[Bug 459540] Review Request: mediawiki-imagemap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459540
--- Comment #9 from Ismael Olea [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 02:15:36 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
I thought that you use custom made svn snapshot.
It was at the first version, before discovering the WikiMedia tgz service :-)
And one lastminute fix - please change versioning scheme again! I don't think
that using MW1.13 as Version is a good idea. As its just a svn-snapshot and
no official release was made so far, you should use 0, e.g.
Version: 0
Release: 0.1.%{revision}%{?dist}
done: http://olea.org/tmp/mediawiki-imagemap.spec
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 448201] Review Request: pyvnc2swf - Vnc screen recorder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448201 --- Comment #13 from Michel Alexandre Salim [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 02:29:41 EDT --- Everything looks clear here; approving. Sorry for the delay! 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459540] Review Request: mediawiki-imagemap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459540 --- Comment #10 from Peter Lemenkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 02:48:34 EDT --- OK. All issues now resolved. Don't forget to raise fedora-cvs flag to ? :) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 438750] Review Request: qtoctave - fronted for octave written using qt4 widgets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438750
--- Comment #33 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 03:02:15 EDT
---
For 0.7.5-1.svn:
* Versioning/Using svn
- When using svn based tarball, please write as comments how
you created the tarball:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
- Would you tell me whether the tarball you are using is post- or
pre- release of version 0.7.5?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Package_Release
- For svn based tarball, I prefer to use revision number rather than
the date you checked out.
* build log verboseness
- Build log output like:
--
200 [ 41%]
201 Building CXX object src/CMakeFiles/qtoctave.dir/basewidget.o
202 Building CXX object src/CMakeFiles/qtoctave.dir/codeedit.o
203 Building CXX object src/CMakeFiles/qtoctave.dir/variables_list.o
204 Building CXX object src/CMakeFiles/qtoctave.dir/command_list.o
205 [ 43%]
--
is not useful. For example, we cannot check if Fedora specific compiler
flags are honored correctly. Please refer to:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/cmake#Specfile_Usage
* Icon caching
--
47 # desktop file can't find icon
48 mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/pixmaps
49 mv $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps/%{name}.png \
50 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/pixmaps/%{name}.png
51 rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/icons
--
- Please refer to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#GTK.2B_icon_cache
Resetting fedora-review flag to question mark.
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455067] Review Request: ferm - For Easy Rule Making
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455067
Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 |
--- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 03:42:56 EDT
---
For 2.0.2-2:
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #4)
* License
- As far as I verified the source code, the license tag should
be GPLv2+.
Official site ( http://ferm.foo-projects.org/) says: Licensed under the
GPLv2
- Well I assume the site you quoted is using wrong license tag, because
- We guess under what license the package is released by checking the whole
codes in the tarball
- Some files in the tarball declares explicitly the license is under GPLv2+
(see files under doc/).
(I guess the upstream are using GPLv2 on the site with the meaning
of GPL version 2 and any later :) )
However as GPLv2 is more strict than GPLv2+, for now I accept GPLv2
license tag. However please ask the upsteam which is correct.
* Macros usage consistency
- When using { on macros, please use { for all macros (except for some
cases)
consistently. You use %{_mandir} and %_sbindir , for example.
%_sbindir replaced by %{_sbindir}
Is there any guidelines about it or is it only by the aesthetic
considerations?
- Only cosmetic issue
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
- system/firewalls is not a standard Group (please refer to
$ rpmlint -I non-standard-group
Thanks. I'm change it to Applications/System.
But another question is why rpmlint was silent??
- On my system rpmlint warned about this.s
You are using stable version of the rpmlint or rawhide? May be I can tune
warning level somewhere?
$ rpm -q rpmlint
rpmlint-0.84-2.fc9.noarch
- rpmlint-0.84-2.fc10.noarch. Maybe the dependent packages are related.
Now:
- This package itself is okay
- Your other review requests seem good to some extent.
(There are some apparent issues which need fixing, however I don't guess I
can have a time
to review other review requests of yours as I am already reviewing 20
requests...
I hope someone else will review other requests of yours.)
-
This package (ferm) is APPROVED by mtasaka
-
Please follow the procedure written on:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join
from Install the Client Tools (Koji).
As I found your name in FAS I am sponsoring you now.
