuzz".
I'd prefer to keep its name as "zfuzz", to make it more likely that
people who know what it is will find it, and to honor upstream request.
>Sure, I was referring to "${CFLAGS:-%optflags}", here $CFLAGS cannot be
>defined and if they were they should be overwritten anyway.
Oh, _that's_ what you meant! You mean use:
make CFLAGS="%{optflags}"
Okay, I'll do that.
>There are still some comments that can be shortened a lot. For example,
>for the INSTALL file, suffice to say that the license is in the INSTALL
>file, everybody will understand why it has to be shipped.
Ok, shortened.
>The BuildConflict is not right. You should arrange for things to
>build right with or without zfuzz installed.
Ok, done.
> The comment about running mktexlsr is not useful, nor the one describing
> the manuals. It is in INSTALL which can be read by the user.
The point was to justify some decisions for people reading the .spec
file, not for end-users. I rewrote/shortened the text
to (hopefully) make that clearer.
> Regarding the version, I am not sure that using the date is wise. Indeed
> if the versioning scheme changes, the new version may become newer. I
> think that using 0 as version and putting the date in the release is
> better, like
> Version: 0
> Release: 0.X.20070911
> This has a disadvantage, namely when release changes, the version doesn't
> change (similar with development snapshots).
I agree with the problems of using the date.
But as you noted, putting it in the release has its own problems.
Upstream uses a date as the version number and is unlikely to change, so
it seemed reasonable to be consistent with upstream.
Is this critically important?
--
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 449504] Review Request: ranpwd - A program to generate random passwords
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ranpwd - A program to generate random passwords https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449504 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 19:13 EST --- cvs done. -- 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 448435] Review Request: PythonCard - PythonCard GUI construction toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: PythonCard - PythonCard GUI construction toolkit Alias: PythonCard-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448435 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 19:10 EST --- cvs done. -- 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 195836] Review Request: php-pecl-apc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pecl-apc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=195836 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 19:08 EST --- cvs done. -- 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 452559] Review Request: zfuzz - Z fuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: zfuzz - Z fuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z
spec language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452559
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 18:44 EST ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> It's not NEEDED, but it is PERMITTED, so I thought it'd be better to be
> explicit. But I don't really care, so I've removed it.
It is permitted, but for gcc it is discouraged.
> True, but as I commented, I saw little point in doing so. The type-checker and
> latex style are meant to be used together, and are combined in upstream
> anyway.
> If that's wrong, they could be split later, but I doubt anyone will want it
> that
> way.
Now that I have read the fuzz manual I understand that I was wrong, the
fuzz checker needs the latex part. In fact this is a latex package with
a syntax checker. It seems to me that it should better be called
tex-zfuzz
and there is no reason to split it.
> >* I think that a patch for adding the DESTDIR would be better than the
> > substitution and I hope that upstream would accept it.
>
> Done. I would hope that too, but I don't control upstream :-).
> I _will_ send the patches (and the spec file) to upstream once it's
> passed review.
Right.
> >* I don't think that CFLAGS can be defined when make is launched.
>
> Sure it can, it works just fine. CFLAGS is just yet another make variable.
> Easy test: if you remove the CFLAGS text in this .spec file, the options
> passed
> to gcc change radically.
Sure, I was referring to "${CFLAGS:-%optflags}", here $CFLAGS cannot be
defined and if they were they should be overwritten anyway.
There are still some comments that can be shortened a lot. For example,
for the INSTALL file, suffice to say that the license is in the INSTALL
file, everybody will understand why it has to be shipped.
The BuildConflict is not right. You should arrange for things to
build right with or without zfuzz installed.
The comment about running mktexlsr is not useful, nor the one describing
the manuals. It is in INSTALL which can be read by the user.
Regarding the version, I am not sure that using the date is wise. Indeed
if the versioning scheme changes, the new version may become newer. I
think that using 0 as version and putting the date in the release is
better, like
Version: 0
Release: 0.X.20070911
This has a disadvantage, namely when release changes, the version doesn't
change (similar with development snapshots).
(In reply to comment #10)
> Okay, hopefully that's the "last one" :-).
Not this one...
