[Bug 470424] Review Request: libtopology - Libtopology is a library for discovering the hardware topology on Linux systems

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470424


Michael Schwendt [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|177841  |
 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Flag||fedora-review+




--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 03:25:22 
EDT ---
 the rpmlint version in fc9 doesn't issue this warning

Sure it does.

 New .specfile and .src.rpm at the same locations.

It's now missing BuildRequires: doxygen, though. ;)

Anyway: APPROVED

If you like to continue with the Fedora Account setup, I can
sponsor you.

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

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

[Bug 461976] Review Request: perl-Gtk2-ImageView - Perl bindings to the GtkImageView image viewer widget

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461976


Chris Weyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Alias||perl-Gtk2-ImageView




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

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696





--- Comment #11 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 03:30:18 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #9)
 Created an attachment (id=323134)
 -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=323134) [details]
 output on a compile with attached diff (1)
 
 Attach output from a rake -v when compiling against the system-wide provided
 boost-static libraries

You should link against libboost_thread-mt.so, not against static
archive libboost_thread-mt.a.
But anyway linkage fails by other reasons like
-
ApplicationPoolServerExecutable.cpp:86: undefined reference to
`boost::this_thread::interruption_requested()'
-
(and many errors). It seems that this is because Fedora ships boot 1.34
while these symbols are introduced on 1.36+.
So until Fedora upgrades boost we have to use internal boost.
In this case Fedora compilation flags must be treated correctly.
The following seems to fix this issue:
--
--- Rakefile.orig   2008-11-11 16:23:45.0 +0900
+++ Rakefile2008-11-11 17:23:32.0 +0900
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@

 subdir 'ext/boost/src' do
file 'libboost_thread.a' = Dir['*.cpp'] + Dir['pthread/*.cpp'] do
-   flags = #{OPTIMIZATION_FLAGS} -fPIC -I../.. #{THREADING_FLAGS}
-DNDEBUG #{MULTI_ARCH_FLAGS}
+   flags = #{OPTIMIZATION_FLAGS} #{APACHE2::CXXFLAGS} -fPIC
-I../.. #{THREADING_FLAGS} -DNDEBUG #{MULTI_ARCH_FLAGS}
compile_cxx *.cpp, flags
# NOTE: 'compile_cxx pthread/*.cpp, flags' doesn't work on
some systems,
# so we do this instead.
---

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

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467958


Hans de Goede [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-cvs? |




--- Comment #15 from Hans de Goede [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 03:31:11 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #12)
 (In reply to comment #11)
  I'm happy with the progress you've made with regards to understanding of
  packaging, so I'm ready to sponsor you now
 
 Thanks Hans, I appreciate all your help! =)
 
  create an Fedora account system account (if not done already) and apply for
  cvs-extras access.
 
 Done.
 

Erm, the cvs-extras group has been renamed to packager now (my bad), and I
don't see a request from you to join that group, please apply for packager
membership in the account system.

I'm clearing the CVS request flag for now, as there is nothing the cvsadmins
can do until your account is in order, please repeat the request and reset the
flag when I've approved your packager membership.

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

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

[Bug 470830] Review Request: open64 - The Open64 compiler suite (C, C++, Fortran)

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470830





--- Comment #5 from Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 03:39:25 EDT 
---
Hmm, it seems that the compiled RPM doesn't really work on Fedora 9; in RHEL 5
it works fine. The binary RPM from open64.net works fine on Fedora 9...

I did have to do quite a bit of patching to the header files to get open64 to
build in Fedora 9, since g++ 4.3 is stricter than g++ 4.2 which is in RHEL 5.

GCC 4.3 isn't listed as a supported compiler, 4.2 is. Too bad there's just 4.3
and 3.4 in Fedora - 4.3 is too new and 3.4 is too old, since one needs gfortran
to compile the Fortran frontend.

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

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696





--- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 03:38:59 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #8)
 (In reply to comment #7)
  (In reply to comment #2)
 
  (...snip...)
 
  Unfortunately, there seems to be no easy way to fix Problem 2 (Problem 1 is
  easy enough to fix by the rubygem-passenger upstream). All releases of the
  mod_scgi code are under the CNRI license (although, changes made after 1.10 
  are
  under MIT). Some methods of fixing this issue would be:
  
  1. Removing all of the copied code from mod_scgi 1.09, then replacing it 
  either
  with clean-room written code (aka, code written by someone who has never 
  looked
  at mod_scgi) or restructuring the rubygem-passenger code so that it is not
  necessary. 
  
 Would another solution be to use mod_scgi = 1.10?

Current mod_scgi seems 1.13.
http://python.ca/scgi/releases/scgi-1.13.tar.gz

However LICENSE.txt of mod_scgi 1.13 contains

This version of the SCGI package is derived from scgi 1.10, released by
CNRI.  See doc/LICENSE_110.txt for the licensing terms of that release.
Changes made since that release are summarized in the CHANGES.txt file
along with a list of authors. Those changes are made available under the
following terms (commonly known as the MIT/X license).

This reads that the codes derived from scgi 1.10 codes are still under
CNRI license, and only what is changed compared to 1.10 are under
MIT. So I don't think using latest mod_scgi will solve this issue.

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

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469273





--- Comment #18 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 03:46:31 EDT 
---
I will recheck your latest srpm later, however:

(In reply to comment #17)
 In terms of getting sponsored, I think I'm going to work on another C++ 
 library
 I use a lot 'cryptopp.'  Once I have that one complete, I will post another 
 bug
 and link to it here.  Thanks a lot for your time and help.

 - cryptopp is already in Fedora
   https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/cryptopp

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

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467958





--- Comment #16 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 03:54:41 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #15)
 (In reply to comment #12)
  (In reply to comment #11)
   create an Fedora account system account (if not done already) and apply 
   for
   cvs-extras access.
  
  Done.
  
 
 Erm, the cvs-extras group has been renamed to packager now (my bad), and I
 don't see a request from you to join that group, please apply for packager
 membership in the account system.

I can see the packager membership request from Christopher in the FAS name
of quantumburnz.

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

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

[Bug 470830] Review Request: open64 - The Open64 compiler suite (C, C++, Fortran)

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470830





--- Comment #6 from Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 04:00:49 EDT 
---
Or, I could compile open64 with itself by including the binary release in the
srpm which would then be used to compile 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 467958] Review Request: barry - BlackBerry(tm) Desktop for Linux

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467958


Hans de Goede [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+, fedora-cvs?