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428798] Review Request: OmegaT - Computer Aid Translation tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428798 --- Comment #14 from Ismael Olea [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 03:45:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) ping again? Hopefully I'll spent some time in this in the next days. Please don't despair :-) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458338] Review Request: DivFix++ - A program to repair broken AVI file streams by rebuilding index part of file
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458338 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 03:48:20 EDT --- (Removing NEEDSPONSOR: bug 455067) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455226] Review Request: php-pecl-runkit - PHP Opcode Analyser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455226 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | --- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 03:46:19 EDT --- (Removing NEEDSPONSOR: bug 455067) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455227] Review Request: php-pecl-parsekit - PHP Opcode Analyser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455227 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 03:47:13 EDT --- (Removing NEEDSPONSOR: bug 455067) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458866] Review Request: xls2csv - A script that recodes a spreadsheet's charset and saves as CSV
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458866 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 03:49:08 EDT --- (Removing NEEDSPONSOR: bug 455067) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428798] Review Request: OmegaT - Computer Aid Translation tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428798 --- Comment #15 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 03:51:50 EDT --- Okay, thank you for response. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459933] Review Request: perl-RPC-XML - Set of classes for core data, message and XML handling
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459933 Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Customer Facing||--- --- Comment #2 from Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 03:52:22 EDT --- Strange thing: t/40_server..NOK 9/54 # Failed test 'RPC::XML::Server::url method (set)' # at t/40_server.t line 58. # got: 'http://localhost.localdomain:9000/' # expected: 'http://localhost:9000/' t/40_server..ok 24/54# Looks like you failed 1 test of 54. t/40_server..dubious Test returned status 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) DIED. FAILED test 9 Failed 1/54 tests, 98.15% okay Is there any reason why this build fail on my computer and run ok in koji? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 426985] Review Request: php-suhosin - Suhosin extension for the php language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426985 --- Comment #22 from Bart Vanbrabant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 03:59:53 EDT --- For me this is ok, but I don't have any problem whatsoever if someone else is the owner. I've got the time to maintain it so I would at least want co-maintainership. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454120] Review Request: vdr-streamdev - Streaming client/server package for VDR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454120 Ville Skyttä [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #3 from Ville Skyttä [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 04:04:52 EDT --- License (GPLv2) does not look correct to me. The streamdev sources just refer to COPYING without specifying a GPL version which makes them GPL+, and libdvbmpeg is GPLv2+. I suppose License: GPL+ and GPLv2+ would be correct. Upstream probably meant the whole shebang to be GPLv2+, I'm sure they would appreciate being notified. The iconv stuff in %prep appears unnecessary, all those files are US-ASCII. Requires: vdr(abi) ... should be moved to the -server and -client packages as the main package does not produce a binary rpm and -server and -client currently do not have a dependency on vdr. vdr-streamdev-server.conf says vdr-streamdev and streamdev, should probably be changed to vdr-streamdev-server and streamdev-server. Other than that, looks good, I'll complete the review when I have the chance to try the binaries - I've just built the package and looked at the sources for now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459933] Review Request: perl-RPC-XML - Set of classes for core data, message and XML handling
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459933 Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459933] Review Request: perl-RPC-XML - Set of classes for core data, message and XML handling
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459933 --- Comment #3 from Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 04:16:28 EDT --- - rpmlint checks return: OK - package meets naming guidelines OK - package meets packaging guidelines OK - license, text in %doc, matches source OK - spec file legible, in am. english - possibly yes - source matches upstream OK - package compiles on devel (x86) - comment#1 OK - no missing BR OK - no unnecessary BR OK - no locales OK - not relocatable OK - owns all directories that it creates OK - no duplicate files OK - permissions ok OK - %clean ok OK - macro use consistent OK - code, not content OK - no need for -docs OK - nothing in %doc affects runtime OK - no need for .desktop file OK -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459281] Review Request: corosync - The Corosync Cluster Engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459281 --- Comment #6 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 04:30:43 EDT --- Hi Tom, i am not an official sponsor, but the spec file looks good to me. corosync is now a major (Build)Require for cluster. Is there any way we can speed this up? Thanks Fabio -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218581] Review Request: mediawiki-openid - The OpenID extension for MediaWiki
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=218581 --- Comment #31 from Peter Lemenkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 04:43:53 EDT --- Still no branch for F-9. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457261] Review Request: open-cobol - OpenCOBOL - COBOL compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457261 --- Comment #12 from Dan Horák [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 04:43:57 EDT --- all issues are fixed now, so this package is APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459153] Review Request: ann - Library for searching Approximate Nearest Neighbors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459153 --- Comment #9 from Dan Horák [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 05:02:32 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ann Short Description: Library for searching Approximate Nearest Neighbors Owners: sharkcz Branches: devel InitialCC: -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459281] Review Request: corosync - The Corosync Cluster Engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459281 --- Comment #7 from Steven Dake [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 05:04:53 EDT --- Based on Fabio's feedback: New package available for review (corosync-0.91-3): http://developer.osdl.org/dev/openais/downloads/review/corosync-0.91-3.src.rpm http://developer.osdl.org/dev/openais/downloads/review/corosync.spec * Sun Aug 24 2008 Steven Dake [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.91-3 - move logsys_overview.8.* to devel package. - move shared libs to main 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 426985] Review Request: php-suhosin - Suhosin extension for the php language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426985 --- Comment #23 from Peter Vrabec [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 05:16:56 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21) Bart / Peter: I see Bart in the packager group... would you like me to process the request with him as owner? Bart: owner me: co-maintainer thnx. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218581] Review Request: mediawiki-openid - The OpenID extension for MediaWiki