--
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 452559] Review Request: zfuzz - Z fuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zfuzz - Z fuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452559 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 18:33 EST --- I've fiddled with the spec file comments further, including removing 2 now-spurious ones. New SRPM and spec file (release 4) here: http://www.dwheeler.com/zfuzz-20070911-4.fc9.src.rpm http://www.dwheeler.com/zfuzz.spec Okay, hopefully that's the "last one" :-). -- 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 428686] Review Request: tex-simplecv - latex class for writing curricula vitae
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tex-simplecv - latex class for writing curricula vitae https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428686 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEEDINFO|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 18:20 EST --- No response; closing. -- 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 429809] Review Request: mumble - low-latency, high quality voice chat software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mumble - low-latency, high quality voice chat software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429809 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 18:22 EST --- Anything happening with this 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 452559] Review Request: zfuzz - Z fuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zfuzz - Z fuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452559 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 18:14 EST --- I've responded to comment 8 - the new release (number 3) is at: http://www.dwheeler.com/zfuzz-20070911-3.fc9.src.rpm http://www.dwheeler.com/zfuzz-20070911-3.fc9.i386.rpm http://www.dwheeler.com/zfuzz.spec This new zfuzz.spec file is rpmlint-clean, just like the previous ones were. I also did: koji build --scratch dist-f9 zfuzz-20070911-3.fc9.src.rpm and all architectures successfully completed (5 done, 0 failed) with this release (3) on Fedora 9. Here's how I handled each comment in comment 8: >* I think it is better to use sed instead of perl for one-liners Ok, done (with sed -i). BuildRequires: perl removed, because of this. >* gcc is not needed in BuildRequires (see the exceptions in guidelines) It's not NEEDED, but it is PERMITTED, so I thought it'd be better to be explicit. But I don't really care, so I've removed it. >* use the virtual provides like tex(tex) and tex(latex) instead of > explicitely depending on texlive Ah! Good point! Done. >* coments are good, but some of your comments are, in my opinion, (much) > too long. For example the one about not splitting the package could be ># the package contains few glyphs, but separating a font subpackages would ># seemed unnecessary and confusing since it should be the only package using ># the fonts > >* also some comments are redundant. For example you comment twice that > mf and pk files are installed such that they don't have to be recreated. > >* paraphrasing the whole INSTALL file is not useful either. Okay, shortened comments significantly. >* you could split out the latex part, in tex-zfuzz. True, but as I commented, I saw little point in doing so. The type-checker and latex style are meant to be used together, and are combined in upstream anyway. If that's wrong, they could be split later, but I doubt anyone will want it that way. >* the %description is much too long. Ok, shortened. >* regarding the .pdf it is better to have the source and be able to > rebuild from source in fedora. But even if it cannot be regenerated > it is better to package it. > There is no license issue because it is BSD, and it can be allowed in > fedora because it is content. Good! That was my exactly my thinking as well, which is why I packaged it this way. >* The %build section has too much comments. Most of your code is > self-documented Ok, comments removed/shortened. >* I think that a patch for adding the DESTDIR would be better than the > substitution and I hope that upstream would accept it. Done. I would hope that too, but I don't control upstream :-). I _will_ send the patches (and the spec file) to upstream once it's passed review. >* I don't think that CFLAGS can be defined when make is launched. Sure it can, it works just fine. CFLAGS is just yet another make variable. Easy test: if you remove the CFLAGS text in this .spec file, the options passed to gcc change radically. -- 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 246349] Review Request: perl-Perl6-Pugs - Perl 6 Implementation
Please 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-Perl6-Pugs - Perl 6 Implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=246349 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard||NotReady --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 18:13 EST --- I'm going to go ahead and mark this as not ready; if you'd like a review, just clear the whiteboard. If not, I guess you can close this ticket. -- 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 250469] Review Request: olpc-security - A metapackage for the OLPC security platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: olpc-security - A metapackage for the OLPC security platform https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250469 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 18:14 EST --- I was informed that this old ticket is no longer relevant; closing. -- 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 449135] Review Request: gforge - GForge Collaborative Development Environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gforge - GForge Collaborative Development Environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449135
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 18:00 EST ---
Some other notes.
* Buildroot is not correct:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
* Changelog format is not correct:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs
* License tag is still not correct:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines
I just read the license in a couple of files and they are GPLv2+. You should
read the license statements in *all* the files. I know it's a PITA but it is for
a good purpose.
* Docs should not include INSTALL instructions.
* I had a quick look at the mandriva RPM. It seems you miss some Requires. For
example, why mailman is not required? And cvs? Or subversion? Again this should
be done using subpackages thus the user can only install what it needs.
* You also seem not to install a lot from the source package. When making a
package you should provide the most out of the upstream package, not the
minimum.
* RPM macros are not always used:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros
For example, you should not use /etc but %{_sysconfdir} instead.
* Source URL is not downloadable:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
--
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 446158] Review Request: xesam-glib - A GObject library for dealing with Xesam services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xesam-glib - A GObject library for dealing with Xesam services https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446158 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 17:55 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) > I have absolutely no idea what Xesam is; could you at least define it in your > %description? > > I would suggest using http://xesam.org/people/kamstrup/xesam-glib/ as your > URL: > tag; this at least has some information on the package. > > rpmlint is quiet except for the following: > xesam-glib.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency >/usr/lib64/libxesam-glib.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libdbus-1.so.3 > This means that the libxesam-glib links against libdbus-1 but doesn't actually > call any functions from it. There's a quick libtool tweak that should fix > this: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CommonRpmlintIssues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency > > I note that 0.3 is out now; I don't see anything that would change this > review. > I've addressed all the issues you pointed out above. > I also noticed that there's a test suite in the source. A naive "make check" > didn't work for me, though. Have you looked into whether or not it's > runnable? > One would need a desktop search service that support xesam specifications for 'make check' to work. Only the current versions of strigi and beagle have such support (to my knowledge); tracker support is coming along. Thanks for the review. Spec URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/xesam/xesam-glib.spec SRPM URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/xesam/xesam-glib-0.3.0-1.fc9.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 449504] Review Request: ranpwd - A program to generate random passwords
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ranpwd - A program to generate random passwords https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449504 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 17:37 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ranpwd Short Description: A program to generate random passwords Owners: rafalzaq Branches: F-8 F-9 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes -- 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 448435] Review Request: PythonCard - PythonCard GUI construction toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: PythonCard - PythonCard GUI construction toolkit Alias: PythonCard-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448435 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 17:23 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: PythonCard Short Description: GUI construction toolkit Owners: mmahut Branches: F-8 F-9 EL-5 Cvsextras Commits: yes -- 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 452921] Review Request: libzrtpcpp - ZRTP support library for the GNU ccRTP stack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libzrtpcpp - ZRTP support library for the GNU ccRTP stack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452921 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||433265 nThis|| -- 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 452921] New: Review Request: libzrtpcpp - ZRTP support library for the GNU ccRTP stack
