[Bug 461678] Review Request: purple-microblog - Libpurple plug-in supporting microblog services like Twitter
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=461678 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 04:24:55 EDT --- purple-microblog-0.2.0-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/purple-microblog-0.2.0-1.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470066] Review Request: R-qtl - Quantitative trait loci (qtl) functionality for R
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=470066 --- Comment #3 from Mattias Ellert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 04:36:10 EDT --- The sysadmins have closed the www3.tsl.uu.se server and moved all pages to the www5.tsl.uu.se server, without putting an alias in DNS. I am arguing with them to put an alias in, but I don't know if I will succeed. So (at least for now) use these URLs instead of the once above: Spec URL: http://www5.tsl.uu.se/~ellert/R-qtl/R-qtl.spec SRPM URL: http://www5.tsl.uu.se/~ellert/R-qtl/R-qtl-1.09-1.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470140] Review Request: nettee - Network tee program
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=470140 Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 05:09:57 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: nettee Short Description: Network tee program Owners: fab Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5 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 470140] Review Request: nettee - Network tee program
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=470140 --- Comment #7 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 05:09:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) (In reply to comment #5) theoretically speaking, there is a slight difference between the two commands. find does the change recursively, unlike the direct chmod which only affects the top level folder I know, also chmod would also remove the executable flag of directories, but in this case there are no such directories, so for this package/spec a plain chmod would do exactly the same and be easier to read. I agree with Till that the spec file should be as easy to read as possible. -- Configure 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 443238] Review Request: cave9 - 3d clone of SFCave.
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=443238 --- Comment #17 from Victor Bogado [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 05:56:55 EDT --- I made the required changes, I wasn't experiencing the mode problem for here my binaries were correctly setted to 755, but as you said, better safe then sorry. :-) specs and source rpm at the same bat-place : http://bogado.net/rpm/cave9-0.3-3.bog9.src.rpm http://bogado.net/rpm/cave9.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469590] Review Request: cpuid - Dumps information about the CPU(s)
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=469590
--- Comment #6 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 06:28:31
EDT ---
Thanks again
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
- $RPM_OPT_FLAGS are not used to compile, could be solved with
make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64
-DVERSION=$(VERSION)
Hm, the VERSION is now undefined during the compile. But after reading the
Makefile, the proper solution would be to use -DVERSION=%{version} in the
CFLAGS. So, please, one more iteration is required, all other issues have
already been resolved.
New make:
make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS=%{optflags} -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64
-DVERSION=%{version}
Update:
Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/cpuid.spec
SRPM URL:
http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/cpuid-20060917-4.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 457281] Review Request: unikurd-fonts - A widely used Kurdish font
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=457281 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 07:22:10 EDT --- unikurd-web-font-20020502-1.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/unikurd-web-font-20020502-1.fc8 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469585] Review Request: moon-buggy - Drive and jump with some car accros the moon
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=469585 --- Comment #5 from Simon Wesp [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 05:19:00 EDT --- mh, the translations are broken. perhaps you should drop this part.. -- Configure 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 450527] Review Request: libkni - C++ library for the Katana robot arm
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=450527 --- Comment #11 from Tim Niemueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 08:11:12 EDT --- I have fixed the license tag and converted to consistent (non-)macro usage. The URL used to contain more info, seems they changed it. I now added a link to http://www.neuronics.ch/cms_de/web/index.php?id=386 which describes the overall architecture and the place of the KNI in this. Additionally I added a patch that is necessary for usage with usb2ser adapter. Patch went to Neuronics as well. I want to stay with version 3.9.2 for now. I will have to do some tests with the new version on the robot with the arm, as it is a major release and they changed some core components. I'll push an update later if it works just fine. I also have to check if it can be a drop-in replacement or if the API has changed. The new SRPM is at http://fedorapeople.org/~timn/robotics/libkni-3.9.2-6.fc9.src.rpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470720] New: Review Request: gdnet - Demonstration tool for the libdnet interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gdnet - Demonstration tool for the libdnet interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470720 Summary: Review Request: gdnet - Demonstration tool for the libdnet interface 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://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/gdnet.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/gdnet-0.5-1.fc9.src.rpm Project URL: http://jon.oberheide.org/projects/gdnet/ Description: gdnet is a graphical tool demonstrating the power and simplicity of the libdnet interface. Using the GTK+ toolkit, it provides a variety of networking features in a simple, easy-to-use interface. Koji scratch builds: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=923189 rpmlint output: [EMAIL PROTECTED] i386]$ rpmlint -i gdn* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [EMAIL PROTECTED] SRPMS]$ rpmlint -i gdn* 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure 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 470720] Review Request: gdnet - Demonstration tool for the libdnet interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470720 --- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 08:15:24 EDT --- Hmmm, there is a problem after the installation of this package. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ gdnet ** (gdnet:18125): WARNING **: fw_open(): could not get fw handle Segmentation fault -- Configure 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 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696
--- Comment #1 from Jeroen van Meeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 08:25:12
EDT ---
Updated the SPEC and SRPM for better placement of the mod_passenger.so file (in
%{_libdir}/httpd/modules instead of %{ruby_sitearch}/apache2/mod_passenger.so)
so that the configuration file %{_sysconfdir}/httpd/conf.d/mod_passenger.so can
actually load it independent of the architecture.
