[Bug 471335] Review Request: libgdbus - Library for simple D-Bus integration with GLib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471335 Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 03:49:40 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i386). koji build = http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=983783 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url f51d19564bdf77af1c132c2a38643fe4 libgdbus-0.2.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + BuildRequires are proper. + Compiler flags used correctly. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no static libraries. + gdbus.pc file present. + -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + ldconfig scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Package libgdbus-0.2-2.fc10 - Provides: libgdbus.so.0 Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libdbus-1.so.3 libgdbus.so.0 libglib-2.0.so.0 rtld(GNU_HASH) + Package libgdbus-devel-0.2-2.fc10 - Provides: pkgconfig(gdbus) = 0.2 Requires: libgdbus.so.0 + Not a GUI application. 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 472060] Review Request: mumbles - growl like notification system for gnome
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472060 Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472337] Review Request: fabric - A simple pythonic remote deployment tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472337 --- Comment #6 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 04:07:12 EDT --- If you are still seeking a sponsor, refer to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470737] Review Request: pen - Load balancer for simple tcp based protocols such as http or smtp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470737 Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 466953] Review Request: perl-NOCpulse-Utils - NOCpulse utility packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466953
--- Comment #5 from Miroslav Suchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 04:00:00 EDT
---
Is there some reason why the included unit tests are not run?
Because the tests are archaic and do not even compile. The only reason why do
not delete them completely is because I want to be rewritten later and make
them run again.
Is there some reason %{perl_vendorlib}/NOCpulse/ isn't owned by this package?
I thought there is automatic dependance on nocpulse-common, but this is one of
few packages which do not require it. Will fix it.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472027] Review Request: onboard - Simple on-screen Keyboard
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472027 --- Comment #5 from Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 04:23:38 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=326105) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=326105) modified onboard.desktop -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472027] Review Request: onboard - Simple on-screen Keyboard
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472027 --- Comment #7 from Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 04:26:27 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=326107) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=326107) modified onboard.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 472027] Review Request: onboard - Simple on-screen Keyboard
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472027 --- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 04:24:55 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=326106) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=326106) modified onboard-settings.desktop -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473412] Review Request: kopete-cryptography - Encrypts and signs messages in Kopete using the OpenPGP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473412 --- Comment #19 from Jaroslav Reznik [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 04:22:33 EDT --- I already figured out what's going on in Kopete with GPG messages - when sending encrypted message, Kopete moves encrypted body to encrypted part and body is replaced with This message is encrypted. It's OK, message is sent, for example it works well when sent to Pidgin. But when receiving this message, Kopete is trying to restore encrypted part of message to body (if there is encryption) instead of checking if there is cryptography plugin. So This message is encrypted message is replaced with encrypted body and the worst thing - this message is left without any further action! So kopete-cryptography can't handle it - it doesn't know about this message even! And nothing is displayed. I have patch to solve this, but another problem remains - it's working, when chat window is already opened but hanging when not. I'll try to figure out what's happening - seems like chat session is closed before message is decrypted. And finally it's regression in Kopete in KDE 4.0 - one new else if :) So I have prepared patch and I'll notify upstream. One thing I don't understand - kopete-cryptography then couldn't work in KDE 4 even it was released for it!!! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472027] Review Request: onboard - Simple on-screen Keyboard
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472027 Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #326107|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #8 from Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 04:35:38 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=326108) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=326108) modified onboard.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 475132] Review Request: usbmon - Front-end for in-kernel usbmon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475132 Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 04:35:19 EDT --- Just some quick comments on your spec file - 'Version: 4.05', the latest version is 4.06 - 'Group: File tools' is not a valid group. - 'less /usr/share/doc/rpm-*/GROUPS' for a list with valid group entries - 'Requires: perl...' is missing, take a look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Versioned_MODULE_COMPAT__Requires - '%defattr(-,root,root)' is normally '%defattr(-,root,root,-)' - Your Changelog entry is missing the Release. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474816] Review Request: perl-Text-FindIndent - heuristically determine the indent style
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474816 --- Comment #2 from Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 04:40:59 EDT --- Thank you 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 474816] Review Request: perl-Text-FindIndent - heuristically determine the indent style