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=452921 Summary: Review Request: libzrtpcpp - ZRTP support library for the GNU ccRTP stack 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.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/libzrtpcpp/libzrtpcpp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/libzrtpcpp/libzrtpcpp-1.3.0-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: This package provides a library that adds ZRTP support to the GNU ccRTP stack. Phil Zimmermann developed ZRTP to allow ad-hoc, easy to use key negotiation to setup Secure RTP (SRTP) sessions. GNU ZRTP together with GNU ccRTP (1.5.0 or later) provides a ZRTP implementation that can be directly embedded into client and server applications. There are some minor rpmlint warnings, which I don't think are worth fixing, but I suppose I will at reviewer request. Otherwise builds fine for me. -- 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 195836] Review Request: php-pecl-apc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pecl-apc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=195836 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 17:19 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: php-pecl-apc New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 Updated Fedora CC: timj Updated EPEL Owners: timj Updated EPEL CC: chabotc This has been agreed by the Fedora package owner chabotc. -- 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 448435] Review Request: PythonCard - PythonCard GUI construction toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: PythonCard - PythonCard GUI construction toolkit Alias: PythonCard-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448435 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 17:18 EST --- Thanks for the fixes marek, I'm fine with the package now, I and I guess the guidelines are too. APPROVED -- 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 442233] Review Request: oprofileui - user interface for analysing oprofile 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: oprofileui - user interface for analysing oprofile data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442233
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 17:15 EST ---
> oprofileui.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libglade2
> oprofileui.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libxml
* No. Can't be. This means that you can omit it from spec file ('Requires:')
because RPMbuild found them while creating package and thus added it to the RPM
automatically.
- [OK] License Field in spec
- [-] License text in %doc
Ok, however not correct version.
* Add it as SourceX and copy-in in installation process.
Would be nice if original reporter could fix the issues, they are all EasyFix...
--
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 445151] Review Request: merkaartor - openstreetmap 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: merkaartor - openstreetmap editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445151 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 17:10 EST --- > qt4 is a Requires, not a BuildRequires. And the requires isn't even needed. Removed > Mock build perfectly without "BuildRequires: xorg-x11-proto-devel > xorg-x11-xtrans-devel", are they usefull ? No - I don't remember where I got those from - works fine without as far as I can see. > The software doesn't use make install, so you can remove > this line : "make INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install". Right - this will probably change with the - soon to be released (TM) version 0.11. I have removed the line. Thanks for your comments - updated files: Spec URL: http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SPECS/merkaartor.spec SRPM URL: http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SRPM/merkaartor-0.0.10-6.fc9.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 447607] Review Request: abgraph - ABGraph is a simple tool to benchmark webservers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: abgraph - ABGraph is a simple tool to benchmark webservers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447607 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 16:54 EST --- Lubomir, see new SRPM: http://mmahut.fedorapeople.org/reviews/abgraph/abgraph-1.1-1.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 449135] Review Request: gforge - GForge Collaborative Development Environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gforge - GForge Collaborative Development Environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449135 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 16:41 EST --- The location for the new spec/srpm are Spec URL: http://www.freewebs.com/javiplx/Fedora/gforge.spec SRPM URL: http://www.freewebs.com/javiplx/Fedora/gforge-4.5.19-1.fc9.src.rpm The check for buildroot value has been removed both within %install and %clean sections. Which rpmlint version are you using ? The one I use from rpmlint-0.82-3.fc9.noarch does not complain about the changelog or license, but only about the tab-spaces mentioned before. In any case, I've also changed both items. -- 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 446158] Review Request: xesam-glib - A GObject library for dealing with Xesam services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xesam-glib - A GObject library for dealing with Xesam services https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446158 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Summary|Review Request: xesam-glib -|Review Request: xesam-glib - |A GObject library for |A GObject library for |dealing with Xesam services |dealing with Xesam services Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 16:35 EST --- I have absolutely no idea what Xesam is; could you at least define it in your %description? I would suggest using http://xesam.org/people/kamstrup/xesam-glib/ as your URL: tag; this at least has some information on the package. rpmlint is quiet except for the following: xesam-glib.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libxesam-glib.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libdbus-1.so.3 This means that the libxesam-glib links against libdbus-1 but doesn't actually call any functions from it. There's a quick libtool tweak that should fix this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CommonRpmlintIssues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency I note that 0.3 is out now; I don't see anything that would change this review. I also noticed that there's a test suite in the source. A naive "make check" didn't work for me, though. Have you looked into whether or not it's runnable? * source files match upstream: 8fde51fd248f9215d78c366d5827e39826b2c09007398a05962f4d1d7ab32efd xesam-glib-0.2.1.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. X description could use a definition of Xesam. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint has an issue that should be looked into. * final provides and requires are sane: xesam-glib-0.2.1-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm libxesam-glib.so.0()(64bit) xesam-glib = 0.2.1-1.fc10 = /sbin/ldconfig libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit) libdbus-glib-1.so.2()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libxesam-glib.so.0()(64bit) xesam-glib-devel-0.2.1-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm xesam-glib-devel = 0.2.1-1.fc10 = dbus-glib-devel libxesam-glib.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig xesam-glib = 0.2.1-1.fc10 X %check is not present, but some sort of test suite is in the tarball. * shared libraries installed: ldconfig called properly. unversioned .so files are in the -devel package. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets OK (ldconfig). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel package. * pkgconfig file in the -devel package; pkgconfig dependency is present. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- 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 452251] Review Request: libmatthew-java - collection of java 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: libmatthew-java - collection of java libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452251
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 16:35 EST ---
Updated
Spec URL: http://omajid.fedorapeople.org/libmatthew-java/libmatthew-java.spec
SRPM URL:
http://omajid.fedorapeople.org/libmatthew-java/libmatthew-java-0.7.1-1.fc9.src.rpm
also includes a patch (sent it upstream too) to match
make %{?_smp_mflags} \
CFLAGS='%{optflags}'\
GCJFLAGS='%{optflags}' \
LDFLAGS='%{optflags}' \
PPFLAGS='%{optflags}'
--
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 450466] Review Request: clive - Video extraction tool for user-uploaded video hosts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: clive - Video extraction tool for user-uploaded video
hosts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450466
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 16:22 EST ---
Update :
Spec URL : http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/SPECS/clive.spec
SRPM URL :
http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/srpms.fc9/clive-0.4.16-2.fc9.src.rpm
- Licence updated
- smp_mflags removed
>> %{__sed} -i -e
s@"\${exec_prefix}/lib/python2.5/site-packages"@$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{python_sitelib}@
Makefile
>> %{__sed} -i -e
s@"\${prefix}/lib/python2.5/site-packages"@$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{python_sitelib}@
Makefile
I think I must keep this lines because of "hardcoded" /lib/.