New SPEC: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/rubygem-passenger.spec
New SRPM:
http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f9/SRPMS/rubygem-passenger-2.0.3-2.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 461400] Review Request: cherokee - Flexible and Fast Webserver
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=461400 Jeroen van Meeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE --- Comment #19 from Jeroen van Meeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 05:21:43 EDT --- This package has been pushed to updates, closing bug. Pavel, if you push a package to updates, and include the bug number, bodhi can automagically close the bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457281] Review Request: unikurd-fonts - A widely used Kurdish font
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=457281 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 07:20:20 EDT --- unikurd-web-font-20020502-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/unikurd-web-font-20020502-1.fc10 -- Configure 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 458785] Review Request: libev - High-performance event loop/event model with lots of features
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=458785 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 08:34:09 EDT --- libev-3.48-1.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libev-3.48-1.fc8 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458785] Review Request: libev - High-performance event loop/event model with lots of features
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=458785 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 08:33:09 EDT --- libev-3.48-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libev-3.48-1.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458785] Review Request: libev - High-performance event loop/event model with lots of features
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=458785 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 08:32:02 EDT --- libev-3.48-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libev-3.48-1.fc10 -- Configure 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 457281] Review Request: unikurd-fonts - A widely used Kurdish font
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=457281 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 07:21:08 EDT --- unikurd-web-font-20020502-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/unikurd-web-font-20020502-1.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459010] Review request: pystatgrab - Python bindings for libstatgrab
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=459010 --- Comment #12 from Rakesh Pandit [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 06:32:16 EDT --- Why don't you ask for CVS work and import and build. This one blocks ldtp package also? 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 199154] Review Request: Slony-1 (postgresql-slony-engine)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=199154 --- Comment #45 from Ruben Kerkhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 08:40:38 EDT --- Not sure what you mean, I prefer to review Devrim's package and wait for him to clean up his spec. -- 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 469590] Review Request: cpuid - Dumps information about the CPU(s)
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=469590
--- Comment #5 from Dan Horák [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 05:03:32 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
- $RPM_OPT_FLAGS are not used to compile, could be solved with
make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64
-DVERSION=$(VERSION)
Hm, the VERSION is now undefined during the compile. But after reading the
Makefile, the proper solution would be to use -DVERSION=%{version} in the
CFLAGS. So, please, one more iteration is required, all other issues have
already been resolved.
--
Configure 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 470508] Review Request: Ajaxterm - A web-based terminal
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=470508 --- Comment #2 from Ruben Kerkhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 08:49:57 EDT --- Thanks, corrected. New version here: Spec URL: http://ruben.fedorapeople.org/Ajaxterm.spec SRPM URL: http://ruben.fedorapeople.org/Ajaxterm-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 469585] Review Request: moon-buggy - Drive and jump with some car accros the moon
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=469585 --- Comment #6 from Simon Wesp [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 05:31:03 EDT --- and the game has no pause function. perhaps you can use the debian-pause patch -- Configure 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 470694] Review Request: rubygem-rack - Common API for connecting web frameworks, web servers and layers of software
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=470694 --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 09:10:34 EDT --- For 0.4.0-1 * ruby(abi) dependency - Please check https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_Packaging_Guidelines * Unused macro - %ruby_sitelib does not to be used anywhere. * Dependency - Please check if all needed Requires are added properly. ! For example, lib/rack/handler/mongrel.rb contains -- 1 require 'mongrel' 2 require 'stringio' -- So this file has Requires: rubygem(mongrel). However I don't know if this file itself is just optional or not. Anyway please check if all dependencies are correctly added. * %gemdir/bin - I guess files under %gemdir/bin must be moved into %_bindir (ref: rubygem-mongrel.spec) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470694] Review Request: rubygem-rack - Common API for connecting web frameworks, web servers and layers of software
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=470694 --- Comment #2 from Jeroen van Meeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 09:28:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) For 0.4.0-1 * ruby(abi) dependency - Please check https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_Packaging_Guidelines Stupid /me, I always somehow forget this one. Fixed. * Unused macro - %ruby_sitelib does not to be used anywhere. Fixed. * Dependency - Please check if all needed Requires are added properly. ! For example, lib/rack/handler/mongrel.rb contains -- 1 require 'mongrel' 2 require 'stringio' -- So this file has Requires: rubygem(mongrel). However I don't know if this file itself is just optional or not. Anyway please check if all dependencies are correctly added. This is entirely optional, it is one of the handlers -rack can cope with (amongst others; fastcgi and webrick) * %gemdir/bin - I guess files under %gemdir/bin must be moved into %_bindir (ref: rubygem-mongrel.spec) Fixed. New SPEC: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/rubygem-rack.spec New SRPM: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f9/SRPMS/rubygem-rack-0.4.0-2.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 470508] Review Request: Ajaxterm - A web-based terminal
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=470508 --- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 10:07:44 EDT --- And still, require the packages chkconfig and initscripts instead of /sbin/chkconfig and /sbin/service. -- Configure 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 461139] Review Request: Thabit-fonts from Arabeyes.org