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474816 Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 04:43:03 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Text-FindIndent Short Description: heuristically determine the indent style Owners: mmaslano Branches: F-10 devel InitialCC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 463266] Review Request: globalplatform - Access OpenPlatform and GlobalPlatform smart cards library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463266 --- Comment #27 from François Kooman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 04:43:04 EDT --- I ran make build in the globalplatform directories for F9 and F10 and that works great. For gpshell it doesn't because globalplatform is (still) missing. Should I first push globalplatform to stable before I can run gpshell's make build? Or would testing be enough? I guess no one will be able to test globalplatform without gpshell :) Is it appropriate to push immediately to stable for a new package? I also saw that there is a type newpackage in Bodhi's new package creation form, is that one used now for new packages as opposed to enhancement as it is described in the wiki pages? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474812] Review Request: perl-Class-Unload - unload given Class
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474812 --- Comment #2 from Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 04:47:56 EDT --- Summary and description will be fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474193] Review Request: glog - A C++ application logging library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474193 Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 04:47:20 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i386). koji build = http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=986777 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPMs + source files match upstream url 64b44e0a36b25c4afc77a0f6b2b208ed glog-0.1.2.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + BuildRequires are proper. + Compiler flags used correctly. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + ldconfig scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Package glog-0.1.2-6.fc11 = Provides: libglog.so.0 Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.7) libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libgcc_s.so.1(GLIBC_2.0) libglog.so.0 libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.0) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.1) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2) libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9) rtld(GNU_HASH) + Package glog-devel-0.1.2-6.fc11 = Requires: libglog.so.0 + Not a GUI application. Note that I saw some messages in build.log like aclocal-1.10: command not found automake-1.10: command not found But still build is successful so if anyone sees this as blocker please comment here or report bug once this gets into Fedora. 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 474812] Review Request: perl-Class-Unload - unload given Class
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474812 Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 04:56:21 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Class-Unload Short Description: unload given Class Owners: mmaslano Branches: F-10 devel InitialCC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474815] Review Request: perl-AutoXS-Header - Container for the AutoXS header files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474815 --- Comment #2 from Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 05:01:33 EDT --- I'm sorry, I forgot on this one. It will be fixed. Thank you for your 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 445537] Review Request: tightvnc - VNC software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445537 --- Comment #18 from Dan Horák [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 05:32:55 EDT --- You are probably looking at wrong place. It is in Rawhide. [EMAIL PROTECTED] etc]# rpm -q tightvnc tightvnc-1.5.0-0.9.20081120svn3200.fc11.x86_64 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 445537] Review Request: tightvnc - VNC software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445537 --- Comment #19 from Jan ONDREJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 05:43:48 EDT --- CVS request was for F-10 and it's not same as rawhide. Why there is no tightvnc for F-10? If you need help with building this package on F-10, just tell me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473184] Review Request: clamz - Amazon Downloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473184
--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 05:46:22
EDT ---
one more thing
- Don't mix $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473184] Review Request: clamz - Amazon Downloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473184 Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 05:43:59 EDT --- Just some comments on your spec file - Spec file name should be clamz.spec - License should be GPLv3+. The header in the source says 'or (at your option) any later version.' - 'BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils' is missing and you need to install the .desktop file https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files - Add README to %doc - Remove '.fc10' from your changelog entry https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469474] Review Request: sovix - A website revision system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469474
--- Comment #6 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 06:03:07
EDT ---
- %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT are not fixed in 0.0.1.7-1
- The email address in the changelog should be the same as in Bugzilla (for