--
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 452842] Review Request: monotorrent - a bit torrent client for mono
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: monotorrent - a bit torrent client for mono
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452842
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 16:20 EST ---
Informal package review:
-Group: Development/Languages
-License:X11/MIT
+Group: Applications/Internet
+License:MIT
* Found group which fits better.
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing claims X11 to be MIT
* NOTE: In sources is MIT but in COPYRIGHT file is GNU GPLv2. From my POV: It'd
be good to contact author and ask him to be clear on this.
# Bug 241850 - no Mono on pp64
-ExclusiveArch: %ix86 x86_64 ppc ia64 armv4l sparc alpha
+ExcludeArch:ppc64
* I guess this is saner.
%description
-Monotorrent is a bittorrent for mono
+Monotorrent is an open source bittorrent library. The main aim of this
+library is to provide a rich API for developers to connect to so they
+can harness BitTorrent for all downloading needs.
* Some more descriptions.
%package devel
-Summary: .pc file for monotorrent
+Summary: Development files for for monotorrent
Group: Documentation
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} pkgconfig
%description devel
-Package config file for monotorrent
+Development files for for monotorrent
* Just a strings.
%prep
%setup -q
@@ -47,6 +49,7 @@ make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install
%{_libdir}/monotorrent/*
%files devel
+%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/monotorrent.pc
* This is necessary to have rpmlint silent.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]# rpmlint monotorrent.spec
/usr/src/redhat/SRPMS/monotorrent-0.4-1.fc9.src.rpm
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/monotorrent-0.4-1.fc9.i386.rpm
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/monotorrent-devel-0.4-1.fc9.i386.rpm
monotorrent.i386: E: no-binary
monotorrent.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
monotorrent-devel.i386: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings.
* Take a look at this. Complaint of the /usr/bin/... stuff not to be binaries
(they are shell scripts).
* Dunno about the /usr/lib/ stuff. Hope someone experienced will see this BZ.
--
Please incorporate changes. Feel free to ask.
--
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 452911] New: Review Request: trustyrc - Fully modular IRC robot
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=452911 Summary: Review Request: trustyrc - Fully modular IRC robot 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://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/SPECS/trustyrc.spec SRPM URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/srpms.fc9/trustyrc-0.1.1-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: trustyRC is an IRC robot fully modular that brings all common bots features (channel moderation, administration, accounts system, quotes ...), and much more... In fact, trustyRC is a kernel that load features such as log system, configuration parser, networking, etc, and ... a plugin (un)loader. All plugins can communicate with other ones and this system provides high flexible maintenance. A plugin can be loaded/unloaded while the bot is running. So if a plusgin needs to be updated, it can be unloaded, rebuilded, and reloaded. During this steps, the bot will never stop. Plugins are stored in shared librairies witch contains new features. When the .so file is loaded, features are added to the bot, and when the plugin is unloaded, features are no more usable. rpmlint output : [EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ rpmlint trustyrc-0.1.1-1.fc9.i386.rpm [EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ rpmlint trustyrc-plugins-0.1.1-1.fc9.i386.rpm trustyrc-plugins.i386: W: no-documentation [EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ rpmlint trustyrc-plugins-extras-0.1.1-1.fc9.i386.rpm trustyrc-plugins-extras.i386: W: no-documentation [EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ rpmlint trustyrc-debuginfo-0.1.1-1.fc9.i386.rpm [EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ rpmlint trustyrc-0.1.1-1.fc9.src.rpm [EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ Rebuild under mock is 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
[Bug 452559] Review Request: zfuzz - Z fuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zfuzz - Z fuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452559 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 16:10 EST --- Some remarks on the spec file: * I think it is better to use sed instead of perl for one-liners * gcc is not needed in BuildRequires (see the exceptions in guidelines) * use the virtual provides like tex(tex) and tex(latex) instead of explicitely depending on texlive * coments are good, but some of your comments are, in my opinion, (much) too long. For example the one about not splitting the package could be # the package contains few glyphs, but separating a font subpackages would # seemed unnecessary and confusing since it should be the only package using # the fonts * also some comments are redundant. For example you comment twice that mf and pk files are installed such that they don't have to be recreated. * paraphrasing the whole INSTALL file is not useful either. * you could split out the latex part, in tex-zfuzz. * the %description is much too long. * regarding the .pdf it is better to have the source and be able to rebuild from source in fedora. But even if it cannot be regenerated it is better to package it. There is no license issue because it is BSD, and it can be allowed in fedora because it is content. * The %build section has too much comments. Most of your code is self-documented * I think that a patch for adding the DESTDIR would be better than the substitution and I hope that upstream would accept it. * I don't think that CFLAGS can be defined when make is launched. -- 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 452832] Review Request: perl-Math-FFT - Perl extension for Fast Fourier Transforms
Please 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-Math-FFT - Perl extension for Fast Fourier Transforms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452832 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 16:03 EST --- OK. I used cpanspec and it indeed produce much better spec (although not relocatable). URL are the same: Spec URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/perl-Math-FFT/perl-Math-FFT.spec SRPM URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/perl-Math-FFT/perl-Math-FFT-1.28-1.fc9.src.rpm Can you try it now, please? -- 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 452413] Review Request: BkChem - Chemical drawing program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: BkChem - Chemical drawing program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452413
