[Bug 452636] Review Request:http-mod_proxy_html - Module to rewrite content as it passes through an apache proxy.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request:http-mod_proxy_html - Module to rewrite content as it
passes through an apache proxy.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452636
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 03:29 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
I have no problem merging them. That's fine.
Some observations:
* we don't need -Wl,-lxml2 in the invocation of apxs. We can just use -
lxml2
directly;
I'm definitely not an expert on apxs, does -lxml2 get added automatically
somewhere later in the process? I originally did not use it and resulted in a
.so that wasn't linked against libxml2.so. Had to use LoadFile in Apache to
get
things working.
I was just going by the example config file, which says that you need the
LoadFile anyway... So the fact that the module wasn't linked (statically)
against libxml2.a was a good thing. Plus it means that you can update versions
of libxml2.so independently, which you lose if the module links statically
against libxml2.a instead.
* similarly, it would be preferable to install via apxs -i -S
LIBEXECDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{modulesdir} -n %{modname} %{modname}.la as
I've
done; the .libs directory is an implementation detail of apxs using libtool
that we shouldn't rely on;
That makes sense to me!
Do we really need to supply the path to apxs? It should be in the default
search path. If it's not, it might be because someone wants to try out a
new
version of it (in which case we should use that anyway).
I don't think we do, I just typically prefer to be more specific than less.
Well, for the person developing a new version of apxs, they might appreciate
being able to test their changes against all the Apache modules without having
to modify each and every one of the .spec files to do so.
Other than that, I'm fine with the rest of the changes.
I'll merge in your suggestions to my spec file. I don't have a burden to be
the
maintainer particularly if you are interested, just let me know.
Either way is fine with 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 448717] Review Request: gnome-rdp - rdesktop front end
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gnome-rdp - rdesktop front end
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448717
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
||om
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 03:51 EST ---
I'm doing a pre-review to become sponsored and these are my comments on your
package.
* rpmlint gives errors and warnings. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Use_rpmlint
* %defattr is placed a bit too late, should be before %files
* your program uses localized files. You must not use %{_datadir}/locale/ to
place them sonewhere. You should use findlang. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files
* BuildRequires: are you sure there are no redundant requirements? (glib2-devel
gtk2-devel gtk-sharp2-devel gnome-sharp-devel)
* if your package contains a GUI application, please follow
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files
* Group: I'd use Application/Internet rater than Applications/System. All
vnc/rdesktop/tsclient applications are there.
* Patch0: why do you call it gnome-rdp-fedora.patch? It is not fedora specific,
so you should call it different (distribution neutral).
* License: please include the license file as documentation. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
That's all for now. Again: this is just my pre-review, not an official 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 450410] Review Request: multiget - A multi-thread http/ftp file downloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: multiget - A multi-thread http/ftp file downloader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450410 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 03:58 EST --- Here is my pre-review of a package. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448717 -- 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 448717] Review Request: gnome-rdp - rdesktop front end
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-rdp - rdesktop front end https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448717 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 03:57 EST --- One really small last thing: don't add empty lines after the %description, and please add a dot at the end of sentences. No dots after summary, but after description. -- 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 453287] Review Request: perl-Term-ReadLine-Gnu - Perl extension for the GNU Readline/History 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: perl-Term-ReadLine-Gnu - Perl extension for the GNU Readline/History Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453287 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 04:04 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) This is a tough one. Until the bug is fixed, I don't know if we want to have this package in the distro because it may just cause bug reports for any software which might use it. Fair enough; Thanks for the review. Since I mostly care about having this in EPEL (where the bug either doesn't exist, or is mitigated somehow), I'm wondering if I'll get an approval if I promised not to build this in Fedora branches until this gets fixed? -- 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 452636] Review Request:http-mod_proxy_html - Module to rewrite content as it passes through an apache proxy.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request:http-mod_proxy_html - Module to rewrite content as it passes through an apache proxy. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452636 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 04:01 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) (In reply to comment #4) I'm definitely not an expert on apxs, does -lxml2 get added automatically somewhere later in the process? I originally did not use it and resulted in a .so that wasn't linked against libxml2.so. Had to use LoadFile in Apache to get things working. I was just going by the example config file, which says that you need the LoadFile anyway... So the fact that the module wasn't linked (statically) against libxml2.a was a good thing. Plus it means that you can update versions of libxml2.so independently, which you lose if the module links statically against libxml2.a instead. Actually, scratch that. I just did a quick test of with and without -lxml2 in the initial compile of apxs. In either case, libxml2.a is not statically linked. The only difference seems to be that if you specify -lxml2, then that library is added to the dynamic load list for the shared object... and if you don't, then it must be explicitly loaded with the LoadFile called out in the config file. Since the config file calls it out explicitly, and since it's normally loaded up manually anyway on other platforms, I'm inclined to stick with the slightly more complicated way of loading libxml2.so up explictly... just to be compatible with other distros. -- 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 452470] Review-Request: perl-Test-WWW-Selenium - Perl Client for the Selenium Remote Control test tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review-Request: perl-Test-WWW-Selenium - Perl Client for the Selenium Remote Control test tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452470 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 04:05 EST --- Parag: I'm sorry for that. The correct URL is: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/mock-results/perl-Test-WWW-Selenium-1.15-2.el5.noarch/perl-Test-WWW-Selenium-1.15-2.el5.src.rpm Thanks! -- 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 444760] Review Request: obm - Open Business 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: obm - Open Business Management https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444760 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 04:10 EST --- Grrr, see #447921 You should also note than version 2.1.10 is out... -- 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] 2008-06-29 04:11 EST --- 2. tight you to a in-release scheme, 1. is the most flexible, but 3. is also possible, indeed, if the scheme changes, one can afterward use 1.7.09.X So I'd prefer 1. or 3., as you like. -- 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 444760] Review Request: obm - Open Business 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: obm - Open Business Management https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444760 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 04:14 EST --- Created an attachment (id=310528) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=310528action=view) init script for satellite Init script fixed to : - use localized message - user daemon command to display success/failure status - user killproc command to display success/failure status - change restart option to really restart the daemon - add reload option -- 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 444760] Review Request: obm - Open Business 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: obm - Open Business Management https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444760 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 04:17 EST --- Created an attachment (id=310529) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=310529action=view) Apache conf file Apache configuration file fixed to - change Directory to /usr/share/obm (upper) - move php-value/php-flag in directory - comment log (should only be uncomment with virtual host) - add php_flag display_errors Off (obm produce a lot of notice) -- 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 444760] Review Request: obm - Open Business 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: obm - Open Business Management https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444760 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||447921 -- 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 444760] Review Request: obm - Open Business 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: obm - Open Business Management https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444760 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #310528|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 04:34 EST --- Created an attachment (id=310530) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=310530action=view) init script for satellite -- 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 444760] Review Request: obm - Open Business 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: obm - Open Business Management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444760
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 04:39 EST ---
Missing /var/log/obm used by satellite.