your Bugzilla account). Otherwise it will be hard to find 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 445537] Review Request: tightvnc - VNC software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445537 --- Comment #20 from Dan Horák [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 06:02:07 EDT --- There is little misunderstanding - Adam's intention was to do the move from vnc to tightvnc in F-11, but to achieve that in the time of the CVS request, it was required to ask for F-10 branch whose content will be included in F-10 (but it will remain empty here) and only the content of devel will go into rawhide even when usual devel branch goes into F-to-be-10. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464430] Review Request: k12linux-quick-start-guide - Doc describing how to enable LTSP on Fedora Live LTSP.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464430 --- Comment #22 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 06:03:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21) xdg-open arguably may be reliable, but then gnome-open is not. gnome-open tries to open the file in abiword, rather than firefox. Abiword balks saying it can't handle the file. The bottom line is that using xdg-open to launch file the file does not work. That I can agree with. So ok to use firefox, but don't forget filling bugs to the appropriate components to have that fixed. Following comments still apply: There is a Requires on bluecurve-icon-theme missing for the icons. You should do a proper package of this documentation, with a proper home page and download. There are license informations missing for the html, there should be a license notice at the beginning of the file (images are screen capture, I don't know what license cover them, but it is not an 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 445537] Review Request: tightvnc - VNC software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445537 --- Comment #22 from Adam Tkac [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 06:57:45 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21) Is it possible to build this package in F-10 branch without Obsoletes attribute? Or is there a problem with that? I think an empty folder is not a good idea. Also there is an problem, that this package is included in pkgdb: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/tightvnc#Fedora10 I like tightvnc and real-vnc is not what I want. Well, I can build tightvnc for F10 but I don't see reason for it. Current trunk tightvnc is forked RealVNC source - it is completely different from old tightvnc 1.2.9 1.3.9. -- 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 445537] Review Request: tightvnc - VNC software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445537 --- Comment #21 from Jan ONDREJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 06:52:18 EDT --- Is it possible to build this package in F-10 branch without Obsoletes attribute? Or is there a problem with that? I think an empty folder is not a good idea. Also there is an problem, that this package is included in pkgdb: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/tightvnc#Fedora10 I like tightvnc and real-vnc is not what I want. I know, that I can rebuild this for myself, but It's nicer to have this package in distribution. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470694] Review Request: rubygem-rack - Common API for connecting web frameworks, web servers and layers of software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470694 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 07:40:57 EDT --- rubygem-rack-0.4.0-2.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-rack-0.4.0-2.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473926] Review Request: mod_limitipconn - Simultaneous connection limiting module for Apache
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473926 Dan Horák [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Dan Horák [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 08:04:35 EDT --- formal review is here: OK source files match upstream: 8a7d2d991328fa67fffa617942436049799bfa02 mod_limitipconn-0.23.tar.bz2 OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459989] Review Request: gnurobots - A robot programming game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459989 Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 08:03:56 EDT --- gnurobots-1.2.0-4.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update gnurobots'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-10943 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 447104] Review Request: qdevelop - development environment for QT4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447104 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 08:06:51 EDT --- qdevelop-0.26.1-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 447104] Review Request: qdevelop - development environment for QT4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447104 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 08:09:49 EDT --- qdevelop-0.26.1-1.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 447104] Review Request: qdevelop - development environment for QT4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447104 Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 463217] Review Request: gnuplot-py - Python interface to Gnuplot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463217 Sergio Pascual [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472684] Review Request: electric - Sophisticated Java based VLSI CAD System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472684 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 08:08:52 EDT --- electric-8.07-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459989] Review Request: gnurobots - A robot programming game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459989 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 08:10:00 EDT --- gnurobots-1.2.0-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update gnurobots'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2008-10999 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468189] Review Request: rear - Relax and Recovery (disaster recovery framework)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468189 Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458440] Review Request: bluemindo - Simple audio player in python/GTK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458440 Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||com) --- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 08:15:38 EDT --- Are you still interested to maintain this package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471041] Review Request: diffpdf - PDF files comparator