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=461139 --- Comment #25 from Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 10:24:29 EDT --- (In reply to comment #24) i have mailed upstream since i am not a direct contributer to olpc . Anyways I am still waiting for a reply Please do not wait for OLPC to respond. Our packaging standards are higher than theirs, any any font package that passed Fedora review will just the OLPC package next time they rebase on a new Fedora version. Just do the requested fixes, so we can have a clean Fedora package OLPC can be referred to. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Blocks||182235 --- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 10:40:14 EDT --- Umm... spot, would you answer my question below? ! First of all please unpack passenger-2.0.3.gem in the srpm by below: $ mkdir TMP ; cd TMP $ tar xf ../*gem (gem can be unpacked by tar) $ mkdir TMP ; cd TMP $ tar xzf ../data.tar.gz Then: First of all, the overall license this package is GPLv2 (not GPLv2+) Then ext/apache2/LICENSE-CNRI.TXT says: / A few functions in ext/apache2/Hooks.cpp are based on the source code of mod_scgi version 1.9. Its license is included in this file. Please note that these licensing terms *only* encompass those few functions, and not Passenger as a whole. CNRI OPEN SOURCE LICENSE AGREEMENT (CNRI = Python 1.6 i.e. GPL incompatible license follows) / What I am in trouble is that - What functions in ext/apache2/Hooks.cpp are actually based on mod_scgi codes - And I don't know for now how these functions are used in the other parts of passenger source codes - So I am not sure if the code in Hooks.cpp under CNRI license won't conflict with GPL. spot, how do you think about this. For me the current status seems very obscure. -- Configure 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 469590] Review Request: cpuid - Dumps information about the CPU(s)
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=469590 Dan Horák [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Dan Horák [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 10:55:15 EDT --- All issues are fixed, so this package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461139] Review Request: Thabit-fonts from Arabeyes.org
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=461139 --- Comment #28 from Muayyad Alsadi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 11:05:40 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=323015) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=323015) font config configuration -- Configure 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 461139] Review Request: Thabit-fonts from Arabeyes.org
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=461139 --- Comment #27 from Muayyad Alsadi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 11:05:05 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=323014) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=323014) spec file for arabeyes-fonts superpackage -- Configure 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 469590] Review Request: cpuid - Dumps information about the CPU(s)
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=469590 Fabian Affolter [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 461139] Review Request: Thabit-fonts from Arabeyes.org
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=461139 Muayyad Alsadi [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #26 from Muayyad Alsadi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 11:03:56 EDT --- Hi, I have FAS account and I would love to co-maintain this package for fedora as my first fedora package we need 3 font packages 1. KACST 2. core 3. decorative http://www.arabeyes.org/project.php?proj=Khotot as you case see they are already split by upstream http://cvs.arabeyes.org/viewcvs/art/khotot/ KACST is not developed by Arabeyes thus they need its own super package while core and decorative should be two subpackages of the same package the core fonts are missing the best font which is simplified naskhi, which can be downloaded from Araveyes fonts team leader and the designer of the fonts http://www.khaledhosny.org/filebrowser KACST's fonts are released under GPLv1 the decorative fonts are GPLv2 and the core fonts are OFL licensed I'll attach my .spec 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 469590] Review Request: cpuid - Dumps information about the CPU(s)
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=469590 --- Comment #8 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 11:04:22 EDT --- Thank you for the 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 469590] Review Request: cpuid - Dumps information about the CPU(s)
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=469590 Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #9 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 11:05:02 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: cpuid Short Description: Dumps information about the CPU(s) Owners: fab Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5 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 470727] New: Review Request: slimdata - Tools and library for reading and writing slim compressed data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: slimdata - Tools and library for reading and writing slim compressed data https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470727 Summary: Review Request: slimdata - Tools and library for reading and writing slim compressed data Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://matt.truch.net/fedora/slimdata.spec SRPM URL: http://matt.truch.net/fedora/slimdata-2.6.1a-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Slim is a data compression system for scientific data sets, both a binary and a library with C linkage. Slim works with integer data from one or more channels in a file, which it can compress more rapidly than general tools like gzip. Upstream: http://slimdata.sourceforge.net/ -- Configure 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 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696
--- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 11:17:39 EDT
---
By the way some pre-remarks
* BuildRequires
- This package won't build without BR: rubygem(fastthread).
- BR: gcc-c++ findutils are redundant.
* Requires
- Please check if all needed Requires are correctly added.
It seems that at least Requires: rubygem(rack)
rubygem(fastthread) are needed.
* boost dependency
- Well, when I try below to make build log more verbose
(please consider this)
---
%prep
%setup -q -c -T
mkdir BINDIR
cat BINDIR/rake EOF
#!/bin/bash
%{_bindir}/rake -v \$@
EOF
chmod 0755 BINDIR/rake
%build
export CONFIGURE_ARGS=--with-cflags='%{optflags}'
export PATH=$(pwd)/BINDIR:$PATH
gem install \
..
---
build log shows (attached)
---
1525 DEBUG: cd
/builddir/build/BUILD/rubygem-passenger-2.0.3/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.0.3
1526 DEBUG: rake clean apache2
1527 DEBUG: rm -rf Utils.o Bucket.o Logging.o System.o Configuration.o
Hooks.o mod_passenger.o mod_passenger.so ApplicationPoolSe
rverExecutable
1528 DEBUG: (in
/builddir/build/BUILD/rubygem-passenger-2.0.3/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.0.3)
1529 DEBUG: ### In ext/apache2:
1530 DEBUG: rm -r pkg
1531 DEBUG: make clean
1532 DEBUG: ### In ext/passenger:
1533 DEBUG: rm -f Makefile
1534 DEBUG: rm -f libboost_thread.a *.o
1535 DEBUG: ### In ext/boost/src:
1536 DEBUG: rm -f Apache2ModuleTests *.o
1537 DEBUG: ### In test:
1538 DEBUG: rm -f DummyRequestHandler ApplicationPool
1539 DEBUG: ### In benchmark:
1540 DEBUG: g++ -g -DPASSENGER_DEBUG -fPIC -I../.. -D_REENTRANT -DNDEBUG -c
*.cpp
1541 DEBUG: ### In ext/boost/src:
1542 DEBUG: g++ -g -DPASSENGER_DEBUG -fPIC -I../.. -D_REENTRANT -DNDEBUG -c
pthread/exceptions.cpp
1543 DEBUG: g++ -g -DPASSENGER_DEBUG -fPIC -I../.. -D_REENTRANT -DNDEBUG -c
pthread/once.cpp
1544 DEBUG: g++ -g -DPASSENGER_DEBUG -fPIC -I../.. -D_REENTRANT -DNDEBUG -c
pthread/thread.cpp
1545 DEBUG: ar cru libboost_thread.a *.o
1546 DEBUG: ranlib libboost_thread.a
---
Here
- This package seem to be using internal libboost_thread library.
This should be changed so that mod_passenger.so uses external (system-
widely provided) libboost_thread-mt.so library
- Anyway Fedora specific compilation flags are not correctly honored.