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 15:56 EST ---
[ x=ok -=dont't apply !=please fix ?=may fix ]
MUST
[!] rpmlint must be run on every package
a) bkchem.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 10)
remove tab in the Group: line
b) bkchem.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/bkchem/oasa/setup.py 0644
Is this need at all? Remove in %install
[x] package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[x] spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[x] package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[!] [GPLv2] package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
The bkchem/plugins/piddle directory seems to have files with
a mix of copyrights, can you check with upstream regarding license
of these files?
[!] license field in the package spec file must match the actual license
See over
[x] includes the text of the license(s) in its own file: include in %doc
[x] be written in American English
[x] spec file for the package be legible
[!] sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
da8bceec65cf4e054a19c510633b61f4 bkchem-0.12.2.tar.gz
fa3fc119f06ad0204c5c046b768cabd9 bkchem-0.12.2.tar.gz.rpm
Remove bkchem.desktop and bkchem.png from tarball, you have to
use pristine sources. They are added by source1 and source2,
rpmbuild will take care of that. Ask if trouble.
Source2 bkchem.png is already in the tarball as images/bkchem.png?
[x] compile and build into binary rpms on at least one architecture
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=680857
[-] not successfully compile an architecture: use ExcludeArch
[x] all build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[x] spec file MUST handle locales properly
[-] shared library files not in any default linker paths: ldconfig
[-] relocatable package: the packager must state this fact
[x] package must own all directories that it creates
[x] not any duplicate files in the %files listing
[x] permissions on files must be set properly
[x] package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
[!] consistently use macros
spec in url is fixed, however not the spec in the src.rpm
Bump release when doing updates 13, 19 and 22 has the same release,
should be on release 3 now.
[x] must contain code, or permissable content
[?] large docs should go in a -doc subpackage
Maybe split off the doc/ dir in a separate bkchem-doc package?
[x] %doc must not affect the runtime of the application
[-] header files must be in a -devel package
[-] static libraries must be in a -static package
[-] containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
[-] library files that end in .so: go in a -devel package
[-] devel pkg: require base package using a fully versioned dependency
[-] no .la libtool archives
[!] gui app include a %{name}.desktop file
Set vendor to nothing: --vendor=""
[x] must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[x] %install includes rm -rf %{buildroot}
[x] filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
SHOULD
[!] ping upstream about missing license text
see above, the piddle subdir.
[?] translations if description and summary sections
[x] test that the package builds in mock
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=680857
[x] compile and build into binary rpms on all archs
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=680857
[x] package functions as described
[!] those scriptlets are sane
Just remove the %post/%postun scripts (sorry).
[-] subpackages require the base package fully versioned dep
[-] pkgconfig(.pc) in devel
[-] no explicit file dep outside /etc, /bin/, /sbin, /usr/{sbin,bin}
--
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 452663] Review Request: andika-fonts - Andika SIL 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: andika-fonts - Andika SIL fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452663 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 15:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) > Informal package review: > > -Summary: Andika SIL fonts > +Summary: Andika is a sans serif font designed for literacy use and for > beginning readers > > * No need to be so brief, ~80 chars are usually ok for rpmlint. Actually rpmlint has a 79 column limit and your proposal is 80 Though I suppose “A SIL sans serif font designed for literacy use and for beginning readers” would be fine > -* Tue Jun 24 2008 > -- 1.0-1 > -Ṑ Initial packaging > +* Tue Jun 24 2008 - 1.0-1 the rpm maintainers will tell you anything after the mail is garbage (but it's a common mistake, even if the guidelines authorize both) > +- Initial packaging You'll take unicode out of my dead hands :) changelog is and always been UTF-8 > Seems good to me. Thanks for the review, care to do an official one? -- 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 450816] Review Request: alevt - Teletext decoder/browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: alevt - Teletext decoder/browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450816 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 15:44 EST --- Debuginfos: === * See the differences in sizes (first column in Bytes), the more is "better" :). Your old OPT="...": --- 8348 /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/alevt-cap.debug 6352 /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/alevt-date.debug 12780 /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/alevt.debug With "... -g": -- 71760 /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/alevt-cap.debug 37412 /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/alevt-date.debug 149152 /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/alevt.debug Fedora CFLAGS: -- 75376 /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/alevt-cap.debug 39556 /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/alevt-date.debug 156104 /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/alevt.debug -- 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 230316] Review Request: jbrout - Photo manager, written in python/pygtk under the GPL licence
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jbrout - Photo manager, written in python/pygtk under
the GPL licence
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=230316
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 15:40 EST ---
Seems there's no longer any reason for the svn checkout instructions since you
can directly fetch a tarball.
