[Bug 458025] Review Request: wsmancli - Opensource Implementation of WS-Management - Command line Utility

[bugzilla]

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=458025





--- Comment #3 from srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 03:01:24 EDT ---
Modified the spec file with the suggested changes.

Thanks
Srinivas

-- 
Configure 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 458025] Review Request: wsmancli - Opensource Implementation of WS-Management - Command line Utility

[bugzilla]

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=458025





--- Comment #4 from srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 03:06:26 EDT ---
New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: wsmancli
Short Description:Command line interface for managing systems using the Web
Services Management protocol
Owners: srini
Branches: F-8 F-9 EL-4 EL-5 
InitialCC:mdomsch

-- 
Configure 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 458025] Review Request: wsmancli - Opensource Implementation of WS-Management - Command line Utility

[bugzilla]

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=458025


srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs+




-- 
Configure 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 442270] Review Request: lxde-common - Default configuration files for LXDE

[bugzilla]

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=442270





--- Comment #12 from David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 02:56:52 
EDT ---
Works better now, but pcmanfm has no icons:
http://david.woodhou.se/where-icons.png

-- 
Configure 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 466052] Review Request: hunspell-tk - Turkmen hunspell dictionaries

[bugzilla]

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=466052


Caolan McNamara [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




--- Comment #2 from Caolan McNamara [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 03:13:34 
EDT ---
New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: hunspell-tk
Short Description: Turkmen hunspell dictionaries
Owners: caolanm
Branches: 
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 466051] Review Request: hunspell-ber - Amazigh hunspell dictionaries

[bugzilla]

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=466051


Caolan McNamara [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




--- Comment #2 from Caolan McNamara [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 03:12:39 
EDT ---
New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: hunspell-ber
Short Description: Amazigh hunspell dictionaries
Owners: caolanm
Branches: 
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 442270] Review Request: lxde-common - Default configuration files for LXDE

[bugzilla]

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=442270


David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Flag||fedora-review+




--- Comment #13 from David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 03:18:05 
EDT ---
Mock scratch build at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=872700

Passes all review items at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines

Installs OK as multilib.

APPROVED -- once you sort out the lack of icons.

-- 
Configure 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 458011] Review Request: ms-sys - Create DOS/MS-compatible boot records

[bugzilla]

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=458011


Kevin Kofler [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Blocks||182235




--- Comment #15 from Kevin Kofler [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 03:29:30 EDT 
---
This package contains verbatim copies of various MBRs and boot records stuffed
into arrays in the supposedly GPLed source code. Is that legally acceptable?

-- 
Configure 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 461338] Review Request: dahdi - Userspace tools to configure the DAHDI kernel modules

[bugzilla]

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=461338





--- Comment #14 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 
03:30:02 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 461338] Review Request: dahdi - Userspace tools to configure the DAHDI kernel modules

[bugzilla]

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=461338


Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+




-- 
Configure 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 466052] Review Request: hunspell-tk - Turkmen hunspell dictionaries

[bugzilla]

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=466052


Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+




-- 
Configure 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 466051] Review Request: hunspell-ber - Amazigh hunspell dictionaries

[bugzilla]

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=466051





--- Comment #3 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 
03:56:21 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 466052] Review Request: hunspell-tk - Turkmen hunspell dictionaries

[bugzilla]

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=466052





--- Comment #3 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 
03:55:09 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 466051] Review Request: hunspell-ber - Amazigh hunspell dictionaries

[bugzilla]

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=466051


Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+




-- 
Configure 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 442268] Review Request: lxsession-lite - Lightweight X11 session manager

[bugzilla]

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=442268





--- Comment #19 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 04:12:23 EDT 
---
The source tarball timestamp is still different from what I have
downloaded:

-rw-rw-r-- 1 dumas dumas 229644 Jun 11 20:49
../SOURCES/lxsession-lite-0.3.6.tar.gz
-rw-rw-r-- 1 dumas dumas 229644 Jun  8 19:13 lxsession-lite-0.3.6.tar.gz

-- 
Configure 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 466052] Review Request: hunspell-tk - Turkmen hunspell dictionaries

[bugzilla]

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=466052


Caolan McNamara [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||RAWHIDE




-- 
Configure 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 466051] Review Request: hunspell-ber - Amazigh hunspell dictionaries

[bugzilla]

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=466051


Caolan McNamara [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||RAWHIDE




-- 
Configure 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 442270] Review Request: lxde-common - Default configuration files for LXDE

[bugzilla]

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=442270





--- Comment #16 from Christoph Wickert [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 07:01:12 
EDT ---
To me there are 2 questions:
1. Do we need to require an icon theme, when it can easily be changed? I guess
this is what most people try first when they hit that problem, most people care
about 'the desktop stuff' more than you do. ;)
2. And if we require one, which one? Fedora's (Echo) or upstream's
(nuoveXT/Rodent). IMO we should use our icons, because it's nearly impossible
to remove it. For me uninstalling fedora-icon-theme would result in removing
141 packages including the whole Gnome Desktop, some system-config-* tools,
anaconda and firstboot and many others. So I think for a normal desktop user we
can assume that there there are icon themes installed and the fallback to
hicolor is sufficient until he selects something different.

But I don't mind requiring echo for this package. What do you guys think?

-- 
Configure 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 442270] Review Request: lxde-common - Default configuration files for LXDE

[bugzilla]

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=442270





--- Comment #15 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 06:10:26 EDT 
---
Not a solution, but I guess that it is a similar issue that:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=209592
for thunar. Maybe this should be solved (or not solved) similarly.

-- 
Configure 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 457207] Review Request: python-cssutils - CSS Cascading Style Sheets library for Python

[bugzilla]

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=457207


Michael Schwendt [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Flag||fedora-review+




--- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 07:18:31 
EDT ---
* BuildRequires: python-setuptools

is needed, too, or else it complains and starts downloading it
from python.org:

* I refer to the epydoc generated files in the doc directory:

$ du -h doc
14M doc

And 1M compressed. *If* to be packaged, they must go into a -doc
sub-package according to the review guidelines.

* That's stuff that can be added in cvs, however, so:

APPROVED: python-cssutils-0.9.5.1-2

-- 
Configure 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 457517] Review Request: perl-Padre - Perl Application Development and Refactoring Environment

[bugzilla]

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=457517





--- Comment #11 from Dan Horák [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 07:39:55 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #10)
 This example and test should have permission 644
 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/auto/share/dist/Padre/templates/template.pl
 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/auto/share/dist/Padre/templates/template.pl

ok

 
 Desktop file wasn't included in upstream source. Should I create it or file a
 bug to upstream?

please create one -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files 

 The error libwx_gtk2u_stc-2.8.so:... wasn't resolved by upstream till now,
 but he's working on solution.