--- Comment #18 from Hans de Goede [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 04:03:09 EDT 
---
New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: barry
Short Description: Barry is a desktop toolset for managing your BlackBerry
device.
Owners: quantumburnz
Branches: F-8 F-9 F-10
InitialCC: quantumburnz

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

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

[Bug 470703] Review Request: links 2 - text mode browser with graphics

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470703


Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]




--- Comment #5 from Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 04:05:31 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #0)
 There only issue is that the elinks package is using /usr/bin/links even 
 though
 it isn't actually called links.  I would be willing to do the modifications to
 elinks depending on what the outcome is

This is a bit tricky since a lot of people are used to using links in the
console.

I'd prefer this package and binary to be named links2, which also avoids the
name clash with elinks.

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

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467958





--- Comment #17 from Hans de Goede [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 04:02:27 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #16)
 (In reply to comment #15)
  (In reply to comment #12)
   (In reply to comment #11)
create an Fedora account system account (if not done already) and apply 
for
cvs-extras access.
   
   Done.
   
  
  Erm, the cvs-extras group has been renamed to packager now (my bad), and I
  don't see a request from you to join that group, please apply for packager
  membership in the account system.
 
 I can see the packager membership request from Christopher in the FAS name
 of quantumburnz.

You are right, my bad. I expected all sponsor needing people to be on the todo
list of the initial login screen. What is the purpose of that todo list if it
is incomplete? 

Anyways Christopher, you have been sponsored, I'll redo your CVS request now.

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

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

[Bug 467655] Review Request: yafaray - a raytracer for Blender.

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467655





--- Comment #28 from Paulo Roma Cavalcanti [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 
09:36:18 EDT ---
Sorry. The correct spec is:

http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/specs/yafaray.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 443238] Review Request: cave9 - 3d clone of SFCave.

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443238


Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+




--- Comment #18 from Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 09:58:14 
EDT ---
Yes, this one looks fine.  I still haven't been able to determine why I and a
few others see these issues in their personal mock builds but most people
don't.

Anyway, this looks fine now; the permissions are good and rpmlint is silent.

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 469494] Review Request: xlcrack - Recover lost and forgotten passwords from XLS files

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469494


Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




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

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

[Bug 460352] Review Request: xwota - Who's On the Air Database interface

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460352


Lucian Langa [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




--- Comment #7 from Lucian Langa [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 10:38:22 EDT 
---
New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: xwota
Short Description: Who's On the Air Database interface
Owners: lucilanga
Branches: F-8 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 468128] Review Request: python-flickrapi - Python module for interfacing with the Flickr API

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468128





--- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 10:31:00 EDT 
---
Ping?  I'm thinking that test suite failure is simply due to not having
supplied an appropriate jpeg file.  If you could confirm a successful test
suite run then I see no reason this couldn't be 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 461929] Review Request: mnemosyne - Flash-card learning tool

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461929


Charles R. Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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




--- Comment #7 from Charles R. Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 
11:58:30 EDT ---
Yes, thanks Dominik :-)

You need to add Requires: hicolor-icon-theme for the
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps/ directory.

Package ACCEPTED.

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

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

[Bug 470703] Review Request: links 2 - text mode browser with graphics

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470703





--- Comment #10 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 12:47:55 EDT 
---
I think that you should try to contact the maintainer directly, and if things
doesn't move, go to the mailing list.

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

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

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

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447738





--- Comment #13 from Debarshi Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 12:52:17 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #12)

 I'm pinging upstream to see if there are plans to port the ZYpp stack to rpm
 4.6.

Any response?

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

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

[Bug 447740] Review Request: zypper - easy to use command line package manager

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447740





--- Comment #9 from Debarshi Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 12:57:32 EDT 
---
Waiting for progress in #447738 and #442714

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

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

[Bug 204250] Review Request: Ngspice - A mixed level/signal circuit simulator

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=204250


Chitlesh GOORAH [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




--- Comment #15 from Chitlesh GOORAH [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 09:44:51 
EDT ---
Package Change Request
===
Package Name: Ngspice
Short Description: A mixed level/signal circuit simulator
Owners: chitlesh
Branches: EL-5
 -

-- 
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 461139] Review Request: arabeyes-thabit-fonts

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461139





--- Comment #31 from Muayyad Alsadi [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 10:25:13 
EDT ---
 Unfortunately you have to be a packager in order to comaintain a package.
till I get that, I'll be pleased to help at least by attaching .spec files in
bugzilla

 we need 3 font packages
 1. KACST
 kacst-fonts is already in fedora for a long time.
I meant to say we should have 3 separate packages
because we have 3 upstream packages
kacst: is from different author
while arabeyes-core and arabeyes-decorative have different license (the first
is GPLed and the second is OFL)

Nicolas Mailhot proposed that each font should be split into a different
package
so at least we need 3 different source rpms because we have three upstreams
they later can be split using some macro into final 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 450527] Review Request: libkni - C++ library for the Katana robot arm

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450527





--- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 09:24:54 
EDT ---
This fails to build for me; patch 3 fails to apply:

Patch #3 (kni-3.9.2-ctor.patch):
+ /usr/bin/patch -s -p1 -b --suffix .ctor --fuzz=0
+ /bin/cat /builddir/build/SOURCES/kni-3.9.2-ctor.patch
1 out of 3 hunks FAILED
 -- saving rejects to file src/Base/cdlCOM.cpp.rej
RPM build errors:
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.JKAEJ2 (%prep)
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.JKAEJ2 (%prep)

Keep in mind that rawhide applies patches with --fuzz=0.  It builds if you
force  --fuzz=2 but that shouldn't be needed for new packages.