Cycle in link to satellite conf file.
You must change from
pushd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/%{name}-satellite/
ln -s ./%{name}Satellite.cf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/obm-satellite/%{name}Satellite.cf
To
ln -s ../../..%{_sysconfdir}/%{name}-satellite/%{name}Satellite.cf \
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/obm-satellite/
--
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 450410] Review Request: multiget - A multi-thread http/ftp file downloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: multiget - A multi-thread http/ftp file downloader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450410 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 04:52 EST --- Okay, your pre-review seems good to some extent for initial comments. This package (multiget) is APPROVED by me Please follow the procedure written on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from Get a Fedora Account. At a point a mail should be sent to sponsor members which notifies that you need a sponsor. At the stage, please also write on this bug for confirmation that you requested for sponsorship and your FAS (Fedora Account System) name. Then I will sponsor you. If you want to import this package into Fedora 8/9, you also have to look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT (after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system). If you have questions, please ask 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 433926] Review Request: freehoo - Freehoo is a free console based messenger for Yahoo IM Service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: freehoo - Freehoo is a free console based messenger for Yahoo IM Service https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433926 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 05:32 EST --- +-+ | This package is APPROVED by 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 451744] Review Request: root - The CERN analyzer for high to medium energy physics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: root - The CERN analyzer for high to medium energy physics https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451744 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 05:36 EST --- Missing buildRequires, at least: libGL-devel libGLU-devel postgresql-devel mysql-devel krb5-devel fftw-devel python-devel qt4-devel ftgl-devel gcc-gfortran python-devel Some may not really needed because they are in turn dependencies of other BuildRequires. The internal libAfterImage is used, there is this: WARNING: System libAfterImage is too new, using built-in this should be fixed. A libafterimage library is shipped which is clearly wrong. Also there is a minicern library, instead the system cern library, in cernlib-utils should be used. Then the 2 apps depending on the cernlib could be in a separate package. It would be nice if you could remove the in-source 3rd party library directories before doing the build, to be sure that they are not used. There are 2 files installed not packaged: /usr/bin/g2root /usr/bin/h2root The libraries should have a soname, you should add --enable-soversion Currently the programs don't start because the shared libraries are not found by the dynamic loader. To correct that you should add a file in /etc/ld.so.conf.d The fedora build flags are not used. Some binary names are too generic in my opinion, namely: root, roots, genmap, xrd How is the python ROOT module used? Shouldn't it be in the python directories? And similar with genreflex. And there is also a /usr/lib/root/writer.py which looks dubious. How is it used? In any case it should certainly be below %_datadir (or in the python dirs). A separate package should be done for the (x)emacs stuff, there are guidelines for that. Many files and directories that are in %_sysconfdir doesn't look like configuration, like /etc/root/html/ /etc/root/RadioNuclides.txt /etc/root/gdb-backtrace.sh /etc/root/valgrind-root.supp /etc/root/root.mimes /etc/root/proof/ Most should certainly be in %_datadir Is /etc/root/vmc/ really needed? If needed it certainly should be in %_datadir and in -devel. Are the files in /usr/share/root/plugins/ used at runtime? (they are in root-devel) According to the doc, it seems that the files in /etc/profile.d are not needed. root-config may also be useful at runtime to have programs find the paths/arch, at least it is used in root.sh (though it is not useful for linux). I am not sure that the root icons should be in /usr/share/icons/ this directory is for icon themes conforming with freedesktop. It should certainly better be in /usr/share/root/icons At least a .desktop file is missing for root, and maybe more. What is the difference between root and root.exe? in the root.mime file, external applications should use xdg-open. Because of the loader issue above I cannot test, but I'd like to have an example showing when the cint header files are needed. In the init.d files, you should remove references to environment variables. in the xrootd there is a @libdir@, but in fact all that relates to LD_LIBRARY_PATH should be removed. Also there should be example /etc/sysconfig/*d to show even in a very sketchy way what can go in these files. It even seems to me than some variales should be mandatorily set in these sysconfig files, like XRDUSER. Corresponding users should be created, there is a related guideline for user and group creation. Looks like there are many things done in /tmp, it would be nice to be sure that what is done here is always done with unpredictable names, to avoid the race in tmp security issue. There are many dependencies that are not in fedora (like pythia, castor, globus...) some of which may be free software other aren't. In general I insist on having all the free software dependencies in fedora, but in that case this means really too much. There is one dep already in fedora, unuran, you could try to use it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2008-06-29 06:08 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) Thanks for the review. Are you waiting to be sponsored? Yes, I am and I'd appreciate sponsorship. Could you please point me to other work you have done in fedora? -- 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 444264] Review Request: usb_modeswitch - brings umts / 4g cards into operational mode
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: usb_modeswitch - brings umts / 4g cards into operational mode https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444264 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 06:10 EST --- romal is correct and he now is sponsored. -- 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] 2008-06-29 06:23 EST --- Added the getext BR and the comment: http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/xdialog-2.3.1-3.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 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
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 06:32 EST ---
(In reply to comment #19)
I note you're not using the dist tag; you package enough things in Fedora
that I
assume you can deal with the issues, but lately even experienced packagers
have
run into issues caused by not using the dist tag so I would still recommend
it.
What kind of issue? It seems to me that for noarch packages like this
one no %dist is better.
There is an issue of directory dependency for the -doc subpackage.
First it seems that the location should be
%{_texmf}/doc/latex/%{real_name}
Then for directory owning it should depend on texlive-texmf or on
texlive-texmf-doc.
I don't think the tetex-doc dependency is strictly needed, however, contrary
to what I imply with Comment #13.
Last think is that maybe you could use tex(latex) instead of tetex-latex
if don't target F-8.