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 457207] Review Request: python-cssutils - CSS Cascading Style Sheets library for Python

[bugzilla]

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=457207


Matthias Saou [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




--- Comment #8 from Matthias Saou [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 08:06:00 EDT 
---
New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: python-cssutils
Short Description: CSS Cascading Style Sheets library for Python
Owners: thias
Branches: 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 457517] Review Request: perl-Padre - Perl Application Development and Refactoring Environment

[bugzilla]

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=457517





--- Comment #12 from Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 08:57:35 
EDT ---
http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/Padre/perl-Padre.spec
http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/Padre/perl-Padre-0.10-3.fc9.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 442270] Review Request: lxde-common - Default configuration files for LXDE

[bugzilla]

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=442270





--- Comment #19 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 07:56:38 EDT 
---
2 things that doesn't work for me:

* double clicking on th etrash gives 'command not found'
* the third icon from the left on the bar, between pcmanfm and firefox
  doesn't seem to work. And in the configuration application it seems to
  be blank

-- 
Configure 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 225721] Merge Review: ekiga

[bugzilla]

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=225721


Peter Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution||RAWHIDE




--- Comment #11 from Peter Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 05:06:10 
EDT ---
Thanks! Build pushed to rawhide. The opal library that ekiga depends on needs a
merge review as well if you have the time.

-- 
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 442268] Review Request: lxsession-lite - Lightweight X11 session manager

[bugzilla]

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=442268





--- Comment #25 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 07:04:50 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #24)

 I guess my problem was kind of sourceforge-specific because I downloaded the
 file with my webbrowser and got redirected to a mirror.

I don't think that it is sourceforge specific since it doesn't seems to
me that webbrowser keep timestamps. Using wget there is also a redirection
but still the timestamps are kept.

-- 
Configure 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 456684] Review Request: pathfinder - X.509 Path Discovery and Validation

[bugzilla]

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=456684





--- Comment #3 from Dan Horák [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 07:01:50 EDT ---
Ping, any progress?

-- 
Configure 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 442270] Review Request: lxde-common - Default configuration files for LXDE

[bugzilla]

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=442270





--- Comment #18 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 07:23:49 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #16)
 to remove it. For me uninstalling fedora-icon-theme would result in removing
 141 packages including the whole Gnome Desktop, some system-config-* tools,

libgnome depends on it.

Just to throw in my own experience, as a lightweight desktop guy since quite
long, for me it is not that hard to remove fedora-icon-theme. Currently
I have only pidgin and firefox that are removed, but these are application
I find particularly unsuited for my uses, too much bloated and with much
too pretty and heavy gui. However I haven't found lightweight replacements
so I still use them (in fact for pidgin I know there are replacements, but
I haven't have time to learn them).

But I think that in the long time, and for lxde users it should be a goal 
not to have anything from the gnome stack in a default install.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 442268] Review Request: lxsession-lite - Lightweight X11 session manager

[bugzilla]

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=442268





--- Comment #22 from Christoph Wickert [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 06:34:57 
EDT ---
Ok, my fault. I really would like to know when tis was introduced but I can't
find that change in the history nor in the old wiki. :(

Anyway, here's a new mockbuild:
http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/lxsession-lite-0.3.6-2.fc10.src.rpm
Note: I did not increase the version nor did a changelog entry, just rebuilt
the package with another source. Hope this is ok for you, for me the timestamp
is matching 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 442268] Review Request: lxsession-lite - Lightweight X11 session manager

[bugzilla]

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=442268


Christoph Wickert [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




--- Comment #24 from Christoph Wickert [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 06:57:58 
EDT ---
I completely agree, it's something we should care about. I just didn't know it.
:(

I guess my problem was kind of sourceforge-specific because I downloaded the
file with my webbrowser and got redirected to a mirror.

New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: lxsession-lite
Short Description: Lightweight X11 session manager
Owners: cwickert
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 442268] Review Request: lxsession-lite - Lightweight X11 session manager

[bugzilla]

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=442268





--- Comment #20 from Christoph Wickert [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 06:14:46 
EDT ---
Ok, my bad, did not fix that because I thought you were talking about keeping
the timestamps during install. 

But is the timestamp of the source really important? If so, why is it not in
the Packaging or the Review 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 461425] Review Request: daap-sharp - DAAP client library for Mono

[bugzilla]

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=461425


Michel Alexandre Salim [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]
   ||com)




--- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 
09:20:39 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 466394] Review Request: pdf-renderer - A 100% Java PDF renderer and viewer

[bugzilla]

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=466394


Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Flag||fedora-review?




--- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 09:36:08 EDT 
---
Some comments:

* About versioning
  - Some maintaners use (and I recomment):
0-0.X.cvs related number%{?dist}

* native2ascii
  - build.log shows:
-
30  + find . -name '*.java' -exec native2ascii '{}' '{}' ';'
31  find: `native2ascii'
32  : Permission denied
33  find: `native2ascii'
34  : Permission denied
35  find: `native2ascii'

-
Can these messages be ignored?

* Font .pfb
  - Would you check how these fonts file (binaries) are
used?
* If these files can be removed, please remove these.
* If these files are really used, please replace these
  with fonts which are system-widely provided.
  These fonts are all in urw-fonts (i.e. BR: urw-fonts is
  needed if these fonts are needed). BaseFonts.properties
  also needs fixing in this case.
  And as (rpm says) urw-fonts are under GPL+,
  the license tag of this package should be changed to
  LGPLv2+ and GPL+.

-- 
Configure 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 464424] Review Request: GROMACS - a Molecular Dynamics package

[bugzilla]

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=464424





--- Comment #47 from Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 09:41:58 EDT 
---
I've contacted upstream. Gromacs 4 can read files made with Gromacs 3, so there
are no reasons to have two packages - the newest version available is enough. I
closed the gromacs3 review request.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 437574] Review Request: ruby-pg - A Ruby interface for the PostgreSQL database engine

[bugzilla]

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=437574


Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Flag||fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 09:49:01 EDT ---
rpmlint on SRPM is clean.

rpmlint on RPMS:

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ rpmlint -i ../RPMS/i386/ruby-pg-*
ruby-pg.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.7.9.2008.02.05
0.7.9.2008.02.05-1.fc9
The last entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not
coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package.

ruby-pg.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided ruby-postgres
If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package
must also be provided in order to provide clean upgrade paths and not cause
unnecessary dependency breakage.  If the obsoleting package is not a
compatible replacement for the old one, leave out the provides.

Fix both.

Though indicated to by under the Ruby license, in the spec and on the site, it
includes a few copies of the GPL.  Why is this?  It's not a blocker, just odd.

Per Ruby guidelines:

Each Ruby package must indicate the Ruby ABI version it depends on with a line
like

Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8

Ruby packages must require ruby at build time with a BuildRequires: ruby, and
may indicate the minimal ruby version they need for building. 



- MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each
subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig.
An example of the correct syntax for this is:

%post -p /sbin/ldconfig

%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig


Fix, or explain why this wouldn't be necessary.


- MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.

Are the .h files in ext/ not useful for this purpose?



Otherwise, no other blockers on full review.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 437560] Review Request: clustermon - cluster monitor component of conga

[bugzilla]

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=437560


Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Resolution||NOTABUG




--- Comment #1 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 09:55:32 EDT ---
In Fedora since fc8, closing.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 437559] Review Request: ricci - cluster and systems management agent

[bugzilla]

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=437559


Bug 437559 depends on bug 437560, which changed state.

Bug 437560 Summary: Review Request: clustermon - cluster monitor component of 
conga
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437560

   What|Old Value   |New Value

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution||NOTABUG



-- 
Configure 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 437559] Review Request: ricci - cluster and systems management agent

[bugzilla]

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=437559


Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Resolution||NOTABUG




--- Comment #1 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 09:56:06 EDT ---
Already in Fedora since fc8, closing.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 442270] Review Request: lxde-common - Default configuration files for LXDE

[bugzilla]

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=442270





--- Comment #21 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 10:06:05 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #20)

  * double clicking on th etrash gives 'command not found'
 
 What trash? There is no trash on the LX desktop.

There is one on mine :-). Though I don't know where it comes from.

  * the third icon from the left on the bar, between pcmanfm and firefox
doesn't seem to work. 
 
 This is because you don't have lxterminal installed. Will be pulled in via
 comps, I don't want to require it for it is only a launcher that can be
 configured with a two clicks.
 
  And in the configuration application it seems to be blank
 Which configuration app? lxappearance or lxpanel -C? Can you provide a
 screenshot?

If you tell me how...

 New Package: (also took care of the timestamp of Source0)
 http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/lxde-common.spec
 http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/lxde-common-0.3.2.1-3.fc10.src.rpm
 
 I require fedora-icon-theme now. It's just a few symlinks and makes sure that
 the default icon theme for each release (Echo, Mist...) is installed.
 I also realized that I need to require fedora-logos because it provides
 start-here.png.
 
 So IMO all icon problems are fixed now. Everybody agrees?

Yes.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
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.

[bugzilla]

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


Debarshi Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC|[EMAIL PROTECTED]  |
 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Flag||fedora-review?




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 447738] Review Request: libzypp - ZYpp is a Linux software management engine

[bugzilla]

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=447738


Debarshi Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Flag||fedora-review?




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 438608] Review Request: elisa-plugins-good - Good Plugins for the Elisa Media Center

[bugzilla]

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=438608





--- Comment #14 from Matthias Saou [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 08:19:46 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #13)
 * The original elisa-common split was fine, IMO. No need to duplicate
 files. And no need to add a virtual elisa-devel. We have tools in
 non-devel packages that are BuildRequires. elisa-common can be BR,
 too.

Indeed. What about using the elisa-base name instead of common or devel? I
just thought of it, as those files are indeed common to the runtime and the
build of elisa, but not to be required by anything else, only build required.
So the name elisa-base seems better suited, since those files are the basic
elisa files. Sounds good?

 * The %description could explain briefly what good set of plugins
 means and why it matters.

I'll update to :

This package contains the good set of plugins for the Elisa Media Center,
plugins which are considered stable and do not present any licensing issues.

 * 0.5.13 is available.
 
 Packaging-wise this is fine. Could be imported and developed further
 in cvs until the deps are ready, too.

I'm assuming you mean the main elisa package. Seems like a good idea, I'll do
that.

Thanks for all your comments.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 454867] Review Request: brickshooter - A small puzzle game

[bugzilla]

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=454867





--- Comment #8 from Stefan Posdzich [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 06:31:01 
EDT ---
Nothing from upstream.
I choose the first way.
The package will take some days, but i will do it soon.

-- 
Configure 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 442270] Review Request: lxde-common - Default configuration files for LXDE

[bugzilla]

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=442270





--- Comment #22 from Christoph Wickert [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 10:40:10 
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #21)
 (In reply to comment #20)
 
   * double clicking on th etrash gives 'command not found'
  
  What trash? There is no trash on the LX desktop.
 
 There is one on mine :-). Though I don't know where it comes from.

Me ether, it's definitely not LXDE, because pcmanfm has no trash. Can you see
the trash in 'ls ~/Desktop'? Perhaps it's a desktop file? 

  Which configuration app? lxappearance or lxpanel -C? Can you provide a
  screenshot?
 
 If you tell me how...

With import from ImageMagic for example:
whole desktop: import -window root screenshot.jpg
single window: import -frame screenshot.jpg (cursor will change, then click the
window you want)

  So IMO all icon problems are fixed now. Everybody agrees?
 
 Yes.

Ok then:
New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: lxde-comon
Short Description: Default configuration files for LXDE
Owners: cwickert
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 442270] Review Request: lxde-common - Default configuration files for LXDE

[bugzilla]

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=442270


Christoph Wickert [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




-- 
Configure 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 446800] Review Request: ebnetd - EBNET protocol server

[bugzilla]

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=446800


Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Flag||fedora-review?




--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 10:41:06 EDT ---
What's comment #3 about?

Anyway. . .

rpmlint on SRPM is clean.

rpmlint on RPMS:

ebhttpd.i386: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

ebnetd.i386: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

ebnetd-common.i386: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/ebnetd ebnetd
A file in this package is owned by a non standard user. Standard users are:
root, bin, daemon, adm, lp, sync, shutdown, halt, mail, news, uucp, operator,
games, gopher, ftp, nobody.

ebnetd-common.i386: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/ebnetd ebnetd
A file in this package is owned by a non standard group. Standard groups are:
root, bin, daemon, sys, adm, tty, disk, lp, mem, kmem, wheel, mail, news,
uucp, man, games, gopher, dip, ftp, lock, nobody, users.

ebnetd-common.i386: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/ebnetd ebnetd
A file in this package is owned by a non standard user. Standard users are:
root, bin, daemon, adm, lp, sync, shutdown, halt, mail, news, uucp, operator,
games, gopher, ftp, nobody.

ebnetd-common.i386: W: non-standard-gid /var/run/ebnetd ebnetd
A file in this package is owned by a non standard group. Standard groups are:
root, bin, daemon, sys, adm, tty, disk, lp, mem, kmem, wheel, mail, news,
uucp, man, games, gopher, dip, ftp, lock, nobody, users.

ndtpd.i386: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.



These are all fine, see above.