Also, while building the latest package (with fuzz set to 2) I noticed the
following odd output:

Building: ../../lib/linux/libKNI_InvKin.so.3.9.0
 [failed]
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lKNIBase
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status


Building: ../../lib/linux/libKNI_LM.so.3.9.0
 [failed]
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lKNIBase
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status

Building: keycontrol.demo
 [failed]
/tmp/ccFUilYk.o: In function `main':
/builddir/build/BUILD/KNI_3.9.2/demo/keycontrol/keycontrol.cpp:591: undefined
reference to `CikBase::getCoordinates(double, double, double, double,
double, double, bool)'
/builddir/build/BUILD/KNI_3.9.2/demo/keycontrol/keycontrol.cpp:928: undefined
reference to `CikBase::moveRobotTo(double, double, double, double, double,
double, bool, int)'
(and several more failures)

Building: socketcontrol.demo
 [failed]
/tmp/ccxSSsex.o: In function `main':
/builddir/build/BUILD/KNI_3.9.2/demo/socketcontrol/socketcontrol.cpp:731:
undefined reference to `CLMBase::moveRobotLinearTo(double, double, double,
double, double, double, bool, int)'
/builddir/build/BUILD/KNI_3.9.2/demo/socketcontrol/socketcontrol.cpp:596:
undefined reference to `CikBase::getCoordinates(double, double, double,
double, double, double, bool)'
(and several more failures)

And also the following additional rpmlint complaint:
  libkni.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libKNIBase.so.3.9.0 
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

which is a bit odd.  It's not a blocker, but I wonder why I'm only seeing it
now.

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

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

[Bug 464471] Review Request: dvdrip - Graphical DVD ripping and encoding tool

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464471





--- Comment #7 from Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 
09:18:56 EDT ---
This seems to be a significant amount of work, almost certainly which will not
go upstream. I'm not sure how you'll be able to handle the missing dependencies
in dvdrip, unless it is checking for its dependencies at runtime (and even
then, if the user doesn't know about rpmfusion, this will likely serve to
confuse them further when yum can't find these items).

I'm not trying to be difficult for the sake of being difficult, but when an
application's description is Graphical DVD ripping and encoding tool and it
will be unable to do either of those tasks out of the box, I'm strongly
inclined to let it live, fully enabled, in rpmfusion.

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

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

[Bug 461929] Review Request: mnemosyne - Flash-card learning tool

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461929





--- Comment #8 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
2008-11-11 13:12:47 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
 koji build:
 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=913629
 
 You are building a noarch python package.
 Using CFLAGS is irrelevant. (it is replaced as -O2 only as noarch package).
 
 In the install section, why do you need to install twice ?
 %{__python} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root %{buildroot}
 should be enought. (at least there is the same set of files with this method).

I just copied those two lines from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python

Line removed.

 Gnome HIG recommends to use verb(s) in comments for desktop files...
 http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/1.0/

Fixed.

(In reply to comment #7)
 You need to add Requires: hicolor-icon-theme for the
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps/ directory.

Fixed.

Updated package:

http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mnemosyne.spec
http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mnemosyne-1.1.1-3.r1.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 461929] Review Request: mnemosyne - Flash-card learning tool

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461929


Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




--- Comment #9 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
2008-11-11 13:15:11 EDT ---
New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: mnemosyne
Short Description: Flash-card learning tool
Owners: rathann
Branches: F-10 F-9 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 470502] Review Request: kde-plasma-runcommand - Simple plasmoid to run commands without using terminal or KRunner

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470502


Rex Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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




--- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 12:14:38 EDT ---
I'll take a look.

scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=926785

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

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

[Bug 466496] Review Request: python-suds - A lightweight python soap web services client

[bugzilla]

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


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





--- Comment #18 from Jeff Ortel [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 13:25:30 EDT ---
Fabian, 

I've completed steps (1-12) in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/NewPackageProcess and all
seems well.

Now, getting ready to do steps 13  14 (make update) to push in to fedora
updates for (F-8, F-9) and I have a question.  Suds 0.3.2 is now GA.  Should I
(can I) follow the package update process now?  Or, completely follow through
with 0.3.1 and then update the package?

Also, does it matter when I close this ticket with NEXT RELEASE?

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

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

[Bug 443771] Review Request: lmms - Linux MultiMedia Studio

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443771


Thomas Moschny [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




--- Comment #21 from Thomas Moschny [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 13:17:10 
EDT ---
Thanks for this review!


New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: lmms
Short Description: Linux MultiMedia Studio
Owners: thm
Branches: F-9 F-10
InitialCC: none
Cvsextras Commits: yes

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

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

[Bug 470502] Review Request: kde-plasma-runcommand - Simple plasmoid to run commands without using terminal or KRunner

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470502





--- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 12:17:01 EDT ---
1. I'd venture that only
BR: kdebase-workspace
is required here.

2.  %post/%postun ldconfig scriptlets not needed

otherwise, very simple here, pending scratch build and rpmlint tests, we're
close.

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

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

[Bug 452413] Review Request: BkChem - Chemical drawing program

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452413





--- Comment #15 from Henrique LonelySpooky Junior [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
2008-11-11 12:18:49 EDT ---
Hi, Mamoru,
I will contact Beda Kosata to inquire about the possibility of creating links.
Soon I'll post the answer here



(In reply to comment #14)
 By the way
 
 - All codes are under GPLv2+ (or no license) and HTML files
   are under GFDL, so the license tag must be
   GPLv2+ and GFDL.
 
 - This package uses some files from Python powerwidgets
   Pmw, which is actually in Fedora as python-pmw
   (bug 462250: I reviewed...). 
   Is it possible to make this package use system-wide
   python-pmw?
   (simply creating symlinks will be easier?)
 
 - I guess packaging oasa seperately will be better.
   http://bkchem.zirael.org/oasa_en.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 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882


Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends on||471003




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

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

[Bug 464471] Review Request: dvdrip - Graphical DVD ripping and encoding tool

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464471





--- Comment #4 from Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 
08:37:20 EDT ---
Yes, but don't you think thats not a very common usecase? I would argue that
the average user who sees dvdrip in the Fedora repository is going to expect it
to, well, rip encrypted video DVDs, and will be rather confused and unhappy
when it doesn't. Whereas, if this lives entirely in rpmfusion, it will just
work as expected out of the box and can have sane Requires.

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

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

[Bug 470502] Review Request: kde-plasma-runcommand - Simple plasmoid to run commands without using terminal or KRunner

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470502


Jaroslav Reznik [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




--- Comment #6 from Jaroslav Reznik [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 12:37:05 
EDT ---
New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: kde-plasma-runcommand
Short Description: Simple plasmoid to run commands without using terminal or
KRunner
Owners: jreznik
Branches: F-9 F-10
InitialCC:

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

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

[Bug 464471] Review Request: dvdrip - Graphical DVD ripping and encoding tool

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464471





--- Comment #6 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 
09:10:46 EDT ---
I agree with what Martin said. (despite it will need to be properly tested to
see which components will be disabled).