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=218581 --- Comment #32 from Axel Thimm [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 08:04:06 EDT --- See https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/768 for details. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459966] Review Request: libgxim - GObject-based XIM protocol library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459966 Akira TAGOH [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Customer Facing||--- -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459966] New: Review Request: libgxim - GObject-based XIM protocol library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: libgxim - GObject-based XIM protocol library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459966 Summary: Review Request: libgxim - GObject-based XIM protocol library 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/libgxim/libgxim.spec SRPM URL: http://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/libgxim/libgxim-0.1.0-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: libgxim is a X Input Method protocol library that is implemented by GObject. this library helps you to implement XIM servers or client applications to communicate through XIM protocol without using Xlib API directly, particularly if your application uses GObject-based main loop. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455067] Review Request: ferm - For Easy Rule Making
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455067 --- Comment #10 from Pavel Alexeev [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 08:11:42 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) However as GPLv2 is more strict than GPLv2+, for now I accept GPLv2 license tag. However please ask the upsteam which is correct. I have sent mail to one of main developer with this question. - rpmlint-0.84-2.fc10.noarch. Maybe the dependent packages are related. Maybe, maybe. I using most packages form F9 stable repository at this time. Now: - This package itself is okay - Your other review requests seem good to some extent. (There are some apparent issues which need fixing, however I don't guess I can have a time to review other review requests of yours as I am already reviewing 20 requests... I hope someone else will review other requests of yours.) I hope too. Thank you once more for this review. Please follow the procedure written on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from Install the Client Tools (Koji). As I found your name in FAS I am sponsoring you now. I have done this steps several times ago. Even in this present reviews I check it builds in koji. My name in FAS is hubbitus. 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 Ok, thanks, this document I have not read yet. If you have questions, please ask me. Thanks. I think the questions yet to be. What is preferred way to contact with 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 359931] Review Request: drupal-date - This package contains both the Date module and a Date API module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=359931 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 08:39:01 EDT --- drupal-date-6.x.2.0-2.rc2.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal-date-6.x.2.0-2.rc2.fc9 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459902] Review Request: ocaml-bisect - OCaml code coverage tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459902 Richard W.M. Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #8 from Richard W.M. Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 08:38:59 EDT --- F-9: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=784441 F-10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=784440 Thanks to everyone. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456298] Review Request: netbeans-resolver - Resolver subproject of xml-commons patched for NetBeans
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456298 --- Comment #6 from Victor G. Vasilyev [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 08:42:35 EDT --- The fourth release is prepared for review. Spec URL: http://nbi.netbeans.org/files/documents/210/2050/netbeans-resolver.spec SRPM URL: http://nbi.netbeans.org/files/documents/210/2148/netbeans-resolver-6.1-4.fc10.src.rpm Changes: - The dos2unix package is added as the build requirements Successful koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=784438 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455067] Review Request: ferm - For Easy Rule Making
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455067 --- Comment #11 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 08:44:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) Please follow the procedure written on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from Install the Client Tools (Koji). As I found your name in FAS I am sponsoring you now. I have done this steps several times ago. Even in this present reviews I check it builds in koji. My name in FAS is hubbitus. I am already sponsoring you. Please follow Join wiki again. From what you say, I guess next step of yours is Add Package to CVS and Set Owner (i.e. write CVS request on this bug) If you have questions, please ask me. Thanks. I think the questions yet to be. What is preferred way to contact with you? If the question is related to this review request, you can write it on this bug. Otherwise feel free to mail to me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455067] Review Request: ferm - For Easy Rule Making
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455067 --- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 08:50:53 EDT --- Might I add that For Easy Rule Making as a Summary really doesn't say anything about what this package does. I would suggest including firewall rule manager or at least something about firewalls in the Summary. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458288] Review Request: gitosis - git repository hosting application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458288 --- Comment #11 from John Khvatov [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 08:52:25 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: gitosis I inadvertently orphaned package in devel content. The status remained orphaned after reversion. Is it possible to change the status to 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459455] Review Request: fmit - Free Music Instrument Tuner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459455 Rex Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 09:00:36 EDT --- fyi, keep in mind most/all of those freeworld items are done so for good reason, in that they contain encumbered (ie patented) content, and cannot be in fedora (at least not without surgery to remove the offending bits). -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453569] Review Request: libmirage - library to provide access to different image formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453569 --- Comment #12 from Jiri Moskovcak [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 09:01:54 EDT --- Fixed post and postun, it builds in koji and rpmlint is quiet. Spec: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jmoskovc/libmirage.spec SRPM: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jmoskovc/libmirage-1.1.0-3.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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459871] Review Request: samefile - An utility to find identical files on the file system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459871 --- Comment #4 from vivek shah [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 09:35:44 EDT --- Thanks for the reviews, I have updated the %check section and also added the ChangeLog file SPEC URL: http://bonii.fedorapeople.org/spec/samefile.spec SRPM URL: http://bonii.fedorapeople.org/srpms/samefile-2.12-2.fc8.src.rpm The license is BSD since this is the license specified in the spec file for creating the rpm for OpenSUSE distribution by the upstream author which is also included in the source tar. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 250971] Review Request: ivtv - userspace tools for iTVC15/16 and CX23415/16 driven devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250971 --- Comment #41 from Jarod Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 09:37:02 EDT --- I'd say just call it ivtv-utils everywhere, and Obsoletes/Provides ivtv. Hey, that way, you can even drop the epoch... :) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459979] Review Request: mlt - Toolkit for broadcasters, video editors, media players, transcoders
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459979 jebba [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459081] Review Request: psad - Port Scan Attack Detector (psad) watches for suspect traffic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459081 Peter Vrabec [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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459979] New: Review Request: mlt - Toolkit for broadcasters, video editors, media players, transcoders