There's no real point in mentioning the License in the Summary:, is there? Or
what language the package is written in? These things really don't matter to
someone who is interested in what the package does.
Similarly for the %description; does any Fedora user particularly care whether
the software works on Windows 2000? And who is "me" in the description? Yum or
some package manager will display this to most users, and surely yum isn't going
to be conversing about itself.
rpmlint does indeed complain about the .mo files not being mentioned in %lang.
You could list each of them separately in the %files list with %lang(foo) but at
most that would allow someone to save a little space by excluding some specific
lang files. Nice to have, but not absolutely necessary in my opinion, although
it shouldn't be too terribly difficult if you wanted to do that.
You should probably report this issue with the desktop file upstream:
key "Categories" is a list and does not have a semicolon as trailing
character, fixing
Also, there's no need to use "--vendor=fedora" when installing your desktop
file.
Not sure if you noticed it, but there's no point to the %find_lang call, since
this package insatlls nothing into /usr/share/locale. The %{name}.lang file is
empty. You might as well just remove the %find_lang call and the -f bit from
%files.
* source files match upstream:
b62b1bbd72400fd352deb8523a61e2b2da4f81c47f2118dd51488bee626fe77c
jbrout-0.2.201.sources.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
X summary could use some work.
X description could use some work.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
jbrout = 0.2.201-1.fc10
=
/bin/sh
/usr/bin/env
fbida
jhead
pygtk2 >= 2.6
python >= 2.4
python-imaging
python-lxml
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I installed and ran this
package; it seems to work OK.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
X desktop installed with --vendor=fedora.
--
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 450816] Review Request: alevt - Teletext decoder/browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: alevt - Teletext decoder/browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450816
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Summary|Review Request: alevt - |Review Request: alevt -
|Teletext decoder/browser|Teletext decoder/browser
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 15:37 EST ---
Informal package review:
-Summary: Teletext decoder/browser
Name: alevt
Version: 1.6.2
Release: 1%{?dist}
-License: GPLv2
+Summary: Teletext decoder/Browser
Group: Applications/Multimedia
+License: GPLv2
+URL: http://goron.de/~froese
Source: http://goron.de/~froese/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Source1: alevt.desktop
Patch0: alevt-1.6.2-pixmap.patch
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
-URL: http://goron.de/~froese
* Please, keep the usual order of fields.
* e.g.
Name:
Version:
Release:
Summary:
Group:
License:
URL:
Source0:
BuildRoot:
BuildRequires:
Requires:
%build
-#overwrite $OPT to produce debuginfo
-make %{?_smp_mflags} -e OPT="-O2 -w"
+#overwrite $OPT to produce standard Fedora build with propper FLAGS
+
+# alevt does not have standard build system, so we call configure
+# to populate CFLAGS, then we move them to another var which persists
+# and we *unset CFLAGS* and have alevt build system to populate it
+%configure || true
+FLAGS=${CFLAGS}
+unset CFLAGS
+# will produce lot of garbage on output
+make %{?_smp_mflags} -e OPT="${FLAGS}"
* Hope it's selfdescriptive.
* The debuginfos were somewhat useless without the "-g" option. Now it uses
Fedora's own CFLAGS automatically.
%install
rm -rf %{buildroot}
-mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir}
-mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1
+mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_bindir}
+mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1
make USR_X11R6=/usr MAN=share/man rpm-install
desktop-file-install --vendor="fedora" \
- --dir=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/applications %{SOURCE1}
+ --dir=%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications %{SOURCE1}
* Be consistent in using macro style v. variable style
%clean
@@ -42,9 +50,7 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
%{_bindir}/alevt-date
%{_bindir}/alevt-cap
%{_datadir}/applications/*%{name}.desktop
-%doc %{_mandir}/man1/alevt.1x.gz
-%doc %{_mandir}/man1/alevt-date.1.gz
-%doc %{_mandir}/man1/alevt-cap.1.gz
+%{_mandir}/man?/%{name}*
%{_datadir}/pixmaps/mini-alevt.xpm
%doc README CHANGELOG COPYRIGHT
* The one line will rule them all :)
@@ -62,6 +68,7 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
* Sun May 23 1999 Karsten Hopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- several minor patches of Marios spec-file:
- german descriptions
- buildroot (patched Makefile)
- some changed install-paths
+- german descriptions
+- buildroot (patched Makefile)
+- some changed install-paths
+
* Just typo-enhancements
--
Incorporate the changes, please, so the package is closer to formal 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 452559] Review Request: zfuzz - Z fuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zfuzz - Z fuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452559 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 15:30 EST --- I used koji; the current package builds on ALL supported platforms for Fedora 9 (dist-f9). Thus... This package is ready for review! Do I have any reviewers? Note: I fixed the Wiki page PackageMaintainers/Join so that it clearly shows that you CAN use Koji before being sponsored, and the basics of how to use it. The page was very misleading originally; it seemed to say that you had to have a sponsor and CVS access before you could use Koji. Obviously that's not true! It also didn't show how to use Koji for simple scratch builds, and that was sad. Done. -- 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 448122] Review Request: trash-cli - Command line trashcan (recycle bin) interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: trash-cli - Command line trashcan (recycle bin) interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448122 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 15:01 EST --- (In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #13) > > Created an attachment (id=310234) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=310234&action=view) [edit] [edit] > > error from ./trash.py > > > Many thanks for reporting the errors, they will be very useful to me. > > Could I ask to provide me only another information? I need the output of "df" > on > the machine where the test 'testListVolumes' fails. Or at least I need to know > that machine the output of the commands invocation df and df -P differs. > If this is the case I will know that the problem is already solved. Here are the df and df -P outputs: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ df Sys. de fich.1K-blocs Occupé Disponible Capacité Monté sur /dev/sda2 9469180 8845188135216 99% / tmpfs 251616 0251616 0% /dev/shm /dev/sda6 37418568 30076264 5410892 85% /home [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ df -P Sys. de fich. 1024-blocsCapacité Disponible Occupée Monté sur /dev/sda2 9469180 8845188135216 99% / tmpfs 251616 0251616 0% /dev/shm /dev/sda6 37418568 30076264 5410892 85% /home -- 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 449504] Review Request: ranpwd - A program to generate random passwords