Otherwise, everything looks great, my only other concern after a full review is
the Conflicts: for ebhttpd.  Will users expect this to be on port 80 by
default, period, full stop, or would it be feasible to set it to use something
else by default, or recommend that to users?  It'd be as simple as modifying
the xinetd file.  My preference would be to leave it as is, drop the
Conflicts:, but add a ebnetd-README.fedora indicating the port 80 issues and
resolutions, so that if someone wants to use this on a machine with an existing
httpd/tux/whatever, then they have that option and won't be stopped by the 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 457517] Review Request: perl-Padre - Perl Application Development and Refactoring Environment

[bugzilla]

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=457517





--- Comment #10 from Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 07:29:23 
EDT ---
This example and test should have permission 644
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/auto/share/dist/Padre/templates/template.pl
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/auto/share/dist/Padre/templates/template.pl

Desktop file wasn't included in upstream source. Should I create it or file a
bug to upstream?

The error libwx_gtk2u_stc-2.8.so:... wasn't resolved by upstream till now,
but he's working on solution.

http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/Padre/perl-Padre.spec
http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/Padre/perl-Padre-0.10-2.fc9.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 437574] Review Request: ruby-pg - A Ruby interface for the PostgreSQL database engine

[bugzilla]

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=437574


Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED




-- 
Configure 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 465511] Review Request: itext - A Free Java-PDF library

[bugzilla]

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=465511


Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Flag||fedora-review?




--- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 10:42:23 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #7)
 (In reply to comment #6)
  * Provides
- For upgrade path and so on, this type of Provides (Provides: iText)
  should be full EVR (Epoch-Version-Release) specific.
 
 This package does not have a specified epoch, so I just changed it to
Provides:   iText == %{version}-%{release}
 Is this good enough?
  - Yes.

 There are some warnings while building the debuginfo package but I don't know
 if those are important. Are those fixable?
  - Well, I don't know what aot-compile-rpm is doing exactly, so
I don't know how to suppress these warnings for now...

Then:
* License
  - Please add the following files to %doc
-
rups/com/lowagie/rups/view/icons/copyright_notice.txt (CC-BY)
-

* native2ascii
  - mock build shows:
-
  2991  DEBUG: + find src/rtf/com/lowagie/text/rtf/parser/destinations/ -name
'*.java' -exec native2ascii '{}' '{}' ';'
  2992  DEBUG: find: `native2ascii': Permission denied
  2993  DEBUG: find: `native2ascii': Permission denied
  2994  DEBUG: find: `native2ascii': Permission denied
  2995  DEBUG: find: 
  2996  DEBUG: `native2ascii': Permission denied
-
Can these messages be ignored?

Other things seem okay, so I think I can approve this
package once pdf-renderer 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 457517] Review Request: perl-Padre - Perl Application Development and Refactoring Environment

[bugzilla]

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=457517





--- Comment #9 from Dan Horák [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 05:45:36 EDT ---
formal review is here, see the notes below:

OK source files match upstream:
 d810f98c2b56bb54d89d1a41596d8fbddfdf699c  Padre-0.10.tar.gz
OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
OK dist tag is present.
OK build root is correct.
OK license field matches the actual license.
OK license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream.
OK latest version is being packaged.
OK BuildRequires are proper.
N/A compiler flags are appropriate.
OK %clean is present.
OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64).
N/A debuginfo package looks complete.
BAD rpmlint is silent.
OK final provides and requires look sane.
N/A* %check is present and all tests pass.
OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
OK owns the directories it creates.
BAD* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK no duplicates in %files.
OK file permissions are appropriate.
OK no scriptlets present.
OK code, not content.
OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK no headers.
OK no pkgconfig files.
OK no libtool .la droppings.
BAD is a GUI app, desktop file is missing

- rpmlint complains
perl-Padre.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Padre/Wx/Ack.pm
remove the executable bits
perl-Padre.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/auto/share/dist/Padre/templates/template.pl
0644
perl-Padre.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/auto/share/dist/Padre/templates/template.t
0644
when /auto/share/dist/Padre/templates/* must be packaged (it is required
for Padre to work correctly), then you should package 2 dirs
%{perl_vendorlib}/Padre + %{perl_vendorlib}/auto/share/dist/Padre, but not
the whole %{perl_vendorlib}/* hierarchy
- tests requires running X, so the check section is disabled, but the proper
BR: can exist in the spec (commented out)
- it is a GUI application, but desktop file is missing
- when running Padre in mock/Rawhide I got an error libwx_gtk2u_stc-2.8.so:
cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory, window title
Padre::Wx::App Error - looks like something wants to open development version
of this library even when the runtime lib is installed

-- 
Configure 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 458025] Review Request: wsmancli - Opensource Implementation of WS-Management - Command line Utility

[bugzilla]

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=458025


Matt Domsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?




-- 
Configure 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 442270] Review Request: lxde-common - Default configuration files for LXDE

[bugzilla]

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=442270





--- Comment #17 from David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 07:03:05 
EDT ---
Setting another icon theme does seem to give me an icon for the Downloads
folder, but nothing gives me an icon for My Documents unless I install the
echo-icon-theme. Sounds like we should require that, at least 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 465617] Review Request: gromacs3 - a Molecular Dynamics package

[bugzilla]

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=465617


Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




--- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 09:40:22 EDT 
---
I've contacted upstream. Gromacs 4 can read the files made with gromacs 3, thus
eliminating the need for a separate package for gromacs 3. Also, now that
Gromacs 4 is out there won't be any more updates for Gromacs 3.

Closing request, since the package gromacs does everything that is needed.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 442268] Review Request: lxsession-lite - Lightweight X11 session manager

[bugzilla]

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=442268





--- Comment #21 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 06:19:03 EDT 
---
It is:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps

-- 
Configure 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 438609] Review Request: elisa-plugins-bad - Bad Plugins for the Elisa Media Center

[bugzilla]

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=438609





--- Comment #9 from Matthias Saou [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 08:44:23 EDT 
---
Since only elisa plugins requires pigment, I'll go ahead and update both
pigment and pigment-python in F9.

-- 
Configure 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 457925] Review Request: biniax - An unique arcade logic game

[bugzilla]

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=457925





--- Comment #2 from Stefan Posdzich [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 10:58:40 
EDT ---
Thanks for your reply!
I will look at your points soon and, maybe, fix them / comment.

-- 
Configure 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 463211] Review Request: notify-sharp - A C# implementation for Desktop Notifications

[bugzilla]

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=463211


Michel Alexandre Salim [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+




--- Comment #18 from Michel Alexandre Salim [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 
10:59:27 EDT ---
ReviewTemplate

MUST

• rpmlint: OK -- errors are irrelevant
• package name: OK
• spec file name: OK
• package guideline-compliant: OK
• license complies with guidelines: OK
• license field accurate: OK
• license file not deleted: OK
• spec in US English: OK
• spec legible: OK
• source matches upstream: OK
• builds under = 1 archs, others excluded:
OK. Koji build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=873117

*** NOTE ***
Might want to add a comment on top of the %ExclusiveArch line. Since the mono
stack is incomplete on many platforms, no need to create a bug report for this

• build dependencies complete: OK
• own all directories: OK
• no dupes in %files: OK
• permission: OK
• %clean RPM_BUILD_ROOT: OK
• macros used consistently: OK
• Package contains code: OK
• large docs = -doc: OK
• doc not runtime dependent: OK
• headers in -devel: OK
• if contains *.pc, req pkgconfig: OK
• devel requires versioned base package: OK
• clean buildroot before install: OK
• filenames UTF-8: OK

SHOULD
• package build in mock on all architectures: OK (as far as Mono stack allows)
• package functioned as described: OK
• scriplets are sane: OK
• other subpackages should require versioned base: OK
• require package not files: OK

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 442268] Review Request: lxsession-lite - Lightweight X11 session manager

[bugzilla]

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=442268





--- Comment #23 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 06:48:35 EDT 
---
Perfect.