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mlt - Toolkit for broadcasters, video editors, media players, transcoders https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459979 Summary: Review Request: mlt - Toolkit for broadcasters, video editors, media players, transcoders 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: ftp://ftp.blagblagblag.org/pub/BLAG/developers/jebba/jebbadora/mlt.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.blagblagblag.org/pub/BLAG/developers/jebba/jebbadora/mlt-0.3.0-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: MLT is an open source multimedia framework, designed and developed for television broadcasting. It provides a toolkit for broadcasters, video editors, media players, transcoders, web streamers and many more types of applications. The functionality of the system is provided via an assortment of ready to use tools, xml authoring components, and an extendible plug-in based API. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459455] Review Request: fmit - Free Music Instrument Tuner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459455 --- Comment #4 from jebba [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 10:02:17 EDT --- I did a package for mlt Toolkit for broadcasters, video editors, media players, transcoders #459979. I believe it meets Fedora's guidelines--I didn't drag in ffmpeg and such, for example. It is needed for mlt++ which is needed for kdenlive which rocks. It doesn't compile on x86_64 (some assembly optimization compile fail), but uploaded it anyway to get input. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459983] New: Review Request: moe - A powerful clean text editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: moe - A powerful clean text editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459983 Summary: Review Request: moe - A powerful clean text editor 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://bonii.fedorapeople.org/spec/moe.spec SRPM URL: http://bonii.fedorapeople.org/srpms/moe-1.0-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: GNU Moe is a powerful, 8-bit clean, text editor for ISO-8859 and ASCII character encodings. It has a modeless, user-friendly interface, online help, multiple windows, unlimited undo/redo capability, unlimited line length, global search/replace (on all buffers at once), block operations, automatic indentation, word wrapping, filename completion, directory browser, duplicate removal from prompt histories, delimiter matching, etc. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459982] New: Review Request: moe - A powerful clean text editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: moe - A powerful clean text editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459982 Summary: Review Request: moe - A powerful clean text editor 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://bonii.fedorapeople.org/spec/moe.spec SRPM URL: http://bonii.fedorapeople.org/srpms/moe-1.0-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: NU Moe is a powerful, 8-bit clean, text editor for ISO-8859 and ASCII character encodings. It has a modeless, user-friendly interface, online help, multiple windows, unlimited undo/redo capability, unlimited line length, global search/replace (on all buffers at once), block operations, automatic indentation, word wrapping, filename completion, directory browser, duplicate removal from prompt histories, delimiter matching, etc. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459983] Review Request: moe - A powerful clean text editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459983 --- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 10:07:01 EDT --- *** Bug 459982 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459982] Review Request: moe - A powerful clean text editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459982 manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 10:07:01 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 459983 *** -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459989] New: Review Request: gnurobots - A robot programming game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gnurobots - A robot programming game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459989 Summary: Review Request: gnurobots - A robot programming game 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://bonii.fedorapeople.org/spec/gnurobots.spec SRPM URL: http://bonii.fedorapeople.org/srpms/gnurobots-1.2.0-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: GNU Robots is a game/diversion where you construct a program for a little robot, then set him loose and watch him explore a world on his own. The robot program is written in Scheme, and is implemented using GNU Guile. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458624] Review Request: teseq - An utility for rendering terminal typescripts human readable
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458624 --- Comment #9 from vivek shah [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 10:35:06 EDT --- Thanks I am going through the detailed procedures on the links mentioned above. Meanwhile I have updated (bug 459871) and also created 2 more review requests (bug 459989) and (bug 459983) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456280] Review Request: ini4j - Java API for handling files in Windows .ini format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456280 --- Comment #6 from Victor G. Vasilyev [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 10:49:25 EDT --- Successful koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=784687 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567 Lorenzo Villani [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #60 from Lorenzo Villani [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 10:58:27 EDT --- Any progress with this package? I can take it, if necessary. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459705] Review Request: eigen2 - A lightweight C++ template library for vector and matrix math
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459705 --- Comment #17 from Rex Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 10:56:51 EDT --- Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/eigen2/eigen2.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/eigen2/eigen2-2.0-0.3.alpha7.fc10.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Aug 25 2008 Rex Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.0-0.3.alpha7 - disable buildtime tests, which tickle gcc bugs scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=784715 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428568] Review Request: synfig - Synfig is a vector based 2D animation package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428568 Lorenzo Villani [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #12 from Lorenzo Villani [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 11:00:19 EDT --- Any progress with this review? I can take it, if it's ok for you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 442714] Review Request: sat-solver - Satisfyability Solver library which can be used to compute inter-package dependencies.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442714 --- Comment #29 from Lorenzo Villani [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 11:04:05 EDT --- If anyone wants to try the latest package with the included patch... It *should* fix a bug where yum, when used after zypper (or vice-versa) corrupt the RPM database. In particular it seems to not initialize the db cursor correctly. Please note that you should recompile libzypp and zypper against this version of the package. I'm testing it too, if no corruption happens in 2 days I'll assume that the issue has been 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 442714] Review Request: sat-solver - Satisfyability Solver library which can be used to compute inter-package dependencies.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442714 --- Comment #30 from Lorenzo Villani [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 11:15:25 EDT --- SRPM URL: http://omploader.org/vcDk3/sat-solver-0.9.4-4.fc9.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://omploader.org/vcDk4/sat-solver.spec Nothing exceptional, only fixed the mispelled word. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460000] New: Review Request: rxtx - Parallel communication for the Java Development Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rxtx - Parallel communication for the Java Development Toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=46 Summary: Review Request: rxtx - Parallel communication for the Java Development Toolkit 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.lfarkas.org/linux/packages/redhat/5/SPECS/rxtx.spec SRPM URL: http://www.lfarkas.org/linux/packages/redhat/5/SRPMS/rxtx-2.1-7r2.1.src.rpm Description: rxtx is an full implementation of java commapi which aims to support RS232 IEEE 1284, RS485, I2C and RawIO. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459871] Review Request: samefile - An utility to find identical files on the file system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459871 Rakesh Pandit [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #5 from Rakesh Pandit [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 11:35:21 EDT --- I will do a detailed review today or at least tomorrow ;-) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459933] Review Request: perl-RPC-XML - Set of classes for core data, message and XML handling