Please do not reply directly 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 --- Comment #7 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 08:21:19 EDT --- As soon you have fixed the vendor tag, I will approve this package and then you can start with the cvs procedure. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 447104] Review Request: qdevelop - development environment for QT4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447104 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 08:06:06 EDT --- qdevelop-0.26.1-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461077] Review Request: nxtvepg - A nexTView EPG decoder and browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461077 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | --- Comment #33 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 04:59:42 EDT --- Okay, now I am sponsoring you. Please follow Join wiki again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 445537] Review Request: tightvnc - VNC software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445537 Jan ONDREJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #17 from Jan ONDREJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 05:26:27 EDT --- Why there are still no packages of this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 Jeroen van Meeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] | |om) | --- Comment #14 from Jeroen van Meeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 07:39:15 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) Any news from upstream? I'm not sure what I can ask them to do? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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
Please do not reply directly 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 #49 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 08:04:17 EDT --- protobuf-2.0.2-5.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456756] Review Request: alien - A program that converts between the rpm, dpkg, stampede slp, and slackware tgz
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456756
Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #10 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 04:51:54
EDT ---
Just two remark
- Shouldn't 'Build: perl' be 'Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl}
-V:version`; echo $version))' ? -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Versioned_MODULE_COMPAT__Requires)
- You are mixing $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}. -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473926] Review Request: mod_limitipconn - Simultaneous connection limiting module for Apache
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473926 Dan Horák [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 445537] Review Request: tightvnc - VNC software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445537 --- Comment #23 from Jan ONDREJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 07:41:42 EDT --- Hmm, I am sorry. You right. What's happened, that this nice project is where they started? Back on realvnc source. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475132] Review Request: usbmon - Front-end for in-kernel usbmon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475132 --- Comment #2 from Pete Zaitcev [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 08:31:29 EDT --- The comments above apparently belong to some different package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470626] Review Request: balance - TCP load-balancing proxy server with round robin and failover mechanisms
Please do not reply directly 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 Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459088] Review Request: protobuf - Protocol Buffers - Google's data interchange format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459088 --- Comment #47 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 08:01:09 EDT --- protobuf-2.0.2-5.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474815] Review Request: perl-AutoXS-Header - Container for the AutoXS header files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474815 Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 06:21:59 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-AutoXS-Header Short Description: Container for the AutoXS header files Owners: mmaslano Branches: F-10 devel InitialCC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456138] Review Request: edb - Debugger based on the ptrace API and QT4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138 --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 08:01:35 EDT --- edb-0.9.6-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456138] Review Request: edb - Debugger based on the ptrace API and QT4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138 --- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 08:03:20 EDT --- edb-0.9.6-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470694] Review Request: rubygem-rack - Common API for connecting web frameworks, web servers and layers of software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470694 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 07:42:18 EDT --- rubygem-rack-0.4.0-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-rack-0.4.0-2.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473475] Review Request: python-relatorio - A templating library able to output odt and pdf files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473475 --- Comment #2 from Dan Horák [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 04:48:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) I made a full review on this package and it's in very good condition. I have just one question: * Requires: python-setuptools seems unnecessary to me. Am I wrong? It looks that, but module pkg_resources (part of setuptools) is imported in reporting.py. So unavailability of python-setuptools leads to an runtime error. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 463266] Review Request: globalplatform - Access OpenPlatform and GlobalPlatform smart cards library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463266
--- Comment #28 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 05:33:38 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #27)
For gpshell it doesn't because globalplatform is (still) missing.
Should I first push globalplatform to stable before I can run gpshell's make
build? Or would testing be enough?
- If you want to rebuild gpshell before waiting globalplatform to be pushed
into stable repositories (testing state is not enough here for rebuilding
gpshell), login on
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/
and submit a new ticket to make globalplatform tagged as override tag like
To rebuild gpshell, please tag the following packages as
dist-f{10,9}-override:
globalplatform-5.0.0-5.fc10
globalplatform-5.0.0-5.fc9
I guess no one will be able to test globalplatform without gpshell :)
- When gpshell is rebuild as above, you can request on bodhi to push multiple
packages altogether.
Is it appropriate to push immediately to stable for a new package?
- It is up to how you judge.
I also saw
that there is a type newpackage in Bodhi's new package creation form, is
that
one used now for new packages as opposed to enhancement as it is described
in
the wiki pages?