--
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 453194] Review Request: vagalume - A Last.fm client for Gnome and Maemo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vagalume - A Last.fm client for Gnome and Maemo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453194 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 06:54 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) This was already submitted and then rejected for Fedora; the review was moved to Livna. Have circumstances changed such that this should go into Fedora? See bug 445036. The situation is still the same. Closing as a duplicate of bug 445036 and adding it to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WishList#General_Fedora_Packages_WishList *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 445036 *** -- 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 445036] Review Request: vagalume - Last.fm client for GNOME and Maemo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vagalume - Last.fm client for GNOME and Maemo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445036 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 06:54 EST --- *** Bug 453194 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 433253] Review Request: dotconf - Required for speech dispatcher on OLPC XO
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dotconf - Required for speech dispatcher on OLPC XO https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433253 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 07:59 EST --- I am getting this error while performing import of dotconf repository [EMAIL PROTECTED] rpmbuild]$ ssh-add --help Enter passphrase for /home/Assim/.ssh/id_rsa: Identity added: /home/Assim/.ssh/id_rsa (/home/Assim/.ssh/id_rsa) Identity added: /home/Assim/.ssh/id_dsa (/home/Assim/.ssh/id_dsa) [EMAIL PROTECTED] rpmbuild]$ fedora-cvs dotconf Checking out dotconf from fedora cvs: Error: Permission denied (publickey,keyboard-interactive). cvs [checkout aborted]: end of file from server (consult above messages if any) i have used same keys before also and it has worked. I later found that in FAS account i have uploaded id-dsa key instead of id-rsa. I have replaced it still i am getting same error. have i missed something? -- 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] 2008-06-29 07:56 EST --- Thank you tibbs. Do you want to be in initialCC for cvs request ? -- 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 447159] Review Request: ocsinventory - Open Computer and Software Inventory Next Generation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocsinventory - Open Computer and Software Inventory Next Generation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447159 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 433253] Review Request: dotconf - Required for speech dispatcher on OLPC XO
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dotconf - Required for speech dispatcher on OLPC XO https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433253 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 08:13 EST --- Well, first would you try to re-download fedora-upload-ca.cert available from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Install_the_Client_Tools_.28Koji.29 and re-run fedora-packager-setup ? -- 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 442244] Review Request: fotox - Program for improving image files made with a digital camera
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fotox - Program for improving image files made with a digital camera https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442244 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|NEW Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |.com) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 08:47 EST --- Well I sent a patch to upstream to add an autotools based buildsys because upstream was saying it was too complicated. Upstream has yet to release a version with this patch. Will ping him next week. -- 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 450482] libibumad package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: libibumad package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450482 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 09:31 EST --- 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 450481] libibcommon package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: libibcommon package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450481 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 09:30 EST --- OK, its 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 450483] libibmad package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: libibmad package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450483 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 09:33 EST --- 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 450410] Review Request: multiget - A multi-thread http/ftp file downloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: multiget - A multi-thread http/ftp file downloader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450410 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 09:39 EST --- (In reply to comment #17) Then I will sponsor you. As written in comment #2 I am willing to sponsor Guido, in fact I already did, so I'm removing FE-NEEDSPINSOR blocker now. Guido and me know each other from real life and we are both German, which simplifies communication a lot. Nevertheless thanks a lot for offering sponsorship to Guido and for helping out with this 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 450410] Review Request: multiget - A multi-thread http/ftp file downloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: multiget - A multi-thread http/ftp file downloader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450410 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 09:57 EST --- (In reply to comment #18) As written in comment #2 I am willing to sponsor Guido, in fact I already did, so I'm removing FE-NEEDSPINSOR blocker now. Guido and me know each other from real life and we are both German, which simplifies communication a lot. Ah, that is much better! Thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 450539] Review Request: service-discovery-applet - Service discovery applet based on Avahi for the Gnome panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: service-discovery-applet - Service discovery applet based on Avahi for the Gnome panel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450539 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 11:07 EST --- Not an official review, just a few thoughts: I suggest to name this package gnome-applet-service-discovery, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28General.29 Better name a svn snapshot after the revision and not the date, because then the reviewer can simply check out the correrct version with svn co -rX svn://svn.0pointer.de/service-discovery-applet/trunk service-discovery-applet I see you define both python_sitelib and python_sitearch. Please remove the unneeded definition. You are missing a requirement: $ service-discovery-applet Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/bin/service-discovery-applet, line 51, in module error_msg(_(A required python module is missing!\n%s) % (e)) File /usr/bin/service-discovery-applet, line 29, in error_msg d = gtk.MessageDialog(parent=None, flags=gtk.DIALOG_MODAL, NameError: global name 'gtk' is not defined running service-discovery-config gives a messagebox saying: Ein benötigtes Python Modul fehlt! No module named avahi Not sure if we have a python-avahi 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 433253] Review Request: dotconf - Required for speech dispatcher on OLPC XO
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dotconf - Required for speech dispatcher on OLPC XO https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433253 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 11:26 EST --- the error message indicates ssh auth failure. make sure the key you are using is the same as the key you have uploaded to FAS -- 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] 2008-06-29 11:42 EST --- I do not; thanks. I do far too many reviews to be CC'd on all of them. -- 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 453264] Review Request: jscoverage - A tool that measures code coverage for JavaScript programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jscoverage - A tool that measures code coverage for JavaScript programs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453264 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 11:50 EST --- Grr. Well, Spec URL: http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/review/jscoverage.spec SRPM URL: http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/review/jscoverage-0.3.2-0.1.rc1.fc9.src.rpm have been updated after talking some with upstream. They don't install the js stuff anymore, but it was noticed that jscoverage statically links against the js that's built during the build process. I've asked upstream to help me work up a configure option that has it dynamically link against the system js, we'll see where that goes. -- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 11:58 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: clive Short Description: clive - Video extraction tool for user-uploaded video hosts Owners: eponyme 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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 12:16 EST --- You still have to keep the release tag different between branches; without dist you just have to do it manually, and even experienced packagers have issues. Especially since you generally import into devel first, but its release has to be higher than the others. You are absolutely correct about the doc directory; _texmf/doc/tex doesn't actually seem to exist in the distro. I know I checked it, but I was trusting you on the tetex-doc dependency; I honestly don't understand why it would be necessary, but I'm not TeX expert and I figured it wouldn't really hurt anything. I'm curious as to why you said it was necessary, though. Also, since you seem to know more about TeX than I, are the texhash scriptlets really necessary for the -doc package? Did the F8 tex packages grow the tex(latex) provides? It doesn't look like it from 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 448397] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top
command
Alias: ntop_package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448397
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 12:27 EST ---
E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/sbin/ntop ['/usr/lib64']
E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libntopreport-3.3.so
['/usr/lib64']
These need to be fixed. The information at
I was not able to reproduce on my m/c. Will try to check on 64 bit m/c
W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libntop-3.3.so /lib64/
libcrypt.so.1
W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libntop-3.3.so /lib64/
libnsl.so.1
W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libntop-3.3.so /lib64/
libssl.so.7
W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libntop-3.3.so /usr/lib64/
libsensors.so.4
These indicate that the ntop libs are linked against various other libraries
Fixed.