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459933 --- Comment #4 from Chris Weyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 11:52:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) Strange thing: t/40_server..NOK 9/54 # Failed test 'RPC::XML::Server::url method (set)' # at t/40_server.t line 58. # got: 'http://localhost.localdomain:9000/' # expected: 'http://localhost:9000/' t/40_server..ok 24/54# Looks like you failed 1 test of 54. t/40_server..dubious Test returned status 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) DIED. FAILED test 9 Failed 1/54 tests, 98.15% okay Is there any reason why this build fail on my computer and run ok in koji? Oddly, I found that that particular test is highly sensitive to the order of hostnames on the loopback line in /etc/hosts. e.g. it failed on my laptop when the line was: 127.0.0.1 athena localhost localhost.localdomain But passed just fine when I moved 'athena' to the end of the line. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 436704] Review Request: mapnik - a Free toolkit for developing mapping applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436704 Balint Cristian [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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 436704] Review Request: mapnik - a Free toolkit for developing mapping applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436704 --- Comment #48 from Balint Cristian [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 11:58:37 EDT --- (In reply to comment #42) Thanks, spot!! Now I can approve this package. Please fix the license tag to GPLv2+ and GeoGratis on -demo when you import this package into Fedora CVS. - This package (mapnik) is APPROVED by mtasaka - License: GPLv2+ GeoGratis [done] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 426867] Review Request: scala - Hybrid functional/object-oriented language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426867 --- Comment #60 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 12:02:36 EDT --- As koji is up again I will wait for your new 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 448337] Review Request: enlightenment - a next generation desktop shell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448337 --- Comment #11 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 12:07:16 EDT --- ping again? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449869 --- Comment #14 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 12:09:22 EDT --- ping again? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 450243] Review Request: google-gadgets - Google Gadgets for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450243 --- Comment #13 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 12:13:30 EDT --- Michel, I will once close this bug if no response is received from you within ONE 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453772] Review Request: perl-Gtk2-ImageView - Perl bindings to the GtkImageView image viewer widget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453772 --- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 12:15:55 EDT --- ping? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460035] New: EPEL branch for fop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: EPEL branch for fop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460035 Summary: EPEL branch for fop 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Package Change Request == Package name: fop New Branches: EL-5 New Branch owners: lkundrak lillian, the Fedora owner agreed to the change, and did not want to maintain it himself. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 Robin Norwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE | --- Comment #43 from Robin Norwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 12:36:14 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-RPM2 New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 Updated EPEL Owners: rnorwood -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455067] Review Request: ferm - For Easy Rule Making
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455067 --- Comment #13 from Pavel Alexeev [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 12:54:36 EDT --- I got answer from Max Kellerman, one of upstream ferm developer: What is more true GPLv2 or GPLv2 or any later version (GPLv2+ in Fedora terminology)?? ... The home page is only 99.9% accurate, to keep it as short as possible and readable - you know, nobody reads text in a web browser, especially if it's longer than really needed ;-) The only real licensing statement is the one in the source code, which should be GPLv2+ for you. So, I'm change Licence to GPLv2+ http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora9/ferm/ferm.spec http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora9/ferm/ferm-2.0.2-3.fc9.src.rpm Now I reading and working on importing this package into Fedora 8/9. @Jason Tibbitts I have follow guidelines and got summary from upstream. May be For Easy firewall Rule Making? Furthermore it is abbrivation as I understood. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457160] Review Request: Zorba - General purpose XQuery processor implemented in C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457160
--- Comment #4 from Paul F. Kunz [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 13:01:25 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #1)
zorba.review.txt:
Hi, you don't seem to be sponsored, so I can't perform an official review.
Instead, I can get the review process started with a pre-review. Have you
requested a fedoraproject account ?
I have an account. It is pfkeb. I recently changed my e-mail contact from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[??] -devel include shows %name/%name/* . Is this what was intended, why ?
This is the way the upstream installs itself. I agree it is a little strange.
[??] are the .TAGFILEs needed by an end user of devel-docs ? Perhaps they are
a
side result of the compile process ?
They come from Doxygen. If the end user wants to link his Doxygen generated
documentation to Zorba's locally then he needs them.
[??] license is Apache license v2 from web site. extracted upstream source
mentions the Apache License more than 700 times. The short name APL 2.0 is
the correct fedora reference.
I put the correct Fedora reference in the spec file.
[??] NOTICE.txt also provides some license information / history. I haven't
analysed whether the license would be considered free for Fedora purposes.
Have
each of the authors mentioned
I'm not sure what you are suggesting here.
[??] devel-doc is created as a separate package. It isn't overly large, and
could potentially be part of the -devel package ? What reasoning caused you to
split the devel-docs out ?
I've removed devel-docs subpackage.
[??] spec legible:
- could be improved by sticking to a certain coding style within the spec with
relation to eg 2x blank lines between sections, rather than 0 or 1.
- the files section has one layout for some subpackages, and different spacing
for the last ones.
I've taken you suggestions. Thanks, it does look better.
[ ?] might as well fix the spelling of grammer and headerss !
Ran the spell checker on the spec file and fixed the errors.
[ ?] while individually specifying each %files to include can be done, would
it
be simpler to glob the folders instead (or have you already factored this in)
?
Good suggestion and done.
[??] python guidelines suggest placing python_sitelib determination at the top
of the spec. Any reason to do it elsewhere ?
its been moved.
[??] places files directly in the %{python_sitelib}, rather than a module
named
subfolder. Not sure if that is allowed ?
I've seen it done both ways. Generally, when the package contains multiiple
files and subdirectory is used. However, zorba has only two files.