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ranpwd - A program to generate random passwords https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449504 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 15:02 EST --- Thanks Rafalm, all issues are fixed, this package - ranpwd - is APPROVED. -- 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 452413] Review Request: BkChem - Chemical drawing program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: BkChem - Chemical drawing program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452413 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 15:03 EST --- Review is coming up shortly. -- 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 448122] Review Request: trash-cli - Command line trashcan (recycle bin) interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: trash-cli - Command line trashcan (recycle bin) interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448122 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 15:00 EST --- (In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #14) > > The right level > > of non-genericity is something subjective, my feeling is that > > trash is not right since it may clash easily with an application doing > > something > > very different, and be used in a standard in the future, be > > is a defacto standard like what is in some basic package like util-linux, > > coreutils, bash buil-in and a few others or a real standard. > > When a such standard will be created I can accommodate the trash-cli command > names to do not conflict with the standard. Anticipating by not using generic names will help not forcing users to redo all their scripts. > The util-linux is standard only on Linux based distribution. Debian which is > not > Linux specific doesn't have the util-linux 'rename' which is a command with a > interface so poorly designed that doesn't allows to grows (for example you > cannot add any switches to rename synopsys without broking the existing interface). I don't want to argue about that example, it may very well be that using rename from util-linux-ng is a bad choice and that it should be discussed with upstream and in the mean time renamed. If you fill a bug against util-linux-ng I'd like to be in CC to see what the maintainer says and be able to argue on that case. As I said above there is 'ren' in fedora which is a bad idea already, but it is not a reason to let other generic names enter the distro. > At the present 'trash' is the best (in terms of usability) name I've found for > the command that trashes files. It's important for me provide a usable > interface > to facilities of trash-cli package. If someone could suggest me a name that is > good in terms of usability and is not so generic please tell me. I can propose to-trash in-trash trash-dump trash-put I can try other names if none fits (but I am not very good at that be it only because I am not a native english speaker). -- 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 448122] Review Request: trash-cli - Command line trashcan (recycle bin) interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: trash-cli - Command line trashcan (recycle bin) interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448122 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 14:54 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) > Created an attachment (id=310234) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=310234&action=view) [edit] > error from ./trash.py > Many thanks for reporting the errors, they will be very useful to me. Could I ask to provide me only another information? I need the output of "df" on the machine where the test 'testListVolumes' fails. Or at least I need to know that machine the output of the commands invocation df and df -P differs. If this is the case I will know that the problem is already solved. -- 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 446102] Review Request: xdialog - X11 drop in replacement for cdialog
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xdialog - X11 drop in replacement for cdialog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446102
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 14:42 EST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> -Release: 1%{dist}
> +Release: 1%{?dist}
> * The preferred dist tag is now ?dist.
Thanks. Not only is it preferred, but it is bad to have %{dist} since it
may not be defined.
> -License: GPL+
> +License: GPLv2
> * License should be as concrete as possible, in source archive is GPLv2
I don't understand. All the files in src seems not to have any license
header, which means GPL+. Am I missing something?
> -URL: http://xdialog.dyns.net/
> +URL: http://xdialog.free.fr
Indeed, looks like it is better to use xdialog.free.fr.
> -BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root
> +BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XX)
>
> * Tip: this is #1 in "BuildRoot tag" section of
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
I prefer a reproducible buildroot. I changed it to the 2nd BuildRoot
tag, though.
> BuildRequires: gtk+-devel >= 1.2.0
>
> * Isn't it possible to completely get rid of GTK+v1? It's ugly, not widely
> supported these days and adds build dependency.
For this package it could have been the converse. As said above in
Comment #1 the author prefers the gtk1 version. Besides build
dependencies are not an issue. It is true that gtk1 is lacking some
features, prominently utf8, still it is not a reason to leave it
apart when upstream advertises to use it.
> -%{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}
> +rm -rf %{buildroot}
>
> * Be consistent, use command style OR macro style.
>
> -%defattr(-, root, root, 0755)
> +%defattr(-, root, root, -)
Both issues are not a big deal in my opinion, but changed anyway.
> -%doc AUTHORS BUGS ChangeLog COPYING NEWS README
> +%doc AUTHORS BUGS ChangeLog COPYING
>
> * IMO, useless for docs.