I will just add that the dependencies are accurately sorted in the dvdrip
program. So anyone can see what should be installed at runtime. But that will
requires some more tweaking and rework the warning/error messages depending on
what are the users needs.

So, as martin said, we can already use dvdrip as a master node. I wonder what
could be missing to submit tasks to this master node. (maybe xine for previews,
but shouldn't be mandatory to submit blind tasks). For now, unless transcode is
installed the program will block, but transcode shoudn't be mandatory to submit
tasks nor to use it as a master node.

Also; despite the name, dvdrip doesn't only take dvd as a primary source. It
can also use files. In this case, there is no need to have mp2 support or else.

About transcode. This program needs ffmpeg; but I think it should be possible
to have a ffmpeg library patent free, which would lead to have a totally free
built of transcode.
Such task for ffmpeg wouldn't be maintainable or will create more conflicts
with the plain ffmpeg library than it will solve IMO.

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

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

[Bug 461929] Review Request: mnemosyne - Flash-card learning tool

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461929





--- Comment #6 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
2008-11-11 11:36:39 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
 I would like to, but I'm not sponsored yet :-(

You are now.

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

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

[Bug 459387] Review Request: libtool2 - The GNU Portable Library Tool v2

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459387





--- Comment #7 from Matthias Clasen [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 11:23:50 
EDT ---
F11 is open for business. 
We should get moving on introducing libtool2 early in the cycle,
parallel or not...

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

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

[Bug 467175] Review Request: perl-Set-Object - Set of objects and strings

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467175





--- Comment #15 from Gerd Hoffmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 05:10:15 EDT 
---
Got a reply, progress on the licensing front ;)

Hello Gerd.
I agree to relicense Set::Object under the same terms as (current) Perl itself
- which is probably the choice between two licenses: Artistic 2.0 and GPL.
Cordially,
Jean-Louis

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

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

[Bug 467655] Review Request: yafaray - a raytracer for Blender.

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467655





--- Comment #27 from Paulo Roma Cavalcanti [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 
09:34:53 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #26)
 quick comments. I will have more time on wednesday...
 
 The snapshot is good, can be I've regenerated  from today and the package 
 built
 fine.
 
 What need to be improved.
 * The package release should notice it is a snapshot. So, either the version
 (0.1.0) is pre, or post. then the release will be 1 (aka:
 0.1svn%{date}%{?dist} or 1 ( 1svn%{date}%{?dist}.


Done. I used:

0.1.svn.%{date}%{?dist}


 
 * Package must use our $RPM_OPT_CFLAGS.
 For now it use -O3 -ffast-math, you will probably need another dynamic patch
 here as $RPM_OPT_CFLAGS depends on the cpu architecture.
 
 
 * rpmlint on installed packages (rpmlint yafaray yafaray-blender) aren't 
 empty,
 specially there are a lot of undefined-non-weak-symbols. This is because of a
 missing library at linking time, This have to be repored upstream. 
 /usr/lib64/_yafqt.so
 /usr/lib64/_yafrayinterface.so


This is what I get:

[cascavel:~/SRPMS] rpmlint yafaray
yafaray.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libyafaraycore.so
yafaray.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libyafaraycore.so
/usr/lib64/libIex.so.6
yafaray.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libyafaraycore.so
/usr/lib64/libImath.so.6
yafaray.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libyafaraycore.so
/lib64/libz.so.1


[cascavel:~/SRPMS] rpmlint yafaray-blender
yafaray-blender.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/blender/scripts/yafaray_ui.py BPY
yafaray-blender.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/blender/scripts/yafaray_ui.py 0644
yafaray-blender.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/blender/scripts/yaf_export.py BPY
yafaray-blender.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/blender/scripts/yaf_export.py 0644
yafaray-blender.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/blender/scripts/yaf_light.py BPY
yafaray-blender.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/blender/scripts/yaf_light.py 0644
yafaray-blender.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libyafarayqt.so
yafaray-blender.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libyafarayqt.so /lib64/libm.so.6
yafaray-blender.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libyafarayplugin.so
yafaray-blender.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libyafarayplugin.so /lib64/libdl.so.2
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 4 warnings.

 
 * I still cannot have yarafray blender plugin detected when
 blender-2.48a-4.fc8.x86_64 is used. I will ivestigate this, but maybe it would
 be easier to define a blender python plugins directory within the python 
 libdir
 pathes.
 
 %{python_sitearch}/blender/ for architecture dependent plugin (like yafaray)
 %{python_sitelib}/blender for architecture independant plugin.

I put  _yaf*.so in  %{python_sitearch} and it also worked. Maybe this way you
can get them detected.

The scrpits (.py), I think they should go where the other blender scripts are:

/usr/share/blender/scripts


new URLs:

http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/specs/yafray.spec

http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/srpms/yafaray-0.1.0-0.1.svn.20081031.fc8.src.rpm

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

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

[Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882





--- Comment #31 from Bryan O'Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 10:44:46 
EDT ---
OK, here are the links to the new packages:

http://bos.fedorapeople.org/ghc-zlib-0.5.0.0-1.fc9.src.rpm
http://bos.fedorapeople.org/ghc-zlib.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 470830] Review Request: open64 - The Open64 compiler suite (C, C++, Fortran)

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470830





--- Comment #7 from Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 09:32:30 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #5)
 Hmm, it seems that the compiled RPM doesn't really work on Fedora 9; in RHEL 5
 it works fine. The binary RPM from open64.net works fine on Fedora 9...

Also the RPM compiled in RHEL 5 works fine in Fedora 9, so the problem is
indeed with gcc 4.3.

I had a look at compiling open64 with the binary release of open64, but
couldn't get it to work on Fedora 9.

The package could be restrained to EPEL, since it doesn't work on Fedora 9.

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

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

[Bug 465382] Review Request: bouncycastle-mail - SMIME/CMS packages for Bouncy Castle

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465382


Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?




--- Comment #11 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 
14:48:08 EDT ---
I finally got a hold of fitzsim. He released bouncycastle to me. I will update
both bcprov and bcmail this week (for now for F-9 only. I'm not sure about
F-8).