The guideline was added some months ago. I vaguely remember that it 
was rapidly discussed on the packaging list. But this is something
I insist on since quite a long time -- but although I don't think it should
be a must in general I also don't see why it shouldn't do be 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 442270] Review Request: lxde-common - Default configuration files for LXDE

[bugzilla]

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=442270





--- Comment #20 from Christoph Wickert [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 09:22:32 
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #17)
 Setting another icon theme does seem to give me an icon for the Downloads
 folder, but nothing gives me an icon for My Documents unless I install the
 echo-icon-theme. Sounds like we should require that, at least for now.

This is strange because pcmanfm uses generic names that are provided by many
icon themes. For me here on F9 it works Echo, Gnome, Fedora, Mist, Rodent and
all icon themes that provide the icon. Folders change initially, the change of
My Documents requires to re-login however.

(In reply to comment #18)

 But I think that in the long time, and for lxde users it should be a goal 
 not to have anything from the gnome stack in a default install.

Fully agreed, but as long as we have dependency chains like firstboot -
metacity we still have lots of gnome stuff around by default. But the icon set
and the gtk theme are not gnome-specific, so I have no problems with them.

(In reply to comment #19)
 2 things that doesn't work for me:
 
 * double clicking on th etrash gives 'command not found'

What trash? There is no trash on the LX desktop.

 * the third icon from the left on the bar, between pcmanfm and firefox
   doesn't seem to work. 

This is because you don't have lxterminal installed. Will be pulled in via
comps, I don't want to require it for it is only a launcher that can be
configured with a two clicks.

 And in the configuration application it seems to be blank
Which configuration app? lxappearance or lxpanel -C? Can you provide a
screenshot?

New Package: (also took care of the timestamp of Source0)
http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/lxde-common.spec
http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/lxde-common-0.3.2.1-3.fc10.src.rpm

I require fedora-icon-theme now. It's just a few symlinks and makes sure that
the default icon theme for each release (Echo, Mist...) is installed.
I also realized that I need to require fedora-logos because it provides
start-here.png.

So IMO all icon problems are fixed now. Everybody agrees?

-- 
Configure 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 442270] Review Request: lxde-common - Default configuration files for LXDE

[bugzilla]

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=442270





--- Comment #14 from Christoph Wickert [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 06:02:14 
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #12)
 Works better now, but pcmanfm has no icons:
 http://david.woodhou.se/where-icons.png

I guess you don't have echo-icon-theme installed, do you? Do you see icons when
you select another icon theme (e.g with lxappearance) and re-login?

If the selected icon theme is not installed, lxde-settings falls back to
hicolor which does not provide icons for folder and folder_home. 

IMO the fallback mechanism is sufficient, but of course I can require
echo-icon-theme. What do you think?

-- 
Configure 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 466183] Review Request: sblim-sfcb - Small Footprint CIM Broker

[bugzilla]

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=466183


Matt Domsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-review?




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 463211] Review Request: notify-sharp - A C# implementation for Desktop Notifications

[bugzilla]

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=463211





--- Comment #19 from Sindre Pedersen Bjørdal [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 
11:16:22 EDT ---
New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: notify-sharp
Short Description: A C# implementeation for Desktop Notifications
Owners: sindrepb
Branches: F-9 F-10
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 442268] Review Request: lxsession-lite - Lightweight X11 session manager

[bugzilla]

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=442268





--- Comment #26 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 07:45:24 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #15)
 I have no idea what's going wrong for you. It works reliable for me and 
 others,
 on the other hand I see no obviuos error in your setup.

It works now. At least the lxde desktop works. However, my attemp to 
use fluwbox instead of the lxde desktop didn't worked, when I 
choose the session corresponding with the setup explained above, I also
get the lxde desktop...

 Do you see the icons in the logout dialog? There should be icons since the new
 version now includes a copy of them, but some people reported missing icons.
 Looks like a problem with gtk-update-icon-cache.

No problem here.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 463211] Review Request: notify-sharp - A C# implementation for Desktop Notifications

[bugzilla]

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=463211


Sindre Pedersen Bjørdal [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




-- 
Configure 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 457207] Review Request: python-cssutils - CSS Cascading Style Sheets library for Python

[bugzilla]

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=457207





--- Comment #7 from Matthias Saou [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 08:03:33 EDT 
---
All this is now fixed in 0.9.5.1-3 which is in the same location in case you
want to have a quick look just in case.

-- 
Configure 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 463266] Review Request: globalplatform - Access OpenPlatform and GlobalPlatform smart cards library

[bugzilla]

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=463266





--- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 11:25:18 EDT 
---

For -3:

(In reply to comment #6)
 A few more questions:
 
 - It seems to me that pkg-config --cflags globalplatform should not just 
 return
 -pthread -I/usr/include/PCSC but something like -pthread
 -I/usr/include/GlobalPlatform -I/usr/include/PCSC right? So maybe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@
 should become:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@/GlobalPlatform 
 instead?
  - Oh, I overlooked this point. The correct one is
---
Cflags: -I${includedir}/GlobalPlatform
---

 - Does it make sense to submit the inclusion of the pkgconfig file upstream 
 (as
 the requirement that every patch has a bug report upstream)?
  - I think shipping pkgconfig file in the tarball is preferable (for
this package) and I would appreciate it if you submit to upstream.

 - How about the openssl-devel dependency now that we are moving to NSS? Is 
 this
 still allowed? 
  - I think if openssl is to be removed from Fedora there will be such
an announce.

Then:
* Dependency for -devel subpackage
  - Every package which contains pkgconfig .pc file should
have Requires: pkgconfig so please add this to -devel subpackage.