[??] -python doesn't require the base package. Is there a reason why ?
Was oversigth. Now fixed.
[??] why put the *.py*, *.gif, *.rb examples in the python/ruby sub packages.
Would these be more appropriate for the devel-doc package ?
Fixed.
[??] %build turns on debug output. I don't know whether that is allowed in the
final package ?
Yes this is allowed. The debugging symbols are stripped and put in
zorba-debuginfo rpm.
[ x] rpmlint problems: rpmlint zorba-0.9.21-2.fc9.src.rpm
I added the attr tag.
[ x] doesn't build on i386. Is a build require missing ? Perhaps need to try
one of the methods to help determine build requires at:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRequire
I tried that procedure but it didn't work for me. Nevertheless I found
additional requires that needed to be added.
[ x] doesn't own all the dirs it creates:
%dir %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version} is the dir only
the subfolders c, cxx, zorba, python ruby aren't owned {I could be wrong here,
since it won't build}.
Fixed.
[ x] unversioned .so must be in the -devel package
moved it.
[ x] package provides .sos in normal lib dir, but doesn't use the guideline
must %post/un -p /sbin/ldconfig
Added it.
[ x] clean rm -rf is commented out. Why has this been done ? I don't think it
could make it into Fedora like this.
Was commented out for debugging, now put back in.
[ x] not all %files sections include the %defattr()
Fixed.
[ x] main package doc files are not marked as %doc. I assume they aren't
required for the executable to run.
Correct.
[ x] LICENSE.txt is included in source, and hence must be included in package,
but is not marked %doc
Fixed.
[ x] -python summary line is repeated under description
fixed.
[ x] -ruby package must indicate the required Ruby ABI version
Done.
[ x] -ruby library must indicate what it provides with a Provides:
ruby(LIBRARY) = VERSION
Isn't this done automatically because of the .so file
[ x] must bump release with each adjustment of the package. This provides
tracability, and ensures an update path.
Done.
You don't appear to have begun the fedoraproject
[Bug 460041] New: Review Request: libvidcap - Cross-platform video capture library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: libvidcap - Cross-platform video capture library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460041 Summary: Review Request: libvidcap - Cross-platform video capture library 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/libvidcap.spec SRPM URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/libvidcap-0.2.1-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: A cross-platform library for capturing video from webcams and other video capture devices. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460041] Review Request: libvidcap - Cross-platform video capture library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460041 Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||454010 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454010] Review Request: iaxclient - Library for creating telephony solutions that interoperate with Asterisk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454010 Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||460041 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455555] Review Request: libhocr - A Hebrew optical character recognition library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=45 --- Comment #19 from Oron Peled [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 13:13:54 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: libhocr Short Description: A Hebrew optical character recognition library Owners: oron Branches: F-8 F-9 InitialCC: oron -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454010] Review Request: iaxclient - Library for creating telephony solutions that interoperate with Asterisk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454010 --- Comment #2 from Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 13:12:48 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) rpmlint iaxclient-2.1-0.1.beta3.fc10.src.rpm iaxclient.src: W: strange-permission run-tkiaxphone.sh 0775 The .desktop Exec= files have absolute paths (e.g. /usr/bin/wxiax). This doesn't seem common, but is ok? Should be fine. It needs libvidcap libvidcap-devel, but I can't find that anywhere within Fedora (including bugzilla and your review web dirs). Whoops. It is up for review now: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460041 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460041] Review Request: libvidcap - Cross-platform video capture library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460041 manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460041] Review Request: libvidcap - Cross-platform video capture library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460041
manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 13:31:44
EDT ---
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:
rpmlint of libvidcap: empty
rpmlint of libvidcap-devel: libvidcap-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
- ignorable
[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: LGPLv2+
[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: 2956d860981eb947bbb174b3f94bccc9de3d85ed
libvidcap-0.2.1.tar.gz
[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.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[x] 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}.
[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.
[x] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[x] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on:
[?] Package functions as described.
[x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
=== Issues ===
1. Would be nice to preserve timestaps of header files in the -devel package.
*** 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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454015] Review Request: tcl-tile - Modified Tk styling engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454015 --- Comment #2 from Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 13:35:44 EDT --- You're right, license should be TCL. New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/tcl-tile-0.8.2-2.fc10.src.rpm New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/tcl-tile.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458204] Review Request: coredumper - Library to help applications create core dumps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458204 --- Comment #3 from Rakesh Pandit [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 13:38:21 EDT --- I have reported upstream with a patch. SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/coredumper.spec SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/coredumper-1.2.1-4.fc9.src.rpm Build successfully: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=785059 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457060] Review Request: wordpress-mu - Multi-user variant of WordPress
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457060 --- Comment #16 from Bret McMillan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 13:42:42 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: wordpress-mu Short Description: multi-user variant of wordpress blogging package Owners: bretm Branches: F-8 F-9 InitialCC: jonrob -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460044] New: Review Request: pssh - Parallel SSH tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: pssh - Parallel SSH tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460044 Summary: Review Request: pssh - Parallel SSH tools 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/pssh/pssh.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/pssh/pssh-1.4.0-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: This package provides various parallel tools based on ssh and scp. Parallell version includes: o ssh : pssh o scp : pscp o nuke : pnuke o rsync : prsync o slurp : pslurp koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=785113 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460044] Review Request: pssh - Parallel SSH tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460044 --- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 14:24:16 EDT --- You seem to miss a couple of BRs: - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=785132name=build.log (missing python) - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=785172name=build.log (missing module named setuptools) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460044] Review Request: pssh - Parallel SSH tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460044 --- Comment #2 from Terje Røsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 14:29:13 EDT --- Sorry, I forgot to update the files on fp.org, fixed now. Please retry. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459409] Review Request: E - Equational Theorem Prover
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459409 --- Comment #3 from David A. Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 14:31:56 EDT --- Good news, I now have evidence that this package works on all architectures! Koji is back up, and a scratch build with dist-f9 works on all supported architectures (i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64). Since this spec includes a %check script, this is evidence that the package really does work on all architectures. Here's what I used: $ koji build --scratch dist-f9 E-0.999.006-2.fc9.src.rpm ... 0 free 0 open 5 done 0 failed -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460044] Review Request: pssh - Parallel SSH tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460044
manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #3 from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 15:02:30
EDT ---
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: pssh.src: E: unknown-key GPG#7666df64 (ignorable)
binary RPM:empty
[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: BSD
[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: 68dfefcf442eebe38ba23303ed4015fd4c5fab0e
pssh-1.4.0.tar.gz
[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.