* Redundant output
- I guess the -v option of chmod -v 644 $script is not needed...
(Actually you are not using -v option for chmod on the below lines)
- Also I guess rm -rvf is redundant...
* Document files
- You don't have to write %doc attribute for files under %_mandir
(as these are automatically regarded as %doc)
* Directory ownership issue
- Please own %{ruby_sitearch}/passenger/
- Please also check the directory ownership issues between subpackages.
! For example
- The directory %{geminstdir}/doc is owned by -doc subpackage
- -devel subpackage has %{geminstdir}/doc/definitions.h
- -devel subpackage does not have Requires: -doc
- So when -devel subpackage is installed with_out_ -doc subpackage
installed, %{geminstdir}/doc is not owned by any packages
* %defattr
- is missing on mod_passenger subpackage.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 11:22:39 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=323017) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=323017) mock build log for dist-f11 Forgot to attach mock build log... -- Configure 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 195678] Review Request: redland-bindings - bindings for the redland RDF library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=195678 Thomas Vander Stichele [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NOTABUG | --- Comment #9 from Thomas Vander Stichele [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 11:41:11 EDT --- So what should I do if I actually want to get this reviewed ? It seems it's just a structural problem of not being able to get reviewers for certain kinds of packages, which is a shame. I'll reopen jsut so it gets on someone's radar and someone can tell me what my options are if I want this reviewed. -- 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 466301] Review Request: ario - Music Player Daemon Client
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=466301 Mamoru Tasaka [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 470508] Review Request: Ajaxterm - A web-based terminal
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=470508 --- Comment #4 from Ruben Kerkhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 14:20:47 EDT --- Why, I don't remember reading that in the packaging 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 469273] Review Request: quickfix - development library for FIX based applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469273 --- Comment #15 from Hayden James [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 14:38:41 EDT --- Ok, I made all the changes suggested above. I think for a release in the future I'll build the bindings for other languages. But here's the updated files: http://hayden.doesntexist.com/~hjames/quickfix.spec http://hayden.doesntexist.com/~hjames/quickfix-1.12.4-5.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 467958] Review Request: barry - BlackBerry(tm) Desktop for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467958
--- Comment #6 from Christopher D. Stover [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09
15:30:59 EDT ---
Hi Hans, thanks for the full review. I didn't realize those directory
ownership issues were a problem before but I've read up on them and it makes
sense now. Hopefully they should all be fixed now. Output from rpmlint:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ rpmlint barry.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/i386/barry*
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
I moved the libs out of the main package and back into their own package again.
I also put *.so in the devel package.
I added Requires: libopensync to the opensync package to make sure
%{_libdir}/opensync exists.
I cleaned up the doc directory -- removed *.sh and *.php which were used to
create the *.html files.
I added --disable-rpath to the %configure lines instead of the sed commands you
pasted. I don't have a 64-bit machine to test on but can you let me know if
this fixes the problem? If not, I'll have to use the sed commands.
SPEC:
http://8uxodw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pzd9Tb3TfRlfB2LpwvfmZ4cu_zknwrn_D9-R9BaHNGIqgS355w_eUnWkcl8ZAFYbvTVArCdxuo4Q/barry.spec?download
SRPM:
http://8uxodw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pzd9Tb3TfRlc7jRbx1-VYIoiOdC3wZL9botvMNwIskrSRYQmuAyM9wz5FosWRUw8TY1opI1uyiFk/barry-0.14-2.fc10.src.rpm?download
--
Configure 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 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696
--- Comment #5 from Jeroen van Meeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 15:29:23
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
First of all, the overall license this package is GPLv2 (not GPLv2+)
The license tag actually says GPLv2, not GPLv2+
(In reply to comment #3)
By the way some pre-remarks
* BuildRequires
- This package won't build without BR: rubygem(fastthread).
Added BuildRequires: rubygem(fastthread) = 1.0.1
- BR: gcc-c++ findutils are redundant.
Removed these.
* Requires
- Please check if all needed Requires are correctly added.
It seems that at least Requires: rubygem(rack)
rubygem(fastthread) are needed.
Added these requires
* boost dependency
- Well, when I try below to make build log more verbose
(please consider this)
(...snip...)
---
Here
- This package seem to be using internal libboost_thread library.
This should be changed so that mod_passenger.so uses external (system-
widely provided) libboost_thread-mt.so library
- Anyway Fedora specific compilation flags are not correctly honored.
I seem unable to do this. Logfile attached
* Redundant output
- I guess the -v option of chmod -v 644 $script is not needed...
(Actually you are not using -v option for chmod on the below lines)
- Also I guess rm -rvf is redundant...
It's redundant, but it shows which files are chmod'ed or rm'ed; since it's a
find with a couple of parameters I'd like to be able to track down what
happens.
* Document files
- You don't have to write %doc attribute for files under %_mandir
(as these are automatically regarded as %doc)
Fixed.
* Directory ownership issue
- Please own %{ruby_sitearch}/passenger/
- Please also check the directory ownership issues between subpackages.
! For example
- The directory %{geminstdir}/doc is owned by -doc subpackage
- -devel subpackage has %{geminstdir}/doc/definitions.h
- -devel subpackage does not have Requires: -doc
- So when -devel subpackage is installed with_out_ -doc subpackage
installed, %{geminstdir}/doc is not owned by any packages
Made %{geminstdir} shared between -devel and -doc package.
* %defattr
- is missing on mod_passenger subpackage.
Fixed.