And I will wait for your another review request submit or your
pre-review of other person's review request.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 445537] Review Request: tightvnc - VNC software

[bugzilla]

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=445537





--- Comment #7 from Dan Horák [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 08:37:05 EDT ---
few notes
- you can use svn export instead of svn checkout (or a even script like
http://fedora.danny.cz/fedora-getsvn), the source archive will be smaller, but
when you are using upstream released snapshots, use them
- the EVRs in Obsoletes/Provides are inconsistent between main package and
-server subpackage and I don't think that the main package should contain
Obsol/Prov for vnc-server
- better use --with-os-name=Fedora in xserver's %configure (instead of
Fedora 11)
- replace /etc with %{_sysconfdir}, /etc/rc.d/init.d with %{_initddir} in
%build and %install sections
- don't add X-Red-Hat-Extra into desktop file, fix the file directly instead of
using command line options, use fedora as vendor, missing BR:
desktop-file-utils - more about desktop files at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 455396] Review Request: TrustedQSL - TrustedQSL ham-radio applications

[bugzilla]

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=455396


Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Flag||fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 11:35:57 EDT ---
Build error:

+ mkdir -p /var/tmp/TrustedQSL-1.11-1.fc9-root-limb/usr/share/applications
+ mkdir -p /var/tmp/TrustedQSL-1.11-1.fc9-root-limb/usr/share/pixmaps
+ cp icons/key48.png
/var/tmp/TrustedQSL-1.11-1.fc9-root-limb/usr/share/pixmaps/TrustedQSL.png
+ sed -i -e s/.png//g tqsl.desktop
+ sed -i -e s/.png//g tqslcert.desktop
+ desktop-file-install --vendor=fedora
--dir=/var/tmp/TrustedQSL-1.11-1.fc9-root-limb/usr/share/applications
/home/limb/rpmbuild/BUILD/tqsl.desktop
Error on file /home/limb/rpmbuild/BUILD/tqsl.desktop: No such file or
directory
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.32062 (%install)

If you drop the %{builddir} it works.

Also, you need to BuildRequire desktop-file-utils and expat-devel.

rpmlint is clean on everything.

Since upstream uses lowercase some places in their naming and uppercase in
others, from what I see, it might be better to make this package's name all
lowercase.  Your call.

Comment on status of your patches WRT upstream.  If submitted upstream,
indicate this in the spec.  If not, do so, and indicate in the spec.

Add ChangeLog, INSTALL and the help/ dir to %doc.

Otherwise, full review looks good.  I'm doing another mock build, I'll post
back with any further BR issues.

-- 
Configure 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 466496] New: Review Request: python-suds - A lightweight python soap web services client

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: python-suds - A lightweight python soap web services 
client

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466496

   Summary: Review Request: python-suds - A lightweight python
soap web services client
   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://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/suds/tags/release-0.3.1/python-suds.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fedorahosted.org/suds/attachment/wiki/WikiStart/python-suds-0.3.1-1.src.rpm?format=raw
Description: 

I would appreciate a review to get Suds into Fedora Extras!

Suds is a Fedora hosted project that provides a python soap web services client
lib. It leverages python meta programming to provide an intuative API for
consuming web services. Objectification of types defined in the WSDL is
provided without class generation. Programmers rarely need to read the WSDL
since services and WSDL based objects can be easily inspected.  Suds presents
an XML-RPC-like API for service invocation.  It supports all three major soap
binding styles: rpc/literal, rpc/encoded and document/literal.  This package
provides a reliable, complete and easy to use alternative to ZSI and SoapPy. 
Although only at version 0.3.1, suds is mature, actively maintained and has a
solid community around the world.

For more details - visit the Trac site: https://fedorahosted.org/suds.

I am a first time package maintainer and will need a sponsor.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 455396] Review Request: TrustedQSL - TrustedQSL ham-radio applications

[bugzilla]

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=455396





--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 11:57:52 EDT ---
No more BR issues.

-- 
Configure 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

[bugzilla]

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





--- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 12:02:14 EDT 
---


(In reply to comment #5)
 (In reply to comment #4)
  * Macros
  - %distname is not defined.
   %distname replaced by %{distribution}
  
- My system does not define %distribution macro. Koji seems to
  define it, however its value (string) is Unknown so
  this is still wrong.
  Just use --vendor=fedora.
 Hmmm. What about this
 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoiding_using_fedora_or_redhat
 recommendation to opposite do NOT using names like Fedora o Redhat in spec???

  - This item says that naming a document as README.fedora or so
should be avoided, however I oppose to it because there are many
Fedora specific packaging issue...
Also this item says that Of course this doesn't cover internal 
details like spec file conditionals like %fedora or %rhel.
So please use --vendor=fedora.

! Note
  Currently not a few maintainers simply remove --vendor=foo
  when using desktop-file-install. If you remove this completely
  I don't oppose to it

 And lso in this dociment I get macros %{distribution}...
  - But actually on my system %distribution is not defined and
koji (Fedora build server) sets this as Unknown...

* Category of desktop file
  - As you create the base desktop file by yourself, you can simply
add 

Category=Video;

line between %{__cat}  %{name}.desktop  EOF
and EOF lines, then remove --add-category=Video
! Note
  - Semicolon is needed at the last.

-- 
Configure 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 454888] Review Request: libgdither - Library for applying dithering to PCM audio sources

[bugzilla]

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=454888


Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Flag||fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 12:26:49 EDT ---
rpmlint on srpm clean.

rpmlint on rpms:

libgdither-devel.i386: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

Anything to put here?

License, naming, macros, scripts, all good.  Full review is very clean.  No BR
issues evident after a mock build.

Other than the one minor bit above, we're ready to rock and/or roll.

I'll use my copies to start reviewing gavl.

-- 
Configure 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 452901] Review Request: ocspd - OpenCA OCSP Daemon

[bugzilla]

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=452901


Patrick Monnerat [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




--- Comment #22 from Patrick Monnerat [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 12:55:31 
EDT ---
New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: ocspd
Short Description: OpenCA OCSP Daemon
Owners: monnerat
Branches: F-8 F-9 F-10
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 456242] Review Request: gavl - A library for handling uncompressed audio and video data

[bugzilla]

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=456242


Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Flag||fedora-review?




--- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 12:56:16 EDT ---
rpmlint: not even crickets.

You have ldconfig in %post and %postun, do you not need them for -devel as
well?

COPYING is GPLv3.  Code all says GPLv2+.  Web site doesn't really specify. ??
Needs clarification.

Using a patched bundled library, which is documented.  OK.

Looks great otherwise, full review very nearly done.  Just need libgdither to
be in rawhide so I can mock-test the BuildRequires.

-- 
Configure 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 466183] Review Request: sblim-sfcb - Small Footprint CIM Broker

[bugzilla]

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=466183





--- Comment #4 from Matt Domsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 12:34:22 EDT ---
upon reflection, you won't need a conf file in /etc/ld.so.conf.d/ if the calls
to dlopen() are made to take a fully specified path, which can be determined at
compile time if so desired.  In this way, private libraries won't ever be seen
by other applications that shouldn't see them.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 225243] Merge Review: amanda

[bugzilla]

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=225243





--- Comment #10 from Orion Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 12:53:37 
EDT ---
I've merged in your changes with mine that I've had to make while
testing/running 2.6.0p1.

http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/amanda.spec
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/amanda-2.6.0p2-2.fc9.src.rpm

* Fri Oct 10 2008 Orion Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.6.0p2-2
- Drop duplicated libamglue.so from -devel
- Update -pie patch
- Fix Source typo
- Move xinetd to main package - used by both client and server
- Move %{_libexecdir}/amanda/amanda-sh-lib.sh to main package
- LIBEXECDIR is used in xinetd template
- Make calcsize setuid root

I'm starting to work with upstream to get a workable version of the pie patch
merged upstream.