- It seems.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455137] Review Request: soundmodem - Soundcard Packet Radio Modem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455137 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 05:48:23 EDT --- soundmodem-0.10-5.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/soundmodem-0.10-5.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455137] Review Request: soundmodem - Soundcard Packet Radio Modem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455137 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 05:49:35 EDT --- soundmodem-0.10-5.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/soundmodem-0.10-5.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472071] Review Request: sugar-paint : Paint (Draw) Activity for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472071 Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 05:50:17 EDT --- I will do a full review as soon as my F10 system is ready. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472684] Review Request: electric - Sophisticated Java based VLSI CAD System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472684 Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470626] Review Request: balance - TCP load-balancing proxy server with round robin and failover mechanisms
Please do not reply directly 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 #10 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 08:04:53 EDT --- balance-3.42-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470720] Review Request: gdnet - Demonstration tool for the libdnet interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470720 manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 04:56:46 EDT --- Everything seems fine from my point of view. Only recommendation would be to include the AUTHORS file in %doc 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 455581] Review Request: php-pecl-ssh2 - php bindings to the functions of libssh2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455581 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 07:59:53 EDT --- php-pecl-ssh2-0.10-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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
Please do not reply directly 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 #48 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 08:04:03 EDT --- protobuf-2.0.2-5.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472684] Review Request: electric - Sophisticated Java based VLSI CAD System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472684 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 08:05:07 EDT --- electric-8.07-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455137] Review Request: soundmodem - Soundcard Packet Radio Modem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455137 Lucian Langa [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456138] Review Request: edb - Debugger based on the ptrace API and QT4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 08:01:20 EDT --- edb-0.9.6-2.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475058] Review Request: netbeans-platform9 - NetBeans 6.5 Platform 9
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475058 Victor G. Vasilyev [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||473075 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469931] Review Request: ipmiutil - IPMI Management Utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469931
Dan Horák [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Dan Horák [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 08:54:48 EDT ---
Hi Andy,
I will do the review, but the recent spec needs a lot of work to be acceptable
for Fedora. Please get comfortable with
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines and other docs at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers#Packaging
- the Source tag has wrong format -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
- %ifarch x86_pentium3 x86_pentium4 is useless on Fedora
- the %ifarch to %define LibDir - use only %{_libdir} in the spec
- do not use absolute paths, use macros %{_{bin,sbin,lib,...}dir}
- do not check whether %{buildroot} == / in %install and %clean
- do not gzip man pages, it is done automagically
- drop the %pre and %post scripts almost completely, rely on the content that
Fedora provides (we have net-snmp, specific location for MIBs, ...), they
should contain handling of the install shared library (call ldconfig) and take
care of initscript
- use only the new names for utils (i_*) to prevent conflicts with other
packages
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 450539] Review Request: service-discovery-applet - Service discovery applet based on Avahi for the Gnome panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450539 Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #7 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 06:56:27 EDT --- An other small thing...I would suggest to switch the URL from 'http://0pointer.de/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/?root=service-discovery-applet' to 'http://avahi.org', the upstream website. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455581] Review Request: php-pecl-ssh2 - php bindings to the functions of libssh2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455581 Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225707] Merge Review: dosfstools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225707 Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 05:18:54 EDT --- - '/sbin/' should be replaced with a macro - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CreatingPackageHowTo#Macros - ChangeLog and COPYING needs to be included in %doc - 3.0.1 is out ( http://www.daniel-baumann.ch/software/dosfstools/ ) -- 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 458254] Review Request: fedora-package-config-zypper - Repository configuration for zypper
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458254
Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 06:33:42
EDT ---
Just some quick comments on your spec file
- Don't mix $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
- URL is not the upstream URL. Why not pack the file together and make a
proper release which is hosted on fedorahosted.org?
- doc is empty. Is it necessary?
Zypper is not available for Fedora at the moment. Does it make sense to add
*.repo files without the tool to use them?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475132] Review Request: usbmon - Front-end for in-kernel usbmon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475132
--- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 09:02:08
EDT ---
Hmmm, yes the comments are for clamtk. Sorry.