You can drop the %if 0%{?fedora} = 7 conditional stuff
Fixed.
Spec URL: http://rakesh.gnulinuxcentar.org/ntop.spec
SRPM URL: http://rakesh.gnulinuxcentar.org/ntop-3.3-3.fc8.src.rpm
Will update soon on rpath.
--
Rakesh Pandit
--
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 451996] Review Request: prover9 - Thereom Prover and Countermodel Generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: prover9 - Thereom Prover and Countermodel Generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451996 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 12:40 EST --- *** Bug 428410 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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 428410] Review Request: LADR - Library for Automated Deduction Research
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: LADR - Library for Automated Deduction Research https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428410 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 12:40 EST --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 451996 *** -- 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 450616] opensm package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: opensm package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450616
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 13:08 EST ---
Hi Doug, thank you for submitting an opensm package for Fedora. Here is a
quick review:
GOOD:
+ source matches upstream:
f2f47a9bad4ba3ed1c48361dfc8f21826882b7cb opensm-3.2.1.tar.gz
f2f47a9bad4ba3ed1c48361dfc8f21826882b7cb opensm-3.2.1.tar.gz.UP
+ license is correct and correctly included
+ permissions look good
+ dir ownership looks good
+ with dependencies installed, local builds on F8 x86_64 succeed
+ rpmlint reports:
opensm.src: W: strange-permission opensm.initd 0775
opensm.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/logrotate.d/opensm
opensm.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/sbin/osmtest
['/usr/lib64',
'/u/u0/ehill/rpmbuild/BUILD/opensm-3.2.1/osmtest/../../libibumad/.libs',
'/u/u0/ehill/rpmbuild/BUILD/opensm-3.2.1/osmtest/../../libibcommon/.libs']
opensm.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/sbin/opensm
['/usr/lib64',
'/u/u0/ehill/rpmbuild/BUILD/opensm-3.2.1/opensm/../../libibumad/.libs',
'/u/u0/ehill/rpmbuild/BUILD/opensm-3.2.1/opensm/../../libibcommon/.libs']
opensm.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
opensm.x86_64: E: malformed-line-in-lsb-comment-block #
opensm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
opensm-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
opensm-libs.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
/usr/lib64/libosmvendor.so.2.0.0 ['/usr/lib64']
opensm-libs.x86_64: W: one-line-command-in-%post /sbin/ldconfig
opensm-libs.x86_64: W: one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig
opensm-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
NEEDSWORK:
+ First, the rpath issues. I've tried to put together a patch that removes
the rpaths from the configure script and some of the Makefile.in-s but so
far I've failed to remove all of them. And, removing some of the rpaths
breaks the install since certain *.la{i,} files won't get generated.
Perhaps someone with stronger hack-fu can (please?) take a look at it?
Or, perhaps we can just ignore these rather-annoying rpath warnings
since it is something specific to just these two opensm executables (and
cannot cause any std-path problems for other packages since they are not
shared libs).
+ Please delete the blank line in the LSB comment block.
+ Please use '%post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig' and
'%postun libs -p /sbin/ldconfig'
I haven't (yet) had the time to install and run it on a machine with
IB hardware -- will try that next.
--
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 450686] Review Request: R-RSQLite - SQLite Interface for R
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: R-RSQLite - SQLite Interface for R https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450686 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review+ Bug 450686 depends on bug 450685, which changed state. Bug 450685 Summary: Review Request: R-DBI - Database Interface for R https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450685 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 13:14 EST --- I'd suggest using http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/RSQLite/index.html for the URL, as it actually has some information about the package. * source files match upstream: 8eb6faf25b494db17c74e0a83099839796539ae059cc8fd58fbac13aac2c63d8 RSQLite_0.6-9.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: RSQLite.so()(64bit) R-RSQLite = 0.6-3.fc10 = /bin/bash /bin/sh R R-DBI libR.so()(64bit) * %check is present and all tests pass. * 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. * scriptlets OK (R package registration) * 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 453224] Review Request: prelude-correlator - Correlates IDMEF events for prelude-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: prelude-correlator - Correlates IDMEF events for prelude-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 13:19 EST --- This fails to build for me: + install -m 755 /builddir/build/SOURCES/prelude-correlator.init /var/tmp/prelude-correlator-0.9.0-1.fc10-root-mockbuild/etc/rc.d/init.d/prelude-correlator install: cannot stat `/builddir/build/SOURCES/prelude-correlator.init': No such file or directory -- 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 445010] Review Request: xvarstar - an astronomical program used for searching GCVS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xvarstar - an astronomical program used for searching GCVS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445010 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 13:21 EST --- Pablo Martin Gomez has suggested me two minor things for the packages. Fistr, I didn't update %release after Marek suggestions, and the ':' wasn't well-placed into %description. Here are updated spec and srpm : http://www.telimektar.com/rpm/xvarstar/release-2/xvarstar.spec http://www.telimektar.com/rpm/xvarstar/release-2/xvarstar-0.9-2.fc9.src.rpm Also, Marek, Pablo seems to be ok for reviewing me, are you still ok for maintaining xvarstar, and mark me as co-mainainer ? -- 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] 2008-06-29 13:31 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) * The debuginfos were somewhat useless without the -g option. Now it uses Fedora's own CFLAGS automatically. My intention was to use -g from the beginning -w was there by mistake. Anyway the best aproach is fedora's own CFLAGS. I've modified the file and bump release: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/alevt.spec http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/alevt-1.6.2-2.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 449151] Review Request: pyodbc - Python DB API 2.0 Module for ODBC
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pyodbc - Python DB API 2.0 Module for ODBC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449151 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- 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 453224] Review Request: prelude-correlator - Correlates IDMEF events for prelude-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: prelude-correlator - Correlates IDMEF events for prelude-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 13:52 EST --- Doh! Added Source1 which holds the init script. New srpm and spec file uploaded. -- 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 433926] Review Request: freehoo - Freehoo is a free console based messenger for Yahoo IM Service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: freehoo - Freehoo is a free console based messenger for Yahoo IM Service https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433926 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 13:57 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: freehoo Short Description: Console based Yahoo Client Owners: rayvd Branches: F-8 F-9 EL-4 EL-5 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 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and 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: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 13:57 EST ---
Then I guess the next question is whether you would like a review of this now or
whether you've opened this to track the development effort. Not that I can
promise to do a review myself, of course; this is a big package and several
people will probably needed share the review work.