Package Change Request
===
Package Name: bouncycastle-mail
New Branch: F-9
Owner: oget

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

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

[Bug 470626] Review Request: balance - TCP load-balancing proxy server with round robin and failover mechanisms

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470626





--- Comment #4 from Itamar Reis Peixoto [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 
08:06:00 EDT ---
 Don't explain me :-) Add this to the spec file.

I agree, fixed.

http://ispbrasil.com.br/balance/balance.spec
http://ispbrasil.com.br/balance/balance-3.42-4.fc10.src.rpm

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

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

[Bug 471108] New: Review Request: wholeslide - a library for decoding virtual slide files

[bugzilla]

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

Summary: Review Request: wholeslide - a library for decoding virtual slide files

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471108

   Summary: Review Request: wholeslide - a library for decoding
virtual slide files
   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://wholeslide.cs.cmu.edu/download/wholeslide.spec
SRPM URL: http://wholeslide.cs.cmu.edu/download/wholeslide-1.0.0-1.fc10.src.rpm
Description: The Wholeslide library allows for vendor-independent decoding of
virtual slide images. This package contains the C library.

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

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

[Bug 435017] Review Request: ssm - coordinate superposition library

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435017


Tim Fenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




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

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

[Bug 435017] Review Request: ssm - coordinate superposition library

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435017





--- Comment #14 from Tim Fenn [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 15:32:00 EDT ---
New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: ssm
Short Description: coordinate superposition library
Owners: timfenn
Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5
InitialCC: timfenn

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

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

[Bug 468466] Review Request: libgksu - Simple API for su and sudo

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468466





--- Comment #6 from Simon Wesp [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 15:36:37 EDT ---
fixed

SPEC: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/libgksu-2.0.7/libgksu.spec
SRPM:
http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/libgksu-2.0.7/libgksu-2.0.7-3.fc10.src.rpm

rpmlint-errors:
libgksu.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gksu.schemas
libgksu.i386: W: one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig

i edited this 
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

to this:
..
Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig
..
%postun 
/sbin/ldconfig

i hope this won't be a problem

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

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

[Bug 468467] Review Request: gksu - Graphical frontend to su

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468467





--- Comment #2 from Simon Wesp [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 15:36:40 EDT ---
NEWS-file
sorry, I have forget it to remove the NEWS-file, its an empty file

gettext-devel. 
Strange, i made this error in every package, up to now, sorry! 

The Desktopfile
It's a little tricky. The desktopfile tries to open a terminalemulator via 
gksu /usr/bin/x-terminal-emulator
x-terminal-emulator is a setting in update-alternatives for debian and debian
based distros. seems like fedora don't use this or a similar alternative to set
a terminal. so this file will be needless, or?

all patches are from the gksu-debianpackage
upstream = debian package maintainer of gksu  libgksu


fixed: news file and gettext and patchcomment, split the nautlis extension in
an extra subpackage
SPEC: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/gksu-2.0.0/gksu.spec
URL: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/gksu-2.0.0/gksu-2.0.0-2.fc10.src.rpm

Only rpmlint-error:
gksu-nautilus-extension.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/nautilus/extensions-2.0/libnautilus-gksu.a

i think this won't be a problem, or?

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

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

[Bug 471003] Review Request: cabal-install - Haskell package utility

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471003


Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   ||com
 Blocks||425882, 470756




--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 05:54:14 EDT 
---
This requires ghc-zlib and ghc-HTTP which are currently under 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 471108] Review Request: wholeslide - a library for decoding virtual slide files

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471108





--- Comment #1 from Adam Goode [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 15:47:56 EDT ---
It's not with a stable API yet, but this Java code contains the main demo
interface for the library:

http://wholeslide.cs.cmu.edu/download/wholeslide-java-1.0.0.tar.gz

The class is edu.cmu.cs.wholeslide.gui.Demo

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

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

[Bug 471041] New: Review Request: diffpdf - PDF files comparator

[bugzilla]

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

Summary: Review Request: diffpdf - PDF files comparator

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471041

   Summary: Review Request: diffpdf - PDF files comparator
   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://rafalzaq.nonlogic.org/fedora/diffpdf/diffpdf.spec
SRPM URL:
http://rafalzaq.nonlogic.org/fedora/diffpdf/diffpdf-0.3.8-1.fc8.src.rpm
Description: DiffPDF is used to compare two PDF files. By default the
comparison is
of the text on each pair of pages, but comparing the appearance of pages
is also supported (for example, if a diagram is changed or a paragraph
reformatted). It is also possible to compare particular pages or page
ranges.

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

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

[Bug 435018] Review Request: clipper - crystallographic object oriented library

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435018





--- Comment #12 from Tim Fenn [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 16:15:13 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #11)
 Would you rewrite your spec/srpm? I guess you once want
 to clean up your spec file.

Yes, now that all the deps are cleaned up, I did a bit of a cleaning/fixing:

new spec: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/clipper.spec
new srpm: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/clipper-2.0-16.f8.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 460352] Review Request: xwota - Who's On the Air Database interface

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460352


Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+




--- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 10:28:33 EDT 
---
Looks good.  desktop-file-install has been quieted and the license tag is
correct now.

APPROVED

Thanks for doing more reviews; it really helps.

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

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

[Bug 470502] Review Request: kde-plasma-runcommand - Simple plasmoid to run commands without using terminal or KRunner

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470502





--- Comment #5 from Jaroslav Reznik [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 12:34:44 
EDT ---
Ok, thanks for quick 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 459088] Review Request: protobuf - Protocol Buffers - Google's data interchange format

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459088





--- Comment #28 from Lev Shamardin [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 08:54:30 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #25)
 Unless you provide the concrete case for this package I strongly
 disagree (packaging guidelines say that the compelling reason
 must be provided)
 (If you still want I probably have to ask for FESCo:
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Staticly_Linking_Executables
 )

The link above prohibits static linking of executables, and I
completely agree with this policy. But I don't understand how does
this prohibit providing -static library packages without any
statically linked executables.

  and for these cases having
  static libraries packaged saves you from rebuilding the required
  libraries yourself. 
 
 This is exactly why we think we must _not_ provide static archives unless
 avoided.
 Using static archives will cause problem when some security
 issues or so are found in protobuf and people forget that they are
 using old static protobuf archive, for example.