One for this package: 'Release: 1' should be 'Release: 1%{dist}'
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474535] Review Request: clamtk - Easy to use front-end for ClamAV
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474535 Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 08:58:13 EDT --- Just some quick comments on your spec file - 'Version: 4.05', the latest version is 4.06 - 'Group: File tools' is not a valid group. - 'less /usr/share/doc/rpm-*/GROUPS' for a list with valid group entries - 'Requires: perl...' is missing, take a look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Versioned_MODULE_COMPAT__Requires - '%defattr(-,root,root)' is normally '%defattr(-,root,root,-)' - Your Changelog entry is missing the Release. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474768] Review Request: jpilot-backup - An enhanced backup plugin for J-Pilot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474768
Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 09:18:50
EDT ---
Just some comments on your spec file
- '%define version 0.53' is not necessary. The number in the 'Version:' tag
can be reused with %{version}
- Add %{?_smp_mflags} to make in the %build section
- 'BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}_%{version}' don't match the recommandations.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
- Remove the *.la files. They should not be included.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exclusion_of_Static_Libraries
- '%defattr(-,root,root)' should be '%defattr(-,root,root,-)' for the default
directory permissions.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475110] Review Request: monkeystudio - Free crossplatform Qt 4 IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475110
Rex Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 09:18:25 EDT ---
Neat.
I'm curious about details around the need for the -spec
%{_libdir}/qt4/mkspecs/linux-g++ workaround on x86_64 (or 64bit in general?).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474768] Review Request: jpilot-backup - An enhanced backup plugin for J-Pilot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474768
--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 09:22:06
EDT ---
- 'Release: 3' should be 'Release: 3%{dist}'
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475000] Review Request: cmconvert - CacheMate import file converter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475000 --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 09:30:18 EDT --- Link to the comments : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474768 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473475] Review Request: python-relatorio - A templating library able to output odt and pdf files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473475 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 09:29:05 EDT --- I'm sorry I missed that during the review. All good. --- This package (python-relatorio) is APPROVED by 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 475000] Review Request: cmconvert - CacheMate import file converter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475000
Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 09:29:21
EDT ---
My comments for this spec file are very similar to the comments in #474768 .
- 'Source0: %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz' should point to the upstream, when
possible.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
- Don't mix $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473972] Review Request: nufw - Authentication Firewall Suite for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473972 --- Comment #3 from Jerome Soyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 09:31:49 EDT --- Thanks for the review, i will fix this and bring you a better spec file. Go to work on it ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474984] Review Request: bandwidthd - Tracks network usage and builds html and graphs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474984
--- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 09:32:49
EDT ---
If you add the following lines to the spec and drop the versioned requires on
libpcap, libpng and gd the result will work perfectly well on Centos-4. I have
it in production for quite some time.
%if 0%{?dist} == 0.el4
BuildRequires: libpcap
%else
BuildRequires: libpcap-devel
%endif
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474768] Review Request: jpilot-backup - An enhanced backup plugin for J-Pilot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474768
--- Comment #3 from Thorsten Leemhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 09:43:23
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Just some comments on your spec file
Agreed to most of them (and thanks for your help), with one note:
- Remove the *.la files. They should not be included.
Some apps require *.la files for plugins. Is that maybe the case here?
In reply to comment #2)
- 'Release: 3' should be 'Release: 3%{dist}'
Not required, but makes things a whole lot easier
In addition (just some things from a quick look):
- summary should not start with A or An
- I don't like the enhanced in the summary much, as that information is not
helpful at all for new users
- repeating the summary in the %description IMHO is wasting space
- just wondering: make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT doesn't work instead
of make prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix}?