New SPEC: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/rubygem-passenger.spec
New SRPM:
http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f9/SRPMS/rubygem-passenger-2.0.3-3.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 470508] Review Request: Ajaxterm - A web-based terminal
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=470508 --- Comment #6 from Ruben Kerkhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 14:46:37 EDT --- Ah, you're right. New version build: Spec URL: http://ruben.fedorapeople.org/Ajaxterm.spec SRPM URL: http://ruben.fedorapeople.org/Ajaxterm-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 469514] Review Request: debmirror - debian partial mirror script
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=469514 --- Comment #12 from Javier Palacios [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 16:44:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) The config file is the official way to adapt it to a particular platform. Unless you manage to make this patch adopted by upstream, you can consider this package and your request for sponsorship on hold. I don't understand this well. First, the configuration file is not required, just optional. Second, the patch is there only to avoid that debmirror.conf goes listed as a requirement (if not packaged) Regarding upstream, I will try, but last version of this package is years ago. -- Configure 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 468823] Review Request: hanazono-fonts - Japanese Mincho-typeface TrueType font
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=468823 Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 466301] Review Request: ario - Music Player Daemon Client
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=466301
--- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 12:49:45 EDT
---
For -4:
* More (Build)Requires fixes
- BuildRequires: gettext-devel is excessive and
BuildRequires: gettext is enough
- Requires: gettext is not needed.
* sed usage
-
sed s/ario.png/ario/ %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/ario.desktop \
%{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/ario.desktop.new
rm %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/ario.desktop
mv %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/ario.desktop.new \
%{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/ario.desktop
-
- First of all fixing data/ario.desktop.in.in at %prep
instead of fixing installed ario.desktop is preferred
(for --short-circuit issue)
- Then you can -i option of sed.
-
sed -i -e 's|ario\.png|ario|' data/ario.desktop.in.in
-
* libtool .la files
- Usually installed libtool .la files _must_ be removed.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exclusion_of_Static_Libraries
* %find_lang
- The comment
-
# At some point it might be a good move to use %lang(xx) for the locales
-
is no longer needed because %find_lang actually does this
(you can check the contents of Ario.lang)
--
Configure 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 461139] Review Request: Thabit-fonts from Arabeyes.org
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=461139 --- Comment #29 from Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 16:59:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #27) Created an attachment (id=323014) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=323014) [details] spec file for arabeyes-fonts superpackage Alsadi, as I stated on the list (and in this review) we do not do superpackages in Fedora, so if you want to propose spec files you need to propose one spec per font (ie 3 spec files), not a single spec that packages three different upstream archives in one go -- Configure 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 468116] Review Request: sugar-analyze - Analysing tool for Sugar
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=468116
Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09
18:08:23 EDT ---
Can you please confirm if mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{sugaractivitydir} is
actually necessary? I'd expect setup.py to take care of it.
Anyway r+. Thanks!
(you forgot to set fedora-review to ?)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 466379] Review Request: zfs-fuse - ZFS ported to Linux FUSE
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=466379 Uwe Kubosch [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW 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 457947] Review Request: oldstandard-sfd-fonts - Old Standard Fonts
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=457947 Ankur Sinha [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] | |o.co.in)| --- Comment #16 from Ankur Sinha [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 14:23:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) ping ? pong! hi.. have end semester exams so a little tied up.. will do it this week for sure.. -- Configure 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 199154] Review Request: Slony-1 (postgresql-slony-engine)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=199154 --- Comment #48 from Itamar Reis Peixoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 14:28:38 EDT --- ok, but I'm still not agree with the name slony1-2.0.0-rc2.tar.bz2 for me slony-2.0.0-rc2.tar.bz2 will be better, only slony, -- 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 470737] Review Request: pen - Load balancer for simple tcp based protocols such as http or smtp
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=470737 Itamar Reis Peixoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||pen -- Configure 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 470508] Review Request: Ajaxterm - A web-based terminal
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=470508 Jussi Lehtola [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 470424] Review Request: libtopology - Libtopology is a library for discovering the hardware topology on Linux systems
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=470424
Michael Schwendt [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 19:29:59
EDT ---
$ rpmlint -i libtopology-0.3-0.1.fc9.src.rpm
libtopology.src: E: description-line-too-long Libtopology is a library for
discovering the hardware topology on Linux systems.
Your description lines must not exceed 79 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.
* Licence is: LGPLv2 (not GPLv2)
* Use %{_libdir} not %prefix/_lib as %_libdir is /usr/lib64 for
64-bit multi-arch platforms.
* Prefer cp -p or install -p when installing files.
* /usr/share/doc/libtopology-0.3/ is not included.
(Hint: Run rpm -qlvp on the built packages and notice missing
directory entries.)
* Is it really desired to put the documentation into a separate package?
The pkg is not even 100K in size. I would add the docs to the -devel pkg.
--
Configure 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 468631] Review Request: libgarmin - C library to parse and use Garmin image files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468631
--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 19:38:20
EDT ---
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc AUTHORS COPYING INSTALL README TODO
Absolutely no need to include the same %doc files also in
the -devel pkg.
%{_bindir}/gar*
%{_datadir}/%{name}/garmintypes.txt
Don't forget the corresponding directory entry!
Add: %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}
%files devel
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc AUTHORS COPYING INSTALL README TODO
%{_datadir}/%{name}/doc/*
Here either replace your line with
%{_datadir}/%{name}/doc/
to add that directory and its contents recursively, or add:
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/doc
to the -devel pkg files section.
%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/%{name}.pc
You put a file in there, so Requires: pkgconfig.