Some initial comments from a quick look at the spec; I did not build the
package:
Please use the proper versioning scheme for prerelease packages:
Release: 0.1.alpha%{alpha_version}%{?dist}
^
and increment the '1' with each new release until 4.0.0 is actually released, at
which point you can just go to Release: 1%{?dist}. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
Please use the correct License: tag; comma-separation is ambiguous and not
valid. I'm not sure if the code is triple-licensed or if different pieces of
the built package have different licenses, but both situations are covered in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines.
Any possibility of parallel make?
The ldconfig call in %install is confusing to me. What's it for?
Please use the proper scriptlets for user/group creation;
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UsersAndGroups
Shouldn't the condrestart go in %postun, not %post?
You need the proper dependencies for the scriptlets.
Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig, /sbin/service
and so on.
--
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 451996] Review Request: prover9 - Thereom Prover and Countermodel Generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: prover9 - Thereom Prover and Countermodel Generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 14:01 EST --- Some random comments on 200805a-1: * About prover9-libtoolise.patch - This patch seems to be for providing shared library named libladr.so.4. However if the original tarball does not provide any shared library by default, this way is dangerous because we cannot guess with what soversion the upstream developer comes to provide shared library in the future. At this stage the number 4:0:0 can be chosen arbitrarily without any ground. See also the explanation by Patrice Dumas: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PatriceDumas So if this package only provides static archives by default, please follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries of static libraries only. * Compilation flags - This package completely ignores Fedora specific compilation flags: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags You can check what flags must be passed by $ rpm --eval %optflags This also reads to creating non-useful debuginfo rpm. * Timestamps - When using %__install or %__cp commands, add -p option to keep timestamps on installed files. * Unneeded ldconfig call - This -devel package does not need to call /sbin/ldconfig on scriptlets. * Too generic names - Again filenames like attack or renamer, rewriter, etc... are too generic for files to be installed under %_bindir. Also it may be that the names isofilter? are also dangerous, as my system already has iso-info or isoinfo () or isosize or so. Would you rename these binaries to prover9-??? or move these under %_libdir/%name , for example? -- 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 14:24 EST --- (In reply to comment #21) You still have to keep the release tag different between branches; without dist you just have to do it manually, and even experienced packagers have issues. Especially since you generally import into devel first, but its release has to be higher than the others. Higher or equal. But indeed, it is less easy to bump in previous release without becoming greater than devel. However the dist really doesn't makes sense here. You are absolutely correct about the doc directory; _texmf/doc/tex doesn't actually seem to exist in the distro. I know I checked it, but I was trusting you on the tetex-doc dependency; I honestly don't understand why it would be necessary, but I'm not TeX expert and I figured it wouldn't really hurt anything. (tetex/texlive)-doc holds the texdoc utility which can be used to view docs in the texmf tree. texlive-texmf-doc holds most of the documentation, and the _texmf/doc/latex is owned by texlive-texmf and texlive-texmf-doc. So the texlive-texmf or texlive-texmf-doc is in my opinion needed for directory owning. But (tetex/texlive)-doc is less needed, in my opinion, the doc can be viewed without texdoc. Also, since you seem to know more about TeX than I, are the texhash scriptlets really necessary for the -doc package? Yes, they are if in the texmf tree, since then they can be accessed by texdoc which uses kpathsea to locate them. Did the F8 tex packages grow the tex(latex) provides? It doesn't look like it from here. No it doesn't, but I said in Comment #20 not to do it is F-8 is targeted. -- 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 451189] Review Request: rancid - Really Awesome New Cisco confIg Differ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: rancid - Really Awesome New Cisco confIg Differ
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451189
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 14:26 EST ---
Some ramdom comments:
* Licensing
- Well, the license of LICENSE.txt as shown on the URL is actually NON-FREE,
so
the license cannot be accepted on Fedora. However as far as I checked the
source
tarball, this software is licensed under BSD with advertising.
Note that anyway we don't allow the license tag such as
Freely redistributable without restriction.
* Versioning
- This package seems to be a pre-version for 2.3.2. In such case the current
versioning
is wrong. Please refer to:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
* builds
- Your package does not build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=685315
build.log says that at least ping binary (in iputils) is missing from
BuildRequires.
* perl module dependency
- When adding perl module dependency as (Build)Requires, please don't write
the rpm
names directly but write what modules the rpms provide:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Perl_Requires_and_Provides
* Macros
- Use macros correctly. For example, /etc must be %{_sysconfdir}.
- Also, using the directory %{_prefix}/local is not allowed on Fedora.
* Inproper scriptlets
- You must call mkdir chown ln chmod commands on scriptlets except for
very special
cases.
As same as other packages, for this package you must create the needed
directories
by the time %install ends, and must add those directories to %files entry
and
set attribute correctly by using %attr.
* Directory ownership issue
- Please make it sure that all directories which are created by installing
this packages
are correctly owned by this package.
Currently %{_sysconfdir}/rancid/, %{_datadir}/rancid/ are not owned by any
packages.
* %changelog version
- The EVR (Epoch:Version:Release) number of this package does not coincide
with the
last entry on %changelog.
Please make it sure that when you modify your spec file, you also change the
release number
of the spec file to avoid confusion.