- would be nice to split the {build,}requires in multiple lines (one per line)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473475] Review Request: python-relatorio - A templating library able to output odt and pdf files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473475 Dan Horák [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Dan Horák [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 09:48:29 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: python-relatorio Short Description: A templating library able to output odt and pdf files Owners: sharkcz Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460779] Review Request: nekovm - Neko embedded scripting language and virtual machine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460779 --- Comment #5 from Dan Horák [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 09:55:41 EDT --- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474984] Review Request: bandwidthd - Tracks network usage and builds html and graphs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474984 --- Comment #2 from Jan ONDREJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 10:01:46 EDT --- Thank you, nice change. Applied. Same spec: http://www.salstar.sk/pub/fedora/SPECS/bandwidthd.spec SRPM: http://www.salstar.sk/pub/fedora/SRPMS/10/bandwidthd-2.0.1-5.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 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #15 from Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 10:25:58 EDT --- Talk to upstream and CNRI about getting permission to use the mod_scgi derived code under different (GPL compatible terms), perhaps MIT? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474984] Review Request: bandwidthd - Tracks network usage and builds html and graphs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474984 manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 10:30:18 EDT --- review under way -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473972] Review Request: nufw - Authentication Firewall Suite for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473972
--- Comment #4 from Jerome Soyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 10:33:04 EDT
---
So first round of issues found during the review
- wrong Group tags are used - check /usr/share/doc/rpm-*/GROUPS for valid group
names, I suggest to use System Environment/Daemons (nufw, nuauth) , System
Environment/Libraries (client library, pam), Applications/Internet (utils),
Development/Libraries (for -devel), Development/Languages (for the python
bindings) - *FIXED*
- drop the %{epoch} from the Provides/Requires/... as it is not defined/used -
*FIXED*
- preserve timestamps on manually installed files - use cp -p or install -p
- *FIXED*
- license is GPLv2 only, there is no or any later version clause in the
sources - *FIXED*
- license text included in the source archive, but not included in any package
as %doc - *FIXED*
- %{_sysconfdir}/nufw/ is owned by multiple packages (nufw, nufw-utils,
nuauth), only one should really own it, other packages get it through the
dependencies - it depends... you may have nuauth and nufw on different server,
i think multiple packages need %{_sysconfdir}/nufw/
- wrong initscript scriplets and package dependencies - *FIXED*
- wrong shared library scriptlets (%postun is missing) - *FIXED*
- %defattr(-,root,root,-) should be used - *FIXED*
- no need to specify --localstatedir when running %configure, it is set to /var
automatically - *FIXED*
- static library and *.la archive are packaged in -devel (use %exclude in
%files or rm in %install) - *FIXED*
- including the whole doc directory as %doc is not necessary, grab only the
README.* and the non-manpages (acls, cache_system and debug) - *FIXED*
- the included initscript are not compliant with Fedora - LSB header is
missing, service is enabled by default, ... - *FIXED*
- the auth and log modules are linked as shared libs (including the version
info), so they install *.so, *.so.0 and *.so.0.0.0 - they should use
-avoid-version in the link command - *FIXED*
- don't use /var/... in %file, use %{_localstatedir} instead - *FIXED*
- the %description for -utils talks about nutcpc, but it is stored in its own
sub-package - *FIXED*
- split the Provides for nuauth to multiple lines - *FIXED*
- there is no need for the Obsoletes for nuauth - *FIXED*
- the Requires for nuauth are wrong, there are no such packages like
sasl-plug-*, you want probably cyrus-sasl-* - *FIXED*
- the pam module contains rpath and the BuildRequire: chrpath is not used -
*FIXED*
- the library subpackage is usually called foo-libs with headers in foo-devel,
you can Provide: libnuclient for compatibility - *FIXED*
- why not to rename the nufw-nuauth-* packages only to nuath-* - i prefer,
it's same as Mandriva, Debian, Ubuntu, etc... module is more flexible than a
monolithic package, no ?
You will find all the new file at :
http://saispo.free.fr/fedora/nufw.spec
http://saispo.free.fr/fedora/nuauth.init
http://saispo.free.fr/fedora/nufw.init
I have no fedora under my hand for building a SRPM :-/ I can give you one
tomorrow.
Thanks in advance for your 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 474984] Review Request: bandwidthd - Tracks network usage and builds html and graphs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474984
--- Comment #4 from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 10:45:39
EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output: empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type as specified by source: GPLv2+?
License file as specified by spec: GPLv3+
= the README file says any version, two of the source files say GPLv2+, most
of the files do not say anything. I am not an expert, but I see no reason to
restrict to GPLv3+
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: 81e920830239a6769164946e6466ff7386e7ce8e
lzip-1.1.tar.bz2
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[-] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[!] Package consistently uses macros.
= please stick with either uppercase or lowercase macros
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Final provides and requires are sane.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: devel/x86_64, F7/x86_64, EL-4/i386
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: i386, x86_64; no reason to believe it would not work on other
archs
[x] Package functions as described.