> * README is not maintained for years (just read it) and NEWS is symlink to
> ChangeLog.
I'll leave the README, it has meaningful informations in it and the
fact that it is no more maintained is plainly documented.
> -%{_mandir}/man1/Xdialog.1*
> +%{_mandir}/man?/%{real_name}*
>
> * This is more general way how to play with man pages, don't have to care of
> every one page and of the section.
I prefer listing files more precisely such that build fails if file
name changes or new file appear.
> -* Sat Apr 5 2008 Patrice Dumas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2.3.1-1
> -- submit to fedora.
> +* Sat Apr 5 2008 Patrice Dumas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 2.3.1-1
> +- Submit to Fedora.
>
> * Just some more consistency issues.
I prefer keeping the changelog of Dag/Dries like they want it to be
formatted, but switch to my preferred format in fedora, so I'll
leave it as is.
> Please see the output of rpmlint on arch dependent package (e.g. i386) you'll
> see lot of warning about +x on doc files:
>
>xdialog.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm
> /usr/share/doc/xdialog-2.3.1/samples/timebox
>
> * Change it to 0644 or erase them.
Nope, they are sample that can be run as is and are right to be there
and executable, rpmlint cannot always be right.
Thanks for the review. Are you waiting to be sponsored?
Updated package:
http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/xdialog-2.3.1-2.fc10.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 452317] Review Request: heuristica-fonts - Heuristica font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: heuristica-fonts - Heuristica font https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452317 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 14:41 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > Does anyone mailed our legal, yet? Can I do so? You can but blocking on FE-Legal is supposed to be sufficient -- 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 452901] Review Request: ocspd - OpenCA OCSP Daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocspd - OpenCA OCSP Daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452901 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| -- 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 448122] Review Request: trash-cli - Command line trashcan (recycle bin) interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: trash-cli - Command line trashcan (recycle bin) interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448122 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 14:36 EST --- (In reply to comment #14) > The right level > of non-genericity is something subjective, my feeling is that > trash is not right since it may clash easily with an application doing > something > very different, and be used in a standard in the future, be > is a defacto standard like what is in some basic package like util-linux, > coreutils, bash buil-in and a few others or a real standard. When a such standard will be created I can accommodate the trash-cli command names to do not conflict with the standard. The util-linux is standard only on Linux based distribution. Debian which is not Linux specific doesn't have the util-linux 'rename' which is a command with a interface so poorly designed that doesn't allows to grows (for example you cannot add any switches to rename synopsys without broking the existing interface). At the present 'trash' is the best (in terms of usability) name I've found for the command that trashes files. It's important for me provide a usable interface to facilities of trash-cli package. If someone could suggest me a name that is good in terms of usability and is not so generic please tell me. -- 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 452901] New: Review Request: ocspd - OpenCA OCSP Daemon
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=452901 Summary: Review Request: ocspd - OpenCA OCSP Daemon 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.etude-riondel.ch/pm/ocspd.spec SRPM URL: http://www.etude-riondel.ch/pm/ocspd-1.5.1-rc1.2.fc8.src.rpm Description: The ocspd is an RFC2560 compliant OCSPD responder. It can be used to verify the status of a certificate using OCSP clients (such as Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbird/Apache). It is CRL-based, and is able to fetch CRLs from files, LDAP or HTTP. This product is under the OpenCA license, which is Apache-like: should be Fedora-compatible. OpenCA releases an RPM (openca-ocspd) used as starting point for the current one. The license paragraph has not been changed, resulting in an rpmlint error. Needs also a system-user named "ocspd" for the daemon. This is my first package and I need a sponsor. -- 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 232465] Review Request: lv2core - An Audio Plugin 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: lv2core - An Audio Plugin Standard https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=232465 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 14:30 EST --- Why does this need a .pc file at all? Everything that it'll display is (and has always been) the compiler default. If you remove it, building against the header will work just as well, but there'll be no need for it to be arch-specific. -- 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 214751] Review Request: xview - XView widget 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: xview - XView widget libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214751 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard||NotReady -- 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 452317] Review Request: heuristica-fonts - Heuristica font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: heuristica-fonts - Heuristica font https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452317 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 14:26 EST --- Does anyone mailed our legal, yet? Can I do so? -- 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 452663] Review Request: andika-fonts - Andika SIL 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: andika-fonts - Andika SIL fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452663 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 14:19 EST --- Informal package review: -Summary: Andika SIL fonts +Summary: Andika is a sans serif font designed for literacy use and for beginning readers * No need to be so brief, ~80 chars are usually ok for rpmlint. -* Tue Jun 24 2008 -- 1.0-1 -Ṑ Initial packaging +* Tue Jun 24 2008 - 1.0-1 +- Initial packaging + * Just indenting and ascii-sation. -- Seems good to me. -- 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 450013] Review Request: testopia - bugzilla extended to add test case management
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: testopia - bugzilla extended to add test case management https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450013 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 14:17 EST --- I've reworked things to try to make this parallel-installable with bugzilla, and use /testopia on the server Updated specfile at same location: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/testopia.spec and SRPM at: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/testopia-3.0.4-1_4.tr2.0_RC1.fc10.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 432259] Review Request: speech-dispatcher - Required for speech synthesis 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: speech-dispatcher - Required for speech synthesis on OLPC XO https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432259 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-25 14:10 EST --- cvs done. -- 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 447368] Review Request: schroot - Execute commands in a chroot environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: schroot - Execute commands in a chroot environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447368 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| -- 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