[-] 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).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460044] Review Request: pssh - Parallel SSH tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460044 --- Comment #4 from Terje Røsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 15:10:49 EDT --- Thanks wolfy, that was very quick! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: pssh Short Description: Parallel SSH tools Owners: terjeros Branches: F-8 F-9 InitialCC: -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455187] Review Request: erlang-pgsql - Erlang PostgreSQL interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455187
--- Comment #3 from Robert Scheck [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 15:17:41 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #2)
* Version field should be 0 instead of 0.0.0
* Instead of using svn co and later removing svn files, you should use svn
export
* You should add verbatim commands used to produce tarball, not only one (svn
co) - see this spec, for example:
Uh, it must have been late. Of course, I'll change this, thanks for pointing.
* There is rev. 691 in svn. Would you mind to update your package?
I can do that, it's just a minor bugfix.
* Using only checkout date in versionin is insufficient at all. You should use
svn revision (and date, if you wish) instead.
Sorry, but the MUST is the other way round DATEsvn is a must, while your
DATEsvnREVISION suggestion is optional. So I will stay with the current one.
Keep in mind, that the upstream development is more than slow, I can cound
the commits over the last year on one hand or so; see also:
[20:59:35] rsc hrm. My reviewer dislikes the skipping of the revision in
%release, so I'm currently only doing DATEsvn rather DATEsvnREV as he expects.
[21:00:04] tibbs Your reviewer is entitled to their opinion, I suppose.
[21:00:49] tibbs But the guidelines just say followed by up to 16 (ASCII)
alphanumeric characters of your choosing.
[21:01:08] tibbs If you choose to put nothing or just svn, that is quite
up to you.
[21:02:33] tibbs Our intent was not to legislate anything beyond the
presence of the date.
* Main package should contain doc/short-desc as well.
The content of doc/short-desc seems useless to me. As far as I read, HOWTO file
contains this content as well, so I didn't add the file and will keep this.
* To avoid building empty debuginfo-subpackage you should add
%define debug_package %{nil}
at top of your spec-file. See this spec as an example:
Accepted.
* I'm in doubts of naming scheme for devel-subpackage. Actually we can use
erlang modules in development w/o sources :). Maybe it would be better to name
it src instead of devel? Just my thoughts, anyway...
I'm currently only using what the current packages are doing. AFAIK there is
no scheme for erlang until now. If I'm switching, the other packages also have
to do so before.
* You should use -p switch for install command, in order to preserve
timestamps. Frankly speaking in this case (checkout from VCS) there is not so
much sense, but lately, when official tarball may be introduced, it would have
more meaning.
I won't use -p once we've something official, currently seems useless to me.
Are you able to life with the nos I've stated above? Please give me a short
note if so. As you maybe understand, I'm not happy with flipping some bits or
lines all the time during a review while it is still discussed or similar. Of
course this only referes to the current points.
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 441378] Review Request: smokeping - Latency Logging and Graphing System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441378 --- Comment #6 from Terje Røsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 15:27:42 EDT --- Updated to 2.4.2, urls fixed. spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/smokeping/smokeping.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/smokeping/smokeping-2.4.2-1.fc9.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=785262 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454564] Review Request: pymssql - A simple database interface to MS-SQL for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454564 --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 15:26:24 EDT --- I honestly have no idea about the permissions; I did a scratch build and it came out OK on the builder, so I really don't know what the issue is. I know I'm not the only person who sees this, however. Still, since this comes out OK thorugh the buildsys, I'm going to have to assume that there's something peculiar about my mock setup which causes this issue. I'll take a further look at this later today. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460035] EPEL branch for fop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460035 --- Comment #1 from Kevin Fenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 15:45:39 EDT --- cvs done. Why file this against Package Review? You can file against the package (fop) or the review for it if you can find 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 443675] Review Request: sip-redirect - Tiny IPv4 and IPv6 SIP redirect server written in Perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443675
--- Comment #7 from Robert Scheck [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 15:45:56 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #6)
* Please, provide full path to the source tarball. E.g.
Source: http://ftp.robert-scheck.de/linux/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
instead of
Source: %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Really? See comment #1 again and AFAIK nirik complained at others about such
things.
* Please, add empty %build section to make rpmlint happy :)
I will do so, yes.