--
Configure 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 470754] Review Request: Pound - Pound is a reverse proxy, load balancer and HTTPS front-end for Web server(s)
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=470754 Itamar Reis Peixoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||Pound -- Configure 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 470754] New: Review Request: Pound - Pound is a reverse proxy, load balancer and HTTPS front-end for Web server(s)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: Pound - Pound is a reverse proxy, load balancer and HTTPS front-end for Web server(s) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470754 Summary: Review Request: Pound - Pound is a reverse proxy, load balancer and HTTPS front-end for Web server(s) 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://ispbrasil.com.br/pound/Pound.spec SRPM URL: http://ispbrasil.com.br/pound/Pound-2.4.3-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: Pound is a reverse HTTP proxy, load balancer, and SSL wrapper. It proxies client HTTPS requests to HTTP backend servers, distributes the requests among several servers while keeping sessions, supports HTTP/1.1 requests even if the backend server(s) are HTTP/1.0, and sanitizes requests. -- Configure 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 466379] Review Request: zfs-fuse - ZFS ported to Linux FUSE
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=466379 --- Comment #25 from Denis Leroy [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 18:23:41 EDT --- Kevin, yes I sponsored him. -- Configure 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 470754] Review Request: Pound - Pound is a reverse proxy, load balancer and HTTPS front-end for Web server(s)
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=470754 Dennis Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Comment #1 from Dennis Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 20:56:25 EDT --- closing this notabug. it already exists in Fedora https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/Pound yum install Pound will get it 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 469291] Review Request: uml_utilities - Utilities for user-mode linux kernel
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=469291 --- Comment #7 from Paul Wouters [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 23:29:59 EDT --- Anyone wants to pick up the 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 468823] Review Request: hanazono-fonts - Japanese Mincho-typeface TrueType font
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=468823 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|[EMAIL PROTECTED] | --- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 21:39:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) Since nobody bites, I'll take this. First review pass 1. you're packaging a font with a new license. While at first view it seems ok, you still need spot to approve it and put it on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts See this https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2008-October/msg00022.html -- Configure 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 468823] Review Request: hanazono-fonts - Japanese Mincho-typeface TrueType font
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=468823 Akira TAGOH [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | --- Comment #5 from Akira TAGOH [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-10 00:12:08 EDT --- Thank you for taking a review for this package. (In reply to comment #3) 1. you're packaging a font with a new license. While at first view it seems ok, you still need spot to approve it and put it on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts I've already asked on fedora-legal-list, and just followed him to describe License tag - https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2008-October/msg00022.html 2. please follow the font packaging process outlined on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle and in particular create a wiki page that describes your font and can be referenced in release notes Just created: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Hanazono_font 3. your fontconfig priority (59) is a little low, our guidelines states CJK fonts should be in the 65-69 range http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Simple_priority_lists 4. your fontconfig rule is a bit more convoluted than what we usually do. It probably works but please get Behdad to review it (and ok it there). I'd like to push this font prior to sazanami-mincho.ttf which we defaults for Serif for Japanese, because the quality is better than it. I'm not sure what's the right thing to do that for fontconfig config. that would be appreciated if someone could helps me. 5. please also alias the font the other way, so fontconfig knows it should use serif fonts to complete HanaMin http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Generic_names Fixed in the updated package. 6. please send your fontconfig file to hanazano upstream so it's included in their next release once you're happy with it Sure. 7. you can drop the -f argument to fc-cache for releases ≥ Fedora 9 Can you update the template page as well to see what's the expected thing hereafter? 8. please use the defattr suggested by guidelines %defattr(644,root,root,755) Sorry, missed one. fixed. 9. it's a little easier to review a package when the fields are in the same order as in rpmdevtool's spectemplate-fonts.spec (cosmetic, you can ignore it, just take it into account for your next font package) Oh, wasn't aware of that. improved a bit in: Spec URL: http://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/hanazono-fonts/hanazono-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/hanazono-fonts/hanazono-fonts-20081012-2.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 426867] Review Request: scala - Hybrid functional/object-oriented language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426867 --- Comment #82 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-10 01:13:44 EDT --- scala-2.7.2-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/scala-2.7.2-1.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462181] Review Request: teeworlds - Online multi-player platform 2D shooter
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=462181 Bug 462181 depends on bug 469492, which changed state. Bug 469492 Summary: Review Request: bam - A fast and flexible build system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469492 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 452584] Review Request: mldonkey - Client for several P2P networks
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=452584 Bernie Innocenti [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #4 from Bernie Innocenti [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-10 00:28:14 EDT --- Current srpm builds on F9, but the init script searches for the server in the wrong location (/usr/libexec/mldonkey/mlnet instead of /usr/bin/mlnet). Apart from this small glitch, the server seems to work fine. -- Configure 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 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 22:33:00 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) * boost dependency - Well, when I try below to make build log more verbose (please consider this) (...snip...) --- Here - This package seem to be using internal libboost_thread library. This should be changed so that mod_passenger.so uses external (system- widely provided) libboost_thread-mt.so library - Anyway Fedora specific compilation flags are not correctly honored. I seem unable to do this. Logfile attached Well, would you attach the log? -- Configure 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 469514] Review Request: debmirror - debian partial mirror script
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=469514 --- Comment #13 from Ralf Corsepius [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-10 01:57:24 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) (In reply to comment #11) The config file is the official way to adapt it to a particular platform. Unless you manage to make this patch adopted by upstream, you can consider this package and your request for sponsorship on hold. I don't understand this well. OK, more direct: 1. If you want to see this patch included into this package, ask the Debian upstream to include this patch into their sources and to change their package's behavior to rely on the implicit defaults. Right now, they are shipping this config file, they are relying upon, it's their package's documented behavor. First, the configuration file is not required, just optional. Wrong, using this file is the official, nominal behavior. You are shipping a crippled and hacked package. 2. Your answers are demonstrating, that you might not be sufficiently skilled for contributing to Fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470694] Review Request: rubygem-rack - Common API for connecting web frameworks, web servers and layers of software
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=470694 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-10 02:28:46 EDT --- Well, * In comments and %changelog, please use %% instead of % so that macros won't be expanded. (Please fix this on Fedora CVS) Other things are okay. - This package (rubygem-rack) is APPROVED by mtasaka - -- Configure 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 469492] Review Request: bam - A fast and flexible build system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469492 Simon Wesp [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470424] Review Request: libtopology - Libtopology is a library for discovering the hardware topology on Linux systems
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=470424
--- Comment #2 from Tony Breeds [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 20:09:30 EDT ---
Firstly thank you for takign the time to review my package.