--
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] 2008-06-29 14:28 EST ---
Okay. Between 1 and 3 I'd prefer 3, because if the scheme NEVER changes, it will
sort correctly into the indefinite future.
So:
0.20070911.X%{?dist}
it is.
I'll add a comment line explaining it. I don't know of any other issues with
the package, let me know if there are any.
--
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: tex-zfuzz - 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: tex-zfuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452559 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Summary|Review Request: zfuzz - Z |Review Request: tex-zfuzz - |fuzz - Type-checker and |Type-checker and LaTeX style |LaTeX style for Z spec |for Z spec language |language| Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 14:35 EST --- * rpmlint is silent * follow guidelines * free software, license included. * match upstream 4e4d00d8571b14919f95f041a927f71b fuzzman-2up.pdf e3eb1467804bf4bf5b8dcf8eed773c69 fuzzman.pdf c3145cea9c6f16fb02e068fd1ea669a9 refcard-2up.pdf 082297daa993c97d8e35fb75f8bb2810 refcard-3up.pdf be69ba14a3b997bcde65828a34909e67 refcard.pdf 9f021c0e68f8f4616095f57ff2192c6f fuzz-2007-09-11.tar.gz * %files section right APPROVED Did you apply to sponsorship? -- 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 235672] Review Request: zope3 - Zope 3 web application server framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zope3 - Zope 3 web application server framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=235672 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 14:42 EST --- Suggestion, if you need Python 2.4 you should open a review in rhe rpmfussion project, because they have a compat-python-2.4 package which you ma need for zope. -- 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 452688] Review Request: dbus-java - Java implementation of the DBus 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: dbus-java - Java implementation of the DBus protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452688 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? Bug 452688 depends on bug 452251, which changed state. Bug 452251 Summary: Review Request: libmatthew-java - collection of java libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452251 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 14:50 EST --- This builds fine. The only rpmlint complaint is: dbus-java.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.5-1.fc9 2.5-1.fc10 which happens because I'm building this on rawhide. Normally you just don't include the dist tag in your changelog versions. I'm a bit confused by the installed wrapper scripts; they all contain: JARPATH=/usr/local/share/java which doesn't seem correct. Installing and running ListDBus gives me: Exception in thread main java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: org/freedesktop/dbus/bin/ListDBus Caused by: java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: org.freedesktop.dbus.bin.ListDBus at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:217) [...] The guidelines are unfortunately silent on the subject of symlinking the jar files, but this seems to be common enough. * source files match upstream: 2b2001aa2fccc6cc3eedfeb35d2c7b13e52811c27820f27f0f6ce0e8f547ad65 dbus-java-2.5.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint has one minor complaint which is easy to fix. * final provides and requires are sane: dbus-java-2.5-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm dbus-2.5.jar.so()(64bit) dbus-bin-2.5.jar.so()(64bit) dbus-viewer-2.5.jar.so()(64bit) dbus-java = 2.5-1.fc10 = /bin/sh java-1.6.0-openjdk java-gcj-compat = 1.0.31 jpackage-utils libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) dbus-java-javadoc-2.5-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm dbus-java-javadoc = 2.5-1.fc10 = jpackage-utils X %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I'm not sure how to test this, honestly, since I don't know much about dbus, but just running ListDBus seems to fail badly. * 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. * scriptlets are OK; gcj-rebuild-db stuff. * code, not content. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no pre-built jars * single jar, named after the package * jarfiles are under _javadir. * javadocs are under _javadocdir. X wrapper scripts provided, but not working properly. * gcj called properly. -- 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 453264] Review Request: jscoverage - A tool that measures code coverage for JavaScript programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jscoverage - A tool that measures code coverage for JavaScript programs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453264 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 14:51 EST --- message from upstream (that I will later put in the spec file itself): From: Ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Packaging jscoverage for Fedora Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:01:38 -0500 (13:01 EDT) Jesse Keating wrote: Hrm, that exposes a different problem. Fedora has a pretty strict policy with regard to statically compiled software, in that you have to have a really really good reason to bring it in and have the exception on file. Are there any ways to compile jscoverage against the shared js library? The Mozilla SpiderMonkey js library is intended to be used as a JavaScript interpreter, but JSCoverage uses it for parsing, rather than interpreting, JavaScript. Unfortunately the parsing functions are not public and could possibly change any time the library is upgraded. I think the above qualifies as a good reason to allow static linking. I'm ready to have this package reviewed. The only current rpmlint output is a number of .css files in the examples have dos line endings, which doesn't effect their use. If not necessary I'd rather not munge those files during package build. -- 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 227116] Review Request: servletapi4-4.0.4-4jpp - 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: servletapi4-4.0.4-4jpp - Java servlet and JSP implementation classes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227116 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 15:02 EST --- Good: + Local build works fine. + Mock build works fine. Bad: - Rpmlint complaints source rpm: $ rpmlint servletapi4-4.0.4-4jpp.src.rpm servletapi4.src:50: W: unversioned-explicit-provides servlet servletapi4.src:57: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes servlet4 servletapi4.src:58: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes servlet23 servletapi4.src:59: W: unversioned-explicit-provides servlet4 servletapi4.src:60: W: unversioned-explicit-provides servlet23 servletapi4.src:74: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT servletapi4.src:75: W: setup-not-quiet servletapi4.src:173: W: macro-in-%changelog name servletapi4.src: E: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install servletapi4.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 31) servletapi4.src: W: non-standard-group Internet/WWW/Dynamic Content servletapi4.src: W: invalid-license Apache License servletapi4.src: E: unknown-key GPG#c431416d 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 11 warnings. - Package contains wrong Group tag - Package should not contains Vendor tag - Package should not contains Distribution tag. - Source tag contains not a full quallified URI - Package doesn't contains buildRequires and Requires to java - Rpmlint conplaints binary package: $ rpmlint servletapi4-4.0.4-4jpp.noarch.rpm servletapi4.noarch: W: non-standard-group Internet/WWW/Dynamic Content servletapi4.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 4.0.4-4jpp 0:4.0.4-4jpp servletapi4.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache License 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. - Rpmlint complaints javadoc rpm: $ rpmlint servletapi4-javadoc-4.0.4-4jpp.noarch.rpm servletapi4-javadoc.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation servletapi4-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache License 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. -- 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 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
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 15:32 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM: 31 warnings triggered by the fact that all example files are marked
executable; quite ugly at the first sight but since no additional dependency is
pulled in + it is intentional to have the examples runable by default (as