Are we supposed to fix all potential security issues in the universe?
Potential security issues in fedora packages are effectively handled
in this case with the policy of prohibiting static linking of
*executables*, because in this case the number of statically linked
packages in fedora is minimal. But if the local administrator decides
to build something locally against a -static library, he surely has a
Reason to do this, and he has to perform some additional non-standard
steps to do this (install -static subpackage), and of course he
understands the drawbacks. If I want to make a statically linked
executable for my local system not providing a -static subpackage just
adds some additional inconvenience for me, but will never stop from
static linkage, because I will simply build the static library myself.

To summarize, there are no statically linked *executables* in
protobuf-* packages, so I think that the policy is fulfilled.

 
   !!For -vim subpackage
 ! Neither of %_datadir/vim/vimfiles/{ftdetect,syntax} are owned
   by any packages, however I will ask vim maintainer about this.
   
  
  Any news on this item?
 Oops, completely forgotton, I will surely ask later...
 
   --
   Additional remark about python subpackage:
   The -python subpackage should not depend on the base package or any other
   packages because it is a pure python implementation.
   --
   - Well, for technical discussion, does this mean that there will
 be no problem even if the installed version of protobuf and
 protobuf-python differ? (if you don't write Requires this
 can happen).
 This discussion can be applied for -java subpackage.
  
  From my point of view, the only possible problem is that someone can
  finish using newer protobuf-compiler with older python/java
  bindings. Both java and python implementations are usable as a runtime
  without any C++ code, you only need corresponding version of
  protobuf-compiler for development.
 
 Then you should ensure that the trouble you mentioned here won't happen.
 * One method is to make -compiler subpackage have:
 -
 Conflicts: %{name}-java  %{version}
 Conflicts: %{name}-java  %{version}
 -
 or so.

I've added 
Conflicts: %{name}-compiler  %{version}
Conflicts: %{name}-compiler  %{version}
to -java and -python subpackages.

(In reply to comment #26)
 Well, for -2:
 
 * License
   - Well protobuf.pc.in is still under ASL 2.0
 You should ask the author to change the license
 of this file

I removed the license header from the file, leaving only Copyright
notice, as the author suggested.

 * BuildRequires
   - This package won't build without 
 BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel (note: here
 I don't say about Requires).

Fixed. However this is strange, since it did build successfully in
mock on my Fedora 8 system.

 
 * Requires
   - Requires: %{name}-java-%{version}-%{release} should be
 Requires: %{name}-java = %{version}-%{release}

Fixed.

 
 * rpmlint issue
 ** non-standard-group
   - Group Development/Documentation should simply be
 Documentation.

Fixed.

 
 ** non-executable-script
 
 E: non-executable-script
 /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/google/protobuf/descriptor_pb2.py 0644
 
- If this script are not meant to be executed by user directly,
  then this script must not have shebang (anyway the shebang
  #!/usr/bin/python2.4 is wrong because we use python 2.5)

This was in the protoc-generated code. It should 

[Bug 467175] Review Request: perl-Set-Object - Set of objects and strings

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467175





--- Comment #17 from Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 
08:47:42 EDT ---
Please include a copy of your correspondence with the copyright holders on
relicensing as a flat text file in this package (and put it in %doc), so that
it is clear to others why we have it licensed like this when the source doesn't
match.

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

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

[Bug 470703] Review Request: links 2 - text mode browser with graphics

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470703





--- Comment #6 from John F [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 08:48:48 EDT ---
The issue is that this is the successor to the original links.  Elinks is a
fork where this is just version 2.  In the elinks spec file the 'links' symlink
is done by the package maintainer in the following code from %install:

ln -s elinks $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/links
ln -s elinks.1 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1/links.1

I also noticed that in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#General_Naming the
package name should match upstream tarball where technically possible.  

Maybe this is a situation where alternatives should be used?

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

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

[Bug 470830] Review Request: open64 - The Open64 compiler suite (C, C++, Fortran)

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470830





--- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 10:22:12 EDT 
---
This package has to make it into rawhide in any case, so it needs to work on
Fedora.

It is not unheard of for a package to include a binary copy once to do the
initial bootstrapping; immediately after it is built, you remove the binary
code and use the existing package to build the next one.  Take a look at the
specfile for the fpc package and the useprebuiltcompiler define.

Still, it would perhaps be even better if the issues with gcc 4.3 were better
understood before going that route.

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

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

[Bug 470502] Review Request: kde-plasma-runcommand - Simple plasmoid to run commands without using terminal or KRunner

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470502





--- Comment #3 from Jaroslav Reznik [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 12:25:45 
EDT ---
It's based on than's kde-plasma-lancelot SPEC file. So we should prepare
template from latest perfect plasma SPEC file and then propagate changes to
already reviewed ones.

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

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

[Bug 470703] Review Request: links 2 - text mode browser with graphics

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470703





--- Comment #7 from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 09:00:59 
EDT ---
To me alternatives looks like a nice answer. Did you try to talk with elinks's
maintainer ?

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

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

[Bug 464471] Review Request: dvdrip - Graphical DVD ripping and encoding tool

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464471





--- Comment #5 from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 08:55:51 
EDT ---
+1 to comment #4. I would be very unhappy (translate: I would curse a day and
half) if I would yum install dvdrip only to find out that... I cannot rip. To
me this submission seems like a perfect candidate for our sister repo.

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

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

[Bug 225725] Merge Review: elinks

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225725





--- Comment #5 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 09:23:21 EDT 
---
Another issue is that the symbolic link to links is dubious at best. It will
also cause problem for bug 470703. What is your opinion on that? Why was it
done in the first place?

-- 
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 470703] Review Request: links 2 - text mode browser with graphics

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470703





--- Comment #8 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 09:15:51 EDT 
---
alternative could be used if elinks and links command-line syntax are
compatible. However the link for elinks to links should certaainly be undone
when this package is put in fedora, such that elink is elinks and links is
links.

The elinks package is very broken when it comes to obsoletes and provides,
however, and the elinks maintainer should contacted such that this is fixed.
Unfortunately, the review request has been accepted without fixing those
issues:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225725

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

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

[Bug 470502] Review Request: kde-plasma-runcommand - Simple plasmoid to run commands without using terminal or KRunner

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470502


Rex Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+




--- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 12:32:24 EDT ---
rpmlint clean.

confirmed functions as advertised.