(In reply to comment #1)
$ rpmlint -i libtopology-0.3-0.1.fc9.src.rpm
libtopology.src: E: description-line-too-long Libtopology is a library for
discovering the hardware topology on Linux systems.
Your description lines must not exceed 79 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.
Ah thanks. the rpmlint version in fc9 doesn't issue this warning. I've grabbed
the version from rawhide.
Fixed.
---
rpmlint -i SRPMS/libtopology-0.3-0.2.fc9.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
---
* Licence is: LGPLv2 (not GPLv2)
So is is Fixed.
* Use %{_libdir} not %prefix/_lib as %_libdir is /usr/lib64 for
64-bit multi-arch platforms.
I swear I tried that and the .so files were landing in /usr/lib (on 64-bit).
Fixed.
* Prefer cp -p or install -p when installing files.
Fixed. Is that documented somewhere I missed?
* /usr/share/doc/libtopology-0.3/ is not included.
(Hint: Run rpm -qlvp on the built packages and notice missing
directory entries.)
Ahh thank you for the hint!
Fixed.
* Is it really desired to put the documentation into a separate package?
The pkg is not even 100K in size. I would add the docs to the -devel pkg.
Fixed. Moved to the -devel package.
New .specfile and .src.rpm at the same locations.
--
Configure 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 470756] Review Request: ghc-HTTP - Haskell HTTP client library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470756 --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 21:30:29 EDT --- Here is on that actually builds in koji: had forgotten to specify ghc archs. Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-HTTP/ghc-HTTP.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-HTTP/ghc-HTTP-3001.1.4-2.fc9.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=923902 -- Configure 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 468823] Review Request: hanazono-fonts - Japanese Mincho-typeface TrueType font
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=468823 Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED], ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 16:56:39 EDT --- Since nobody bites, I'll take this. First review pass 1. you're packaging a font with a new license. While at first view it seems ok, you still need spot to approve it and put it on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts 2. please follow the font packaging process outlined on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle and in particular create a wiki page that describes your font and can be referenced in release notes (a wiki page template is available there http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_description_template ) 3. your fontconfig priority (59) is a little low, our guidelines states CJK fonts should be in the 65-69 range http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Simple_priority_lists Of course Behdad has the last say on this, so if you convince him to ok it I'll let this pass. 4. your fontconfig rule is a bit more convoluted than what we usually do. It probably works but please get Behdad to review it (and ok it there). 5. please also alias the font the other way, so fontconfig knows it should use serif fonts to complete HanaMin http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Generic_names 6. please send your fontconfig file to hanazano upstream so it's included in their next release once you're happy with it 7. you can drop the -f argument to fc-cache for releases ≥ Fedora 9 8. please use the defattr suggested by guidelines %defattr(644,root,root,755) 9. it's a little easier to review a package when the fields are in the same order as in rpmdevtool's spectemplate-fonts.spec (cosmetic, you can ignore it, just take it into account for your next font package) All in all this was a pleasant spec file to review and I'll have no problem approving it once those little problems are taken care of → NEEDINFO in the meanwhile -- Configure 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 199154] Review Request: Slony-1 (postgresql-slony-engine)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=199154 --- Comment #49 from Devrim GUNDUZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 14:36:31 EDT --- Sorry, it won't happen. I am against the name change of the project. I don't know how much is it worth to remove 1 byte from the tarball name. -- 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 470737] New: Review Request: pen - Load balancer for simple tcp based protocols such as http or smtp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: pen - Load balancer for simple tcp based protocols such as http or smtp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470737 Summary: Review Request: pen - Load balancer for simple tcp based protocols such as http or smtp 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://ispbrasil.com.br/pen/pen.spec SRPM URL: http://ispbrasil.com.br/pen/pen-0.18.0-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: This is pen, a load balancer for simple tcp based protocols such as http or smtp. It allows several servers to appear as one to the outside and automatically detects servers that are down and distributes clients among the available servers. This gives high availability and scalable performance. -- Configure 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 470737] Review Request: pen - Load balancer for simple tcp based protocols such as http or smtp
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=470737 Marek Mahut [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454220] Review Request: germanium - a download manager for eMusic.com
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=454220 --- Comment #46 from Adam Huffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 15:06:29 EDT --- Just as an update on this, the XML format has changed (in addition to losing the encryption), so I'm working on that. -- Configure 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 193271] Review Request: python-dns - DNS toolkit for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=193271 --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey C. Ollie [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-10 00:03:57 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-dns New Branches: EL-5 Owners: jcollie -- 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 199154] Review Request: Slony-1 (postgresql-slony-engine)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=199154 --- Comment #47 from Devrim GUNDUZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 13:42:35 EDT --- Actually Devrim is waiting for 2.0 release, which is in rc2 now. -- 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 470756] New: Review Request: ghc-HTTP - Haskell HTTP client library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ghc-HTTP - Haskell HTTP client library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470756 Summary: Review Request: ghc-HTTP - Haskell HTTP client library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-HTTP/ghc-HTTP.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-HTTP/ghc-HTTP-3001.1.4-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: A HTTP client library for Haskell http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/HTTP This package is needed to build cabal-install: the haskell package manager tool. (Please ignore the .fc9 tag and probably need to replace ghc_version with 6.8.3 for current rawhide (f10): ghc-6.10.1 is in koji but the version does not matter for this review: I will revert in the next update if necessary.:) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470508] Review Request: Ajaxterm - A web-based terminal