opposed to using sh example file ), I will not object
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: 292c552506633c54a28d51aa290277b7b5c0c708
Xdialog-2.3.1.tar.bz2
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[x] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
It is a GUI, but requires a mandatory argument when run, so a desktop file to
launch it would be useless. A comment specofying this aspect is included in the
spec
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on:devel/x86_64, F7/x86_64
[x] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
*** 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] 2008-06-29 15:36 EST --- Since the original sources do not really have a license specified (but only include the standard COPYING file), I suggest to act according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ (Now, keep in mind that most upstreams are probably leaving the versioning out by accident. If you get to case 4, you definitely want to let upstream know that you are unable to determine the applicable version(s) of the license from the source and documentation. They'll almost certainly let you know what their intended license version is, and (hopefully) correct it in the upstream source. ). -- 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 446841] Review Request: sippy - B2BUA SIP call controlling 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: sippy - B2BUA SIP call controlling component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446841 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 15:37 EST --- This did not build for me: Processing files: sippy-0-1.20080515cvs.fc10 Executing(%doc): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.38465 error: File not found by glob: /var/tmp/sippy-0-1.20080515cvs.fc10-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/* and later: Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /var/tmp/sippy-0-1.20080515cvs.fc10-root-mockbuild error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/sippy-0.0-py2.5.egg-info /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/sippy/CCEvents.py /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/sippy/CCEvents.pyc and so on, for every installed file. Looks like you're using sitearch when you should be using sitelib, since this is a noarch package. I can't imagine that this package could ever actually build, but somehow you got rpmlint output. As you currently have things, this is just a python module and should be called python-sippy. Even if it has some scripts but is still mainly used as a module, I'd name it as a module. But if it's an application that happens to bundle modules for its own use, then name it after the application. If you expect that the examples will actually need to be called by people during regular use then they should be in _bindir. Otherwise they should be packaged as documentation, and generally not be made executable. Although it's not really a problem (i.e. a review blocker) for them to be executable as long as they don't pull in dependencies that the package wouldn't have were they not executable. -- 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 445068] Review Request: ocaml-bin-prot - Read and write OCaml values in a type-safe binary 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: ocaml-bin-prot - Read and write OCaml values in a type-safe binary protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445068 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard||NotReady --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 16:17 EST --- No problem; just clear the whiteboard when you're ready for a 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 449869] Review Request: tasque - A simple task management app
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: tasque - A simple task management app
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449869
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 16:32 EST ---
Some random comments on 0.1.5-1:
* Version
- Current newest tarball seems 0.1.6.
* tarball
- As the upstream ships bzip2 compressed tarball, please use it.
* BuildRequires:
- Currently mono-core is not available on ppc64. So
this package needs 'ExcludeArch: ppc64'.
* Timestamps
- To keep timestamps on installed files, please consider to use:
--
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL=install -p
--
This method usually works for recent autotool based Makefiles.
* Installed directory
- Currently this package installs somefiles under %{_prefix}/lib/%{name},
which is wrong for 64 bits machine (x86_64, where %{_prefix}/lib
is /usr/lib while %{_libdir} is /usr/lib64).
Please apply a patch so that this package use %{_libdir}/%{name}
* Directory ownership issue
- Please make it sure that all directories created when installing
this package are owned correctly by this package.
Currently %{_libdir}/%{name}, %{_datadir}/%{name} are not owned by
any packages.
* GTK icon cache update
- As this package installs icons under %_datadir/icons/hicolor, please
follow
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#GTK.2B_icon_cache
* defattr
- Please unify defattr usage to %defattr(-,root,root,-)
* Requires
- It seems that this package needs some Requires:
On my system:
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ tasque
** (Tasque.exe:5510): WARNING **: The following assembly referenced from
/usr/lib/tasque/Tasque.exe could not be loaded:
Assembly: gnome-sharp(assemblyref_index=2)
Version:2.16.0.0
Public Key: 35e10195dab3c99f
The assembly was not found in the Global Assembly Cache, a path listed in the
MONO_PATH environment variable, or in the location of the executing assembly
(/usr/lib/tasque/).
** (Tasque.exe:5510): WARNING **: Could not load file or assembly 'gnome-sharp,
Version=2.16.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=35e10195dab3c99f' or one of
its dependencies.
Unhandled Exception: System.TypeLoadException: Could not load type
'Tasque.Application' from assembly 'Tasque, Version=0.0.0.0, Culture=neutral'.
---
Please make it sure that you change the release number of the spec file every
time
you modify your spec file when version number does not change.
--
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 453335] New: Review Request: systemc - Design and verification language for Hardware
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=453335 Summary: Review Request: systemc - Design and verification language for Hardware 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://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/systemC/systemc.spec SRPM URL: http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/systemC/systemc-2.2.0-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: SystemC™ is a language built in standard C++ by extending the language with the use of class libraries. SystemC addresses the need for a system design and verification language that spans hardware and software. SystemC is listed among Fedora Electronic Lab (FEL) packages. -- 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 17:05 EST --- Honestly, I really meant different releases. A package this small is not going to get the manual copy and inheritance behavior, you cannot tag the exact same EVR into two different branches, and if you could tag them you wouldn't be able to build them, and if you could build them bodhi wouldn't let you issue updates for them. So I'm really not kidding, the releases will need to be different. So that's why I just recommend using the dist tag and saving the trouble of keeping the releases straight manually. But it's up to the maintainer, of course. -- 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 453264] Review Request: jscoverage - A tool that measures code coverage for JavaScript programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jscoverage - A tool that measures code coverage for
JavaScript programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453264
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 17:23 EST ---
There's more than just css files in doc; I don't know why license files are
buried down in there, but who knows. Anyway, one line fixes everything up:
find doc -type f -exec sed -i 's/\r//' {} \;
There's a test suite in the tarball; it runs fine with:
%check
cd tests
make check
The documentation is a bit over half the package. The whole thing is only a bit
over a megabyte so I wouldn't really worry about it, though if this becomes a
dependency of many other packages I'd consider splitting it to a subpackage.
I need to run now, but that really looks to be about all there is to say.