APPROVED (I'll leave you to address minor 1,2 issues before building)

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

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

[Bug 467405] Review Request: mingw32-libxml2 - MinGW Windows libxml2 XML processing library

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467405





--- Comment #7 from Richard W.M. Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 05:31:24 
EDT ---
I have seen this sort of error before, but I'm not sure why it happens.

I've just checked the libxml2-2.7.2.tar.gz tarball that we are using and
the timestamps are correct - ie. aclocal.m4 is present with timestamp
later than configure.in, so I see no reason why the build process should
be trying to remake it.

The timestamps on other files look fine too.

Anyway, I still think we should leave this until we come to packaging
for EPEL (as I said in comment 4 above).  This is irrelevant to the Fedora
review request.

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

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

[Bug 469273] Review Request: quickfix - development library for FIX based applications

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469273





--- Comment #19 from Hayden James [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 09:06:01 EDT 
---
Great.  The only package I use extensively for C++ development besides quickfix
and cryptopp, that comes to mind, is ACE
(http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE.html) but it appears someone has some
working fedora packages, it just has not been included:
http://dist.bonsai.com/ken/ace_tao_rpm/SRC/5.6.6-1/.  Also, perhaps OTL, which
would be extremely simple to package: http://otl.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 471003] New: Review Request: cabal-install - Haskell package utility

[bugzilla]

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

Summary: Review Request: cabal-install - Haskell package utility

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471003

   Summary: Review Request: cabal-install - Haskell package
utility
   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/cabal-install/cabal-install.spec
SRPM URL:
http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/cabal-install/cabal-install-0.6.0-1.fc9.src.rpm
Description: 
cabal-install provides a user-based Haskell Hackage package manager
which is essential for modern Haskell development.

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

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

[Bug 470703] Review Request: links 2 - text mode browser with graphics

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470703





--- Comment #9 from John F [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 10:31:35 EDT ---
I guess I should try to talk with the elinks maintainer, that makes a lot of
sense!  Should I contact them directly or use the fedora-devel list?

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

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

[Bug 467655] Review Request: yafaray - a raytracer for Blender.

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467655





--- Comment #29 from Paulo Roma Cavalcanti [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 
17:06:30 EDT ---
I am also using:

sed -i -es|REL_CCFLAGS = '-O3 -ffast-math'|REL_CCFLAGS = '-ffast-math
%{optflags}'|g config/linux2-config.py

for the RPM_OPT_FLAGS. The compiler uses now:

-ffast-math -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
-fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic

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

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470756


Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends on||471003




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

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

[Bug 447368] Review Request: schroot - Execute commands in a chroot environment

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447368





--- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 14:43:04 EDT 
---
Note that I've asked on fedora-security-list for someone to have a look at this
package.  I've no idea of what response I might receive, but there's at least a
chance that we can move forward.

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

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470424





--- Comment #4 from Tony Breeds [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 17:13:35 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)

 Anyway: APPROVED
 
 If you like to continue with the Fedora Account setup, I can
 sponsor you.

Thank you I have created a FAS account completed the CLA and applied for
membership to the packager group.

Thank you.

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

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

[Bug 471026] New: Review Request: chrony - An NTP client/server

[bugzilla]

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

Summary: Review Request: chrony - An NTP client/server

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471026

   Summary: Review Request: chrony - An NTP client/server
   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://fedorapeople.org/~mlichvar/tmp/chrony.spec
SRPM URL:
http://fedorapeople.org/~mlichvar/tmp/chrony-1.23-1.20081106gitbe42b4.fc10.src.rpm
Description:
A client/server for the Network Time Protocol, this program keeps your
computer's clock accurate. It was specially designed to support
systems with dial-up Internet connections, and also supports computers
in permanently connected environments.

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

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

[Bug 471003] Review Request: cabal-install - Haskell package utility

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471003





--- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 08:52:13 EDT 
---
I think the dependencies are backwards.  Does this block ghc-zlib or is it the
other way around?

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

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470424





--- Comment #5 from Bill Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 17:22:57 
EDT ---
How does this compare to libbitmask and libcpuset from
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/cpusets/?

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

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

[Bug 469494] Review Request: xlcrack - Recover lost and forgotten passwords from XLS files

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469494


Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+




--- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 08:57:19 EDT 
---
It looks like a line was lost from my comment above, but unfortunately I can't
remember what I might have written there.  Oh, well.

Anyway, this looks good to me.

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 464471] Review Request: dvdrip - Graphical DVD ripping and encoding tool

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464471


Martin Jürgens [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]




--- Comment #3 from Martin Jürgens [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 07:53:50 EDT 
---
dvdrip supports cluster mode whereas the master node does not need transcode or
any other packages that are not in Fedora.

The nodes that encode the video could be other computers having transcode
installed from rpmfusion so having dvdrip in Fedora repos would make sense.

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

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

[Bug 469494] Review Request: xlcrack - Recover lost and forgotten passwords from XLS files

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469494





--- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 17:29:48 
EDT ---
New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: xlcrack
Short Description: Recover lost and forgotten passwords from XLS files
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 225725] Merge Review: elinks

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225725


Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||Reopened
 Status|CLOSED  |ASSIGNED
 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Resolution|RAWHIDE |




--- Comment #4 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 09:17:22 EDT 
---
As far as I can tell, the unversionned obsoletes and provides are still there.
They are gonna cause much trouble to bug 470703.

Please fix that, and fix it also in F8 and F9 and issue updates.

-- 
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 467175] Review Request: perl-Set-Object - Set of objects and strings

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467175





--- Comment #16 from Gerd Hoffmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 05:48:08 EDT 
---
new packages (updated license tag) uploaded:
http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/osm/perl-Set-Object/perl-Set-Object.spec
http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/osm/perl-Set-Object/perl-Set-Object-1.25-3.fc10.src.rpm

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

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

[Bug 225725] Merge Review: elinks

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225725





--- Comment #6 from John F [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 17:41:20 EDT ---
Created an attachment (id=323269)
 -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=323269)
Fixes to the elinks.spec file to have it work with the 'links' package

Full spec file and srpm here:
http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~jhford/fedora/elinks.spec
http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~jhford/fedora/elinks-0.12-0.7.pre2.fc10.src.rpm

-- 
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 471041] Review Request: diffpdf - PDF files comparator

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471041


Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]




--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 17:43:30 
EDT ---
I'm unable to download your 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 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882


Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||471003
 Depends on|471003  |




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

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470756


Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||471003
 Depends on|471003  |




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

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

[Bug 471003] Review Request: cabal-install - Haskell package utility

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471003


Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|425882, 470756  |
 Depends on||425882, 470756




--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 18:19:18 EDT 
---
Oops thanks - made this depend on ghc-zlib and ghc-HTTP reviews.