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=470508 --- Comment #8 from Ruben Kerkhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 16:20:06 EDT --- Thanks, fixed both points. New version: Spec URL: http://ruben.fedorapeople.org/Ajaxterm.spec SRPM URL: http://ruben.fedorapeople.org/Ajaxterm-0.10-4.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 199154] Review Request: Slony-1 (postgresql-slony-engine)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=199154 --- Comment #46 from Itamar Reis Peixoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 13:32:02 EDT --- I agree, I am trying to speedup the process since Devrim is delaying too much to answer and this bug is here since 2006. I am also have found a bug in Makefile the man7 files was not installed because whitespaces in filenames -- 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 470756] Review Request: ghc-HTTP - Haskell HTTP client library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470756 Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] ||com -- Configure 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 470173] Review Request: m4ri - Linear Algebra over F_2
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=470173 --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 23:21:56 EDT --- Note that if we only trust the code and docs in the tarball, the license is GPL+ as far as I can tell. If we additionally consult the web site, its GPLv2+. Unfortunately we have to be precise here. Ultimately, clarification from upstream is the best step. An email from them is sufficient; a fixed tarball is ideal but not necessary. Otherwise we'll wait to see what the legal folks have to say. The new package builds fine; rpmlint spews a no-documentation complaint about the -static package but that's nothing to worry about. About the library versioning thing, my concern is that something built against this package will end up needing -devel installed at runtime because the linker won't understand the different versioning convention and will end up with a dependency on libm4ri.so instead of libm4ri-0.0.20081029.so. This should be relatively easy to verify if you have some software which uses this library around to check. -- Configure 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 470508] Review Request: Ajaxterm - A web-based terminal
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=470508 --- Comment #5 from Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 14:27:27 EDT --- At least that's the way it's in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript Besides, requiring a package is AFAIK faster than going through the file lists, although the /sbin list is downloaded automatically anyways. -- Configure 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 466301] Review Request: ario - Music Player Daemon Client
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=466301 --- Comment #8 from John F [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 13:51:44 EDT --- Hi Mamoru, I have made the required changes: http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~jhford/fedora/ario.spec http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~jhford/fedora/ario-1.1-5.fc10.src.rpm Thanks again, it is really helpful! John -- Configure 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 470508] Review Request: Ajaxterm - A web-based terminal
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=470508
Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #7 from Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 15:07:44 EDT
---
Well, I might as well review the package.
- MUST: The package must own all the directories it creates.
%{_datadir}/ajaxterm/*
should be
%{_datadir}/ajaxterm
- MUST: License is incorrect - sarissa* files are licensed under LGPLv2+
License: Public Domain and LGPLv2+
Other than that I cannot do now, since the AjaxTerm site is down and I cannot
check the sources.
--
Configure 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 469273] Review Request: quickfix - development library for FIX based applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469273
--- Comment #14 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 13:56:19 EDT
---
For -4:
* BuildRequires
- build.log shows:
--
348 checking for boost::pool_allocator...
349 no
350 checking for boost::fast_pool_allocator...
351 no
--
I guess BuildRequires: boost-devel must be added
By the way, would you consider to build
mysql/postgresql/python/ruby/java bindings?
* Requires for -devel subpackage
- A package which contains pkgconfig .pc file must have
Requires: pkgconfig:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
- Also installed quickfix.pc contains:
--
Requires: libxml-2.0
--
This means that -devel subpackage must have
Requires: libxml2-devel.
* 64 bits architecture issue
- quickfix.pc.in contains
---
3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]@/lib
---
@prefix@/lib is expanded as /usr/lib (on Fedora) even on
64 bits architecture, while on those machine this must
be /usr/lib64.
Usually replacing this with [EMAIL PROTECTED]@ will fix
this issue
* Use of %makeinstall
- Please write comments before calling %makeinstall that
this tarball does not support make install DESTDIR=foo.
* Directory ownership issue
- Currently the directory %_datadir/%name itself is not
owned by any packages.
Note that
---
%files
%{_datadir}/%{name}/
---
contains the directory %_datadir/%name itself and all
files/directories/etc under %_datadir/%name.
ref:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UnownedDirectories#Wildcarding_Files_inside_a_Created_Directory
* libtool .la files
- Usually libtool .la files must be removed.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exclusion_of_Static_Libraries
* %changelog format
- For Fedora CVS usage I recomment to add one line between
every %changelog entry like:
* Sat Nov 08 2008 Hayden James - 1.12.4-4
- Changed license to ASL 1.1 and BSD with advertising. Improved spec file to
better conform
* Sat Nov 07 2008 Hayden James - 1.12.4-3
- Changed license to ASL 1.1
* Sat Nov 03 2008 Hayden James - 1.12.4-2
- Changed license to BSD
--
Configure 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
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 Kevin Fenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #16 from Kevin Fenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 16:35:51 EDT --- I'll go ahead and review this in the next few days sometime. -- Configure 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 457947] Review Request: oldstandard-sfd-fonts - Old Standard Fonts
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=457947 --- Comment #15 from Martin-Gomez Pablo [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 13:58:33 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 466147] Review Request:fedora-ksplice - Script Collection for Using KSplice on Fedora Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466147 --- Comment #5 from Jochen Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 15:47:34 EDT --- New upstream release: Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/fedora-ksplice/fedora-ksplice.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/fedora-ksplice/fedora-ksplice-0.4-1.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453839] Review Request: phatch - photo batch processor
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=453839
--- Comment #7 from Nicoleau Fabien [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 17:10:09
EDT ---
Update for 0.1.6 :
Spec URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/SPECS/phatch.spec
SRPM URL:
http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/srpms.fc9/phatch-0.1.6-1.fc9.src.rpm
Its no more a noarch package, has %{_libdir} is used.
No debuginfo generated.
Package build on koji :
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=923733
rpmlint output :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ rpmlint phatch-0.1.6-1.fc9.i386.rpm
phatch-0.1.6-1.fc9.src.rpm
phatch.i386: E: no-binary
phatch.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$
--
Configure 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