[x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[-] %check is present and the test passes.
===ISSUES ===
1. please fix the license tag
2. please choose one kind of macros and use it everywhere. The current version
of your spec makes use of both $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475132] Review Request: usbmon - Front-end for in-kernel usbmon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475132
--- Comment #4 from Pete Zaitcev [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 10:46:48 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #3)
One for this package: 'Release: 1' should be 'Release: 1%{dist}'
Fixed
N.B. This changes the SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/tmp/usbmon-5.2-1.fc11.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 474984] Review Request: bandwidthd - Tracks network usage and builds html and graphs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474984 --- Comment #6 from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 10:59:35 EDT --- s/allow/along/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474984] Review Request: bandwidthd - Tracks network usage and builds html and graphs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474984 --- Comment #5 from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 10:57:52 EDT --- Another issue comes from the fact that Fedora requires to have as much functionality as possible enabled by default. In this case, adding postgresql-devel as BR would enable building with the database bits in. Personally I think this would bring in cruft which would be useless for a small router, so I suggest one of the following two approaches - either add a build conditional, which by default would compile the postgresql deps but would allow to rebuild with them off (something allow rpmbuild --define db off), or - build a second package (say bandwithd-postgresql) with postgresql enabled -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474984] Review Request: bandwidthd - Tracks network usage and builds html and graphs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474984 --- Comment #7 from Jan ONDREJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 11:22:54 EDT --- Where do you see in README, that I can use any version? I see this in README: You may use this software under any version of the GPL that is current as of your download. Current today is GPLv3+. I don't remember, when I downloaded this package first time, maybe when there was no GPLv3. Even if I am most familiar with GPLv2, I think I can't ignore this line. Or is my understanding of english in this file wrong? - buildroot macro fixed - trying to build bandwithd-postgresql package -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453422] Review Request: songbird - Mozilla based multimedia player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422 --- Comment #14 from David Halik [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 11:44:13 EDT --- In keeping with the Songbird release of 1.0, I've bumped the package version and spec file. Both can be found here along with stable builds from koji: http://rpm.rutgers.edu/fedora/songbird-1.0.0-1.fc10.src.rpm http://rpm.rutgers.edu/fedora/songbird.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 453422] Review Request: songbird - Mozilla based multimedia player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422 --- Comment #15 from Peter Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 11:49:18 EDT --- What is the status of being about to build it with the distro gstreamer/xulrunner? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475242] New: Review Request: perl-Data-Dump-Streamer - Accurately serialize a data structure as Perl code
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Data-Dump-Streamer - Accurately serialize a data structure as Perl code https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475242 Summary: Review Request: perl-Data-Dump-Streamer - Accurately serialize a data structure as Perl code 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://iarnell.fedorapeople.org/perl-Data-Dump-Streamer.spec SRPM URL: http://iarnell.fedorapeople.org/perl-Data-Dump-Streamer-2.08-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Given a list of scalars or reference variables, writes out their contents in perl syntax. The references can also be objects. The contents of each variable is output using the least number of Perl statements as convenient, usually only one. Self-referential structures, closures, and objects are output correctly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453422] Review Request: songbird - Mozilla based multimedia player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422 --- Comment #16 from Stephen Lau [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 11:59:49 EDT --- It should build fine with a distribution GStreamer as long as it's up to date enough. It still has local XULRunner patches that haven't yet made it upstream though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473184] Review Request: clamz - Amazon Downloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473184
--- Comment #3 from Jim Radford [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-08 12:25:53 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Just some comments on your spec file
Thanks.
- Spec file name should be clamz.spec
Why? Then I can't keep all the previous links valid. FWIW, I've done this
before without complaint.
- License should be GPLv3+. The header in the source says 'or (at your
option)
any later version.'
Done.
- 'BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils' is missing and you need to install the
.desktop file
Done.
- Add README to %doc
Hmm, already there; I'm going to guess you meant COPYING.
- Remove '.fc10' from your changelog entry
Done.
- Don't mix $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}
Done.
Spec URL: http://blackbean.org/review/clamz.spec
SRPM URL: http://blackbean.org/review/clamz-0.2-4.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