* Use %{_initrddir} instead of %{_sysconfdir}/rc.d/init.d
BTW useful list of rpm-macros:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros
AFAIK %{_initrddir} is obsolete since RPM 4.5.90 and %{_initrdir} is only
available since RPM 4.5.90 (or the other way round). To avoid nasty if/else
hackings, I'm always and everywhere using the less macrofied way in that
single case (yes, I've e.g. EPEL packages).
Other things seems sane. Consider applying changes according to these advices,
and I'll made formal review.
Before putting a new package there, can we clarify the points above and have
a short talk regarding comment #3? Current situation is, that the sip-redirect
needs to have a writeable log file, which I only can get with touching, as a
%config isn't the right deal and %ghost doesn't create the file. Am I missing
something or do you have a better idea?
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 426985] Review Request: php-suhosin - Suhosin extension for the php language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426985 --- Comment #24 from Kevin Fenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 15:47:43 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458472] Review Request: grub2 - Bootloader with support for Linux, Multiboot and more
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458472 --- Comment #18 from Kevin Fenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 15:50:24 EDT --- ok, so where do we stand here? Shall I process the cvs request? Or do we think this package is not a good idea to add right now? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 --- Comment #44 from Kevin Fenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 15:53:41 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460044] Review Request: pssh - Parallel SSH tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460044 --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 15:59:23 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457060] Review Request: wordpress-mu - Multi-user variant of WordPress
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457060 --- Comment #17 from Kevin Fenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 15:55:44 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459153] Review Request: ann - Library for searching Approximate Nearest Neighbors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459153 --- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 15:57:54 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459444] Review Request: ctdb - Clustered TDB
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459444 Abhijith Das [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED], ||[EMAIL PROTECTED], ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #3 from Abhijith Das [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 16:00:56 EDT --- http://people.redhat.com/rpeterso/Experimental/RHEL5.x/samba/ Please find the srpm and ctdb.spec at the above location. This package currently builds in F9; we're still working out a couple of errors building with rawhide. Please review and offer your comments. Thanks much! --Abhi -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 444428] Review Request: ocaml-cmigrep - Search OCaml compiled interface (cmi) files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=28 --- Comment #12 from Kevin Fenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 15:56:40 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455187] Review Request: erlang-pgsql - Erlang PostgreSQL interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455187 --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 16:06:56 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) * Using only checkout date in versionin is insufficient at all. You should use svn revision (and date, if you wish) instead. Sorry, but the MUST is the other way round DATEsvn is a must, while your DATEsvnREVISION suggestion is optional. So I will stay with the current one. Keep in mind, that the upstream development is more than slow, I can cound the commits over the last year on one hand or so; see also: Ok. * Main package should contain doc/short-desc as well. The content of doc/short-desc seems useless to me. As far as I read, HOWTO file contains this content as well, so I didn't add the file and will keep this. Likewise. * I'm in doubts of naming scheme for devel-subpackage. Actually we can use erlang modules in development w/o sources :). Maybe it would be better to name it src instead of devel? Just my thoughts, anyway... I'm currently only using what the current packages are doing. AFAIK there is no scheme for erlang until now. If I'm switching, the other packages also have to do so before. I think we should, probably, discuss it via fedora-devel maillist. There are more libraries for interpreted languages coming, there similar issues would arise. * You should use -p switch for install command, in order to preserve timestamps. Frankly speaking in this case (checkout from VCS) there is not so much sense, but lately, when official tarball may be introduced, it would have more meaning. I won't use -p once we've something official, currently seems useless to me. Ok. As you maybe understand, I'm not happy with flipping some bits or lines all the time during a review while it is still discussed or similar. Of course this only referes to the current points. Erlang packaging guidelines are still missing. Are you interested in creating ones? There is a dedicated SIG for erlang: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Erlang but still no guidelines. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 443675] Review Request: sip-redirect - Tiny IPv4 and IPv6 SIP redirect server written in Perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443675 --- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 16:11:15 EDT --- If your source package has a upstream full URL, you should use it so people can find your upstream version. If that URL requires some kind of registration or the like there is nothing prohibiting that in the guidelines that I know of. You may get an email from my source checker about it being unable to check your source, but it can be blacklisted from checking in the cases like this. Personally I would rather see the full URL, even if it can't be downloaded from there without some clicking. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 Robin Norwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE --- Comment #45 from Robin Norwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 16:11:58 EDT --- Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458472] Review Request: grub2 - Bootloader with support for Linux, Multiboot and more
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458472 --- Comment #19 from Jerone Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-25 16:25:00 EDT --- The consencous is that before grub2 is to go in, support needs to be added for tools (ex grubby). Then it should easily be able to go in. But fedora userspace tools need to support grub2 config files before going into 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460057] New: Review Request: openlayers - A JavaScript library for displaying map data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: openlayers - A JavaScript library for displaying map data https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460057 Summary: Review Request: openlayers - A JavaScript library for displaying map data 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/openlayers.spec SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/openlayers-2.6-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: OpenLayers is a pure JavaScript library for displaying map data in most modern web browsers, with no server-side dependencies. OpenLayers implements a JavaScript API for building rich web-based geographic applications, similar to the Google Maps and MSN Virtual Earth APIs, with one important difference -- OpenLayers is Free Software, developed for and by the Open Source software community. Furthermore, OpenLayers implements industry-standard methods for geographic data access, such as the OpenGIS Consortium's Web Mapping Service (WMS) and Web Feature Service (WFS) protocols. Under the hood, OpenLayers is written in object-oriented JavaScript, using components from Prototype.js and the Rico library. The OpenLayers code base already has hundreds of unit tests, via the Test.AnotherWay framework. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