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

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461139





--- Comment #32 from Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 18:22:44 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #31)
 till I get that, I'll be pleased to help at least by attaching .spec files in 
 bugzilla

Thanks.

 I meant to say we should have 3 separate packages
 because we have 3 upstream packages

Yep I think we all agree on this. :)

 they later can be split using some macro into final rpm

I think Nicolas was probably talking about subpackaging of upstream packages
when they provide multiple fonts/faces, yes.

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

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

[Bug 468128] Review Request: python-flickrapi - Python module for interfacing with the Flickr API

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468128





--- Comment #4 from Ian Weller [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 18:29:21 EDT ---
Created an attachment (id=323272)
 -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=323272)
Running of test suite with image

I'm assuming you mean this test suite, and I'm assuming that if it doesn't
return anything then it succeeded.

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

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470424





--- Comment #6 from Tony Breeds [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 18:55:35 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
 How does this compare to libbitmask and libcpuset from
 http://oss.sgi.com/projects/cpusets/?

I could be wrong but my reading of the code for libcpuset indicates it's
primarily about creating (nestable) groups of CPUS for dealing with process
affinity.  It considers threads lightly, and mostly to work around a in kernel
bug to do with
set allocation.

Libtopology's focus is discovery of CPU topology.  It will export information
about socket/package, core and thread configuration, along with (numa) memory
placement.  libtopology is destined to be used by tools such as taskset and
numactl for optimum placement of CPU resources.  for example run 4 copies of
$this on the best only on primary threads.  To the best of my knowledge this
isn't available in any other similar library.

Certainly there is overlap with PLPA and cpuset but it is not complete and the
libraries can be used to complement each other.

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

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

[Bug 225725] Merge Review: elinks

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225725





--- Comment #7 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 19:01:51 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #6)
 Created an attachment (id=323269)
 -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=323269) [details]
 Fixes to the elinks.spec file to have it work with the 'links' package
 
 Full spec file and srpm here:
 http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~jhford/fedora/elinks.spec
 http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~jhford/fedora/elinks-0.12-0.7.pre2.fc10.src.rpm

It would have been better to keep the obsoletes, but version them by
using the links version number that was used when it was obsoleted.

-- 
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 461011] Review Request: kde-plasma-lancelot - An alternative application launcher

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461011


Kevin Kofler [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE




--- Comment #11 from Kevin Kofler [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 19:07:52 EDT 
---
That stuff has been built and pushed for a while.

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

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

[Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882





--- Comment #32 from Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 19:06:23 EDT 
---
Thanks, Bryan.  Perhaps the review should target f11 now since we have
ghc-6.10.1 in dist-f11.
But that is up to Jason really.

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

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

[Bug 471145] New: Review Request: procinfo-ng - System monitoring application

[bugzilla]

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

Summary: Review Request: procinfo-ng - System monitoring application

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471145

   Summary: Review Request: procinfo-ng - System monitoring
application
   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/procinfo-ng.spec
SRPM URL:
http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/procinfo-ng-2.0.217-1.fc9.src.rpm

Project URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/procinfo-ng/

Description:
Procinfo-NG is a complete rewrite of the old system monitoring application
procinfo.  The goal is to make more readable (and reusable) code and to 
restore broken functionality.

Koji scratch builds:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=927803

rpmlint output:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] SRPMS]$ rpmlint procinfo-ng*
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] i386]$ rpmlint procinfo-ng*
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

I renamed the file 'procinfo' to 'procinfo-ng' in the %file section to avoid
conflicts with the existing 'procinfo'.

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

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

[Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882





--- Comment #33 from Bryan O'Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 19:08:53 
EDT ---
I'm easy. I'll be pushing a nearly-zero-day update of ghc 6.10.1 for f10 if I
can.

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

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470737


Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]




--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 19:14:22 
EDT ---
While fixing the encoding you don't preserve the timestamps.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps

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

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

[Bug 467641] Review Request: sugar-maze - short summary here

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467641


Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

External Bug ID||OLPC 8960




--- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 19:25:07 
EDT ---
I've reported upstream about the tarball.  I think that it will be really hard
to get one because on most activities pages are no contact details about how to
get in touch with the developer, no direct link to the bugtracking system, no
proper entry (and some times no entry) in the bugtracking system, or no action
from upstream in the past months.

Let's give them some time.

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

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

[Bug 467641] Review Request: sugar-maze - Maze for Sugar

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467641


Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: sugar-maze  |Review Request: sugar-maze
   |- short summary here  |- Maze for Sugar




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

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

[Bug 471145] Review Request: procinfo-ng - System monitoring application

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471145





--- Comment #1 from Bill Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 20:09:56 
EDT ---
Is it commandline-compatible, and somewhat-output-compatible, with original
procinfo? If so, it may be worth talking to the procinfo maintainer about just
obsoleting the old version.b

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

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

[Bug 464054] Package Review Request for projectM-pulseaudio

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464054


Jameson [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




--- Comment #9 from Jameson [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 20:10:30 EDT ---
New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: projectM-pulseaudio
Short Description: projectM visualization through pulseaudio
Owners: imntreal
Branches: F-8 F-9 F-10
InitialCC: imntreal

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

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

[Bug 464051] Package Review Request for projectM-jack

[bugzilla]

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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464051





--- Comment #4 from Jameson [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-11-11 20:29:24 EDT ---
I have a new SPEC in original location, and a new SRPM:  
http://www.vtscrew.com/projectM-jack-1.2.0-4.fc9.src.rpm

I double checked the URL, and it worked for me.  Am I still missing something
in it?

I'm still waiting to hear from upstream about the license issues.  I'm afraid
I've scared them off with it, though.

Sorry, I forgot that la files line.  I thought I got rid of all of them.

The desktop file is updated.  I didn't think I would need to require the
pulseaudio package since the icon is actually installed with libprojectM-qt.

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

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