-- 
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 236856] Review Request: brlcad - An extensive Constructive Solid Geometry (CSG) modeling system

[bugzilla]

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=236856


Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Blocks||201449
 Resolution||NOTABUG
   Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] |
   |)   |




--- Comment #13 from Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 13:20:37 
EDT ---
No response; closing.

-- 
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 244192] Review Request: eclipse-anyedit - AnyEdit plugin for Eclipse

[bugzilla]

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=244192


Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Blocks||201449
 Resolution||NOTABUG




--- Comment #24 from Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 13:21:08 
EDT ---
No response; closing.

-- 
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 461338] Review Request: dahdi-tools - Userspace tools to configure the DAHDI kernel modules

[bugzilla]

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=461338


Jeffrey C. Ollie [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: dahdi - |Review Request: dahdi-tools
   |Userspace tools to  |- Userspace tools to
   |configure the DAHDI kernel  |configure the DAHDI kernel
   |modules |modules




-- 
Configure 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 251071] Review Request: StatelessServer - Server for Stateless Clients

[bugzilla]

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=251071


Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Blocks||201449
 Resolution||NOTABUG
   Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])   |




--- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 13:22:03 EDT 
---
No response; closing.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 244192] Review Request: eclipse-anyedit - AnyEdit plugin for Eclipse

[bugzilla]

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=244192


Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]




--- Comment #25 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 13:40:13 EDT 
---
Jason,

You are closing the review request only one week after you commented on
this bug at the last time, which is too fast.

The review guideline says we should 
- wait for response at least one month
- then wait _another_ one week
i.e. 5 weeks.

-- 
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 244192] Review Request: eclipse-anyedit - AnyEdit plugin for Eclipse

[bugzilla]

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=244192


Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||Reopened
 Status|CLOSED  |ASSIGNED
 Resolution|NOTABUG |




--- Comment #26 from Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 13:44:41 
EDT ---
Hmm, you're right; I was confused about who the original submitter was.  It
would still be nice to get something which actually builds, though; otherwise
this will just end up being closed again.

-- 
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 463211] Review Request: notify-sharp - A C# implementation for Desktop Notifications

[bugzilla]

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=463211


Will Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||465641




-- 
Configure 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 459675] Review Request: python-sybase - new package request

[bugzilla]

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=459675





--- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 13:57:45 EDT 
---
Well,

* BuildRequires
  - Actually without BuildRequires: python-setuptools
This package won't build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=872720

* python_sitelib vs python_sitearch
  - Then after adding BuildRequires: python-setuptools
this time build fails on x86_64.

If python modules to be installed are arch-dependent,
they must be installed under sitearch directory, not
sitelib:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#System_Architecture

Note that on i386/ppc sitelib directory is the same
as sitearch directory.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 244192] Review Request: eclipse-anyedit - AnyEdit plugin for Eclipse

[bugzilla]

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=244192





--- Comment #27 from rob [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 14:07:44 EDT ---
I'll do a new spin for rawhide sometime soon- I'm a bit overwhelmed at the
moment.

-- 
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 459675] Review Request: python-sybase - new package request

[bugzilla]

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=459675





--- Comment #6 from Andy Theuninck [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 14:27:17 EDT 
---
I see what happened. Python attempts to grab setuptools over the internet if
needed. So it is a dependency; I just didn't have the rpm installed for it.

I switched to sitearch, too.

Can you give me any information about how you ran the linked test build? It'd
be nice to do a more rigorous test like that myself instead of repeatedly
posting a bad srpm.

SRPM: http://gohanman.com/rpm/Fedora9/SRPMS/python-sybase-0.39-4.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 459675] Review Request: python-sybase - new package request

[bugzilla]

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=459675


Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Flag||fedora-review?




--- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 14:44:58 EDT 
---
I will check your srpm later (I want to go to bed now).
Then:

-
NOTE: Before being sponsored:

This package will be accepted with another few work. 
But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) 
must sponsor you.

Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other 
submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. 
For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) 
are required to show that you have an understanding 
of the process and of the packaging guidelines as is described
on :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored

Usually there are two ways to show this.
A. submit other review requests with enough quality.
B. Do a pre-review of other person's review request
   (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do
   a formal review)

When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other 
person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report 
so that I can check your comments or review request.

Fedora package collection review requests which are waiting for someone to
review can be checked on:
http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html
(NOTE: please don't choose Merge Review)


Review guidelines are described mainly on:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets


(In reply to comment #6)
 Can you give me any information about how you ran the linked test build? It'd
 be nice to do a more rigorous test like that myself instead of repeatedly
 posting a bad srpm.

After you get sponsored you can do test build using koji.
It may be that even before you get sponsored you can do this, however I am
not sure. At least you have to create your account on Fedora account system
and setup koji build client, however I am not sure if it is sufficient.


Anyway now I will wait for your another review request or your pre-review
of other person's request.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
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

[bugzilla]

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





--- Comment #7 from Pavel Alexeev [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 14:50:55 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #6)
 
 (In reply to comment #5)
  (In reply to comment #4)
   * Macros
   - %distname is not defined.
%distname replaced by %{distribution}
   
 - My system does not define %distribution macro. Koji seems to
   define it, however its value (string) is Unknown so
   this is still wrong.
   Just use --vendor=fedora.
  Hmmm. What about this
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoiding_using_fedora_or_redhat
  recommendation to opposite do NOT using names like Fedora o Redhat in 
  spec???
 
   - This item says that naming a document as README.fedora or so
 should be avoided,
This document says what this names should be compleatly avoided when possible.
File name is just example.

 however I oppose to it because there are many
 Fedora specific packaging issue...
So, if you oppose, I think you should discuss about it with FESCO...

 Also this item says that Of course this doesn't cover internal 
 details like spec file conditionals like %fedora or %rhel.
 So please use --vendor=fedora.
Conditionals is conditionals, it is exactly for that, so, failing %if %fedora
or similar is not fatal in any case even more so if it will be non Fedora
build...

 ! Note
   Currently not a few maintainers simply remove --vendor=foo
   when using desktop-file-install. If you remove this completely
   I don't oppose to it
Ok, I do that. I think it is best way now.

 * Category of desktop file
   - As you create the base desktop file by yourself, you can simply
 add 
 
 Category=Video;
 
 line between %{__cat}  %{name}.desktop  EOF
 and EOF lines, then remove --add-category=Video
 ! Note
   - Semicolon is needed at the last.
Ok, I'm do how you say.
Is there any differences where Category mentioned?