--
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 231786] Review Request: multiget - easy-to-use GUI file downloader for Windows/Linux/BSDs/MacOs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: multiget - easy-to-use GUI file downloader for Windows/Linux/BSDs/MacOs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=231786 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 17:29 EST --- New review can be found here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450410 -- 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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 17:41 EST --- I see. Shouldn't this be considered as a bug in our infrastructure? -- 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: tex-zfuzz - 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: tex-zfuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452559 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 17:50 EST --- Did you apply to sponsorship? Not sure what you mean. I used the FE-NEEDSPONSOR bug in bugzilla, and applied to the cvsextras group on the Fedora accounts system (which seems to know I don't have a sponsor). Do I need to do something else? -- 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 453133] Review Request: nethogs - top-like tool for network bandwidth
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nethogs - top-like tool for network bandwidth https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453133 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version||0.7-2.20080627cvs.fc8 -- 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 453133] Review Request: nethogs - top-like tool for network bandwidth
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nethogs - top-like tool for network bandwidth https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453133 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 18:01 EST --- nethogs-0.7-2.20080627cvs.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 453133] Review Request: nethogs - top-like tool for network bandwidth
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nethogs - top-like tool for network bandwidth https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453133 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 18:00 EST --- nethogs-0.7-2.20080627cvs.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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: tex-zfuzz - 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: tex-zfuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452559 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 18:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #27) and applied to the cvsextras group on the Fedora accounts system (which seems to know I don't have a sponsor). That's what I meant. What is your account name? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and 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: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 18:28 EST --- This package is submitted for immediate review. I hope to see it included in Fedora well before the final release of Samba 4.0.0. Parallel make is specifically excluded in the samba4 build process. The ldconfig call in %install is to create the macros that a post-install ldconfig would provide, as required by rpmlint. The group add and other scriptlets are copied from the Samba 3.2 package. Please also file a bug there. Thanks! -- 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 448025] Review Request: player - Cross-platform robot device interface and server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: player - Cross-platform robot device interface and server Alias: player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448025 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 18:33 EST --- Thanks for all the comments. I'm going to reply as soon as possible but we are currently preparing hard for RoboCup in China (in two weeks) which limits time I can put into this. I hope to get some time during the evenings next week, otherwise after China. I'm on it, but slowed down. -- 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 450539] Review Request: service-discovery-applet - Service discovery applet based on Avahi for the Gnome panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: service-discovery-applet - Service discovery applet
based on Avahi for the Gnome panel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450539
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 18:43 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Not an official review, just a few thoughts:
I suggest to name this package gnome-applet-service-discovery, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28General.29
Hmm, this is different from upstream. My first search was for
service-discovery-applet so I wouldn't have found it with that name. Would yum
search provides lines to remedy this problem?
Better name a svn snapshot after the revision and not the date, because then
the
reviewer can simply check out the correrct version with
svn co -rX svn://svn.0pointer.de/service-discovery-applet/trunk
service-discovery-applet
So you can with the date, just use svn co -r{DATE}... Having a date usually
makes it easier to get a feeling how up2date the package really is. I've used
this for other packages already. Just assume someone tried to do this on git or
cvs stuff...
I see you define both python_sitelib and python_sitearch. Please remove the
unneeded definition.
I usually keep it for easy spawning new packages by copying. I can't see in the
guidelines that I shouldn't.
You are missing a requirement:
$ service-discovery-applet
Traceback (most recent call last):
File /usr/bin/service-discovery-applet, line 51, in module
error_msg(_(A required python module is missing!\n%s) % (e))
File /usr/bin/service-discovery-applet, line 29, in error_msg
d = gtk.MessageDialog(parent=None, flags=gtk.DIALOG_MODAL,
NameError: global name 'gtk' is not defined
running service-discovery-config gives a messagebox saying:
Ein benötigtes Python Modul fehlt!
No module named avahi
Not sure if we have a python-avahi package
Ah, needs to require avahi-tools, which contains the Python bindings for some
reason... Thanks for pointing this out!
I've uploaded a new SPEC (same URL as above) and new SRPM (at
http://fedorapeople.org/~timn/misc/service-discovery-applet-0.4.5-0.3.svn20080609.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 445010] Review Request: xvarstar - an astronomical program used for searching GCVS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xvarstar - an astronomical program used for searching GCVS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445010 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 20:16 EST --- I would like to be a co-maintainer. -- 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: tex-zfuzz - 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: tex-zfuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452559 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 23:51 EST --- (In reply to comment #28) My account name is dwheeler. -- 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: tex-zfuzz - 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: tex-zfuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452559 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-30 00:23 EST --- Here's the package, same as the old one except that I redid the version/release numbering as noted above. Also, I shortened the ChangeLog considerably; I doubt anyone wants great detail about what happened before it entered the repository. I reset the release number to 1; this release number format is completely different (and incompatible) from the previous ones anyway, so we may as well start fresh at 1. SRPM and .spec file at: http://www.dwheeler.com/tex-zfuzz-0-0.20070911.1.fc9.src.rpm http://www.dwheeler.com/tex-zfuzz.spec rpmlint is clean on .spec, binary i386 RPM, _and_ SRPM. koji build --scratch dist-f9 is clean on all 5 architectures. Did I misunderstand anything? Or see anything else that needs doing? -- 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 450148] Review Request: jedit - short java 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: jedit - short java editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450148 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-30 00:43 EST --- Would you update your srpm? -- 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 452470] Review-Request: perl-Test-WWW-Selenium - Perl Client for the Selenium Remote Control test tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review-Request: perl-Test-WWW-Selenium - Perl Client for the Selenium Remote Control test tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452470 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-30 00:42 EST --- Review: + package builds in mock. koji build = http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=686732 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 932a71581ebfaad8bc544aa1eae39c5e Test-WWW-Selenium-0.15.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test All tests successful, 1 test skipped. Files=8, Tests=239, 1 wallclock secs ( 1.14 cusr + 0.04 csys = 1.18 CPU) 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 433253] Review Request: dotconf - Required for speech dispatcher on OLPC XO
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dotconf - Required for speech dispatcher on OLPC XO https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433253 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-30 01:06 EST --- I downloaded fedora-upload-ca.cert and ran fedora-package-setup. Still I am getting same error. i recently changed the uploaded key. Does system take some time to get it updated? I am using the same id_rsa.pub key which i have uploaded in FAS. I am able to use koji and have build all the packages on it successfully. -- 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