And I tryed this, but got error:
/var/tmp/DivFix++-0.30-3.fc9-root-pasha//usr/share/applications/DivFix++.desktop:
error: file contains key Category in group Desktop Entry, but keys
extending the format should start with X-
Error on file DivFix++.desktop: Failed to validate the created desktop file

-- 
Configure 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 456256] Review Request: frei0r-plugins - Frei0r - a minimalistic plugin API for video effects

[bugzilla]

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=456256


Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Flag||fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 14:57:42 EDT ---
rpmlint clean on SRPM.

on RPMS:
frei0r-devel.i386: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

Fix, if applicable.

Mightn't we want to call frei0r-devel frei0r-plugins-devel, since the base
pacakge is frei0r-plugins?

License is good, but I hope gavl turns out to be GPLv2.

What's the status of the patches WRT upstream?

Do we not need ldconfig in the post/postun for the main package?

Otherwise looks good, waiting on libgdither and gavl for a mock build to test
BRs.

-- 
Configure 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

[bugzilla]

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





--- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 15:22:08 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #7)
First of all:
   Hmmm. What about this
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoiding_using_fedora_or_redhat
  - This is packaging tricks (as the title says) and not guidelines.

 So, if you oppose, I think you should discuss about it with FESCO...
  - So no need.

On the contrary, see this:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage

If upstream uses vendor_id, leave it intact, otherwise use fedora as
vendor_id

  But as I said before not a few maintainers simply removes --vendor=foo.

  * Category of desktop file
- As you create the base desktop file by yourself, you can simply
  add 
  
  Category=Video;
  
  line between %{__cat}  %{name}.desktop  EOF
  and EOF lines, then remove --add-category=Video
  ! Note
- Semicolon is needed at the last.
 Ok, I'm do how you say.
 Is there any differences where Category mentioned?
 
 And I tryed this, but got error:
 /var/tmp/DivFix++-0.30-3.fc9-root-pasha//usr/share/applications/DivFix++.desktop:
 error: file contains key Category in group Desktop Entry, but keys
 extending the format should start with X-
 Error on file DivFix++.desktop: Failed to validate the created desktop file

- Because the correct one is Categories=Video;, sorry...

-- 
Configure 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 455396] Review Request: TrustedQSL - TrustedQSL ham-radio applications

[bugzilla]

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=455396





--- Comment #3 from Lucian Langa [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 15:42:19 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #1)

 If you drop the %{builddir} it works.
fixed


 Also, you need to BuildRequire desktop-file-utils and expat-devel.
fixed


 Since upstream uses lowercase some places in their naming and uppercase in
 others, from what I see, it might be better to make this package's name all
 lowercase.  Your call.
lowered the name


 Comment on status of your patches WRT upstream.  If submitted upstream,
 indicate this in the spec.  If not, do so, and indicate in the spec.
fixed


 Add ChangeLog, INSTALL and the help/ dir to %doc.
Added ChangeLog and help/*, INSTALL is only required for people that want to
compile this from source.


also add detection for zlib, expat on x86_64 arch (koji failed to build those)

.. and bumped version to:

http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/trustedqsl.spec
http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/trustedqsl-1.11-2.fc10.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 466193] Review Request: alee-fonts - Korean TrueType Fonts

[bugzilla]

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=466193


Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   ||at.com




--- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 15:45:44 
EDT ---
Please follow the process described on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle

and in particular make sure you have a page describing your font on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:In-progress_fonts

by the time you post your review request.

Thanks

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 466033] sugar-browse -- Browse activity for sugar

[bugzilla]

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=466033


Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+




--- Comment #2 from Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 
16:00:31 EDT ---
Looks good.

-- 
Configure 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

[bugzilla]

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





--- Comment #9 from Pavel Alexeev [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 16:01:32 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #8)
 (In reply to comment #7)
 First of all:
Hmmm. What about this
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoiding_using_fedora_or_redhat
   - This is packaging tricks (as the title says) and not guidelines.
 
  So, if you oppose, I think you should discuss about it with FESCO...
   - So no need.
 
 On the contrary, see this:
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage
 
 If upstream uses vendor_id, leave it intact, otherwise use fedora as
 vendor_id
Very intresting. Is there trics do not follow official guidelines

 
   But as I said before not a few maintainers simply removes --vendor=foo.
Ok, ok, I think it is a best way. I already done it now.

 - Because the correct one is Categories=Video;, sorry...
This works.
But yoa are not answer to:
  Is there any differences where Category mentioned?

http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora9/DivFix++/DivFix++-0.30-3.fc9.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 455396] Review Request: TrustedQSL - TrustedQSL ham-radio applications

[bugzilla]

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=455396


Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+




--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 16:04:51 EDT ---
Drop an 'o' from losing, line 11.

Otherwise, looks great.

APPROVED.

Thanks!

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 244314] Review Request: matchbox-window-manager - Matchbox window manager

[bugzilla]

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=244314


Peter Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||RAWHIDE




--- Comment #17 from Peter Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 16:08:12 
EDT ---
Closing... is in rawhide...

-- 
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 466033] sugar-browse -- Browse activity for sugar

[bugzilla]

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=466033


Simon Schampijer [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




--- Comment #3 from Simon Schampijer [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 16:13:45 
EDT ---
New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: sugar-browse
Short Description: The sugar browse activity 
Owners: erikos
Branches: F-9
InitialCC: mpg

-- 
Configure 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 466183] Review Request: sblim-sfcb - Small Footprint CIM Broker

[bugzilla]

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=466183





--- Comment #5 from Matt Domsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 16:31:03 EDT ---
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=712784aid=2158091group_id=128809

filed with upstream about the library placement.  Until upstream fixes, it's
acceptable to leave them in %{_libdir}.

-- 
Configure 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 466394] Review Request: pdf-renderer - A 100% Java PDF renderer and viewer

[bugzilla]

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=466394





--- Comment #3 from Orcan Ogetbil [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 16:37:15 EDT 
---
Thank you,

* I made the release number 0-0.X.cvs related number%{?dist}

* There are only a few files that have encoding issues and those are getting
fixed properly. Hence the native2ascii warnings can be ignored.

* .pfb files are removed. But since they are needed by the program I hacked the
code to use the system-fonts. Now urw-fonts is Required and the license is
LGPLv2+ and GPL+.

The final version of files:

SPEC: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/pdf-renderer.spec
SRPM:
http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/pdf-renderer-0-0.2.20081005cvs.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 452317] Review Request: heuristica-fonts - Heuristica font

[bugzilla]

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=452317





--- Comment #15 from Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-10-10 16:51:21 
EDT ---
Thanks.

Now that the legal part is done, I've updated the proposed package with the
latest upstream version

http://nim.fedorapeople.org/heuristica-fonts.spec
http://nim.fedorapeople.org/heuristica-fonts-20080825-1.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