[Bug 478381] Review Request: sugar-tamtam-common - Resources and python libraries for Sugar TamTam activities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478381 Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478382] Review Request: sugar-tamtam-edit - A music and sound exploration application 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=478382 Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478382] New: Review Request: sugar-tamtam-edit - A music and sound exploration application for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: sugar-tamtam-edit - A music and sound exploration application for Sugar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478382 Summary: Review Request: sugar-tamtam-edit - A music and sound exploration application for Sugar Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: alsr...@member.fsf.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://people.sugarlabs.org/~alsroot/RPM/SPECS/sugar-tamtam-edit.spec SRPM URL: http://people.sugarlabs.org/~alsroot/RPM/SRPMS/sugar-tamtam-edit-51-1.20081229.fc10.src.rpm Description: TamTam is a suite of four music and sound related activities for theSugar. TamTam is written in python with some C functions for speed-critical services.The audio engine for TamTam is Csound. rpmlint claims for right group, but other sugar activities also use Sugar/Activities group COPYING.txt says GPLv3 but TamTam*.activity/activity/activity.info says GPLv2+, so I use GPLv2+ in 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 478384] New: Review Request: sugar-tamtam-mini - A music and sound exploration application for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: sugar-tamtam-mini - A music and sound exploration application for Sugar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478384 Summary: Review Request: sugar-tamtam-mini - A music and sound exploration application for Sugar Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: alsr...@member.fsf.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://people.sugarlabs.org/~alsroot/RPM/SPECS/sugar-tamtam-mini.spec SRPM URL: http://people.sugarlabs.org/~alsroot/RPM/SRPMS/sugar-tamtam-mini-50-1.20081229.fc10.src.rpm Description: TamTam is a suite of four music and sound related activities for theSugar. TamTam is written in python with some C functions for speed-critical services.The audio engine for TamTam is Csound. rpmlint claims for right group, but other sugar activities also use Sugar/Activities group COPYING.txt says GPLv3 but TamTam*.activity/activity/activity.info says GPLv2+, so I use GPLv2+ in 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 478383] Review Request: sugar-tamtam-jam - A music and sound exploration application 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=478383 Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478384] Review Request: sugar-tamtam-mini - A music and sound exploration application 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=478384 Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478383] New: Review Request: sugar-tamtam-jam - A music and sound exploration application for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: sugar-tamtam-jam - A music and sound exploration application for Sugar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478383 Summary: Review Request: sugar-tamtam-jam - A music and sound exploration application for Sugar Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: alsr...@member.fsf.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://people.sugarlabs.org/~alsroot/RPM/SPECS/sugar-tamtam-jam.spec SRPM URL: http://people.sugarlabs.org/~alsroot/RPM/SRPMS/sugar-tamtam-edit-52-1.20081229.fc10.src.rpm Description: TamTam is a suite of four music and sound related activities for theSugar. TamTam is written in python with some C functions for speed-critical services.The audio engine for TamTam is Csound. rpmlint claims for right group, but other sugar activities also use Sugar/Activities group COPYING.txt says GPLv3 but TamTam*.activity/activity/activity.info says GPLv2+, so I use GPLv2+ in 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 478385] Review Request: sugar-tamtam-synthlab - A music and sound exploration application 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=478385 Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478385] New: Review Request: sugar-tamtam-synthlab - A music and sound exploration application for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: sugar-tamtam-synthlab - A music and sound exploration application for Sugar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478385 Summary: Review Request: sugar-tamtam-synthlab - A music and sound exploration application for Sugar Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: alsr...@member.fsf.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://people.sugarlabs.org/~alsroot/RPM/SPECS/sugar-tamtam-synthlab.spec SRPM URL: http://people.sugarlabs.org/~alsroot/RPM/SRPMS/sugar-tamtam-synthlab-52-1.20081229.fc10.src.rpm Description: TamTam is a suite of four music and sound related activities for theSugar. TamTam is written in python with some C functions for speed-critical services.The audio engine for TamTam is Csound. rpmlint claims for right group, but other sugar activities also use Sugar/Activities group COPYING.txt says GPLv3 but TamTam*.activity/activity/activity.info says GPLv2+, so I use GPLv2+ in 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 478382] Review Request: sugar-tamtam-edit - A music and sound exploration application 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=478382 --- Comment #1 from Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org 2008-12-29 03:10:27 EDT --- package demands sugar* packages from updates-testing repo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478383] Review Request: sugar-tamtam-jam - A music and sound exploration application 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=478383 --- Comment #1 from Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org 2008-12-29 03:12:00 EDT --- package demands sugar* packages from updates-testing repo sorry - copypaste problem, right srpm url is: http://people.sugarlabs.org/~alsroot/RPM/SRPMS/sugar-tamtam-jam-52-1.20081229.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 478385] Review Request: sugar-tamtam-synthlab - A music and sound exploration application 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=478385 --- Comment #1 from Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org 2008-12-29 03:13:18 EDT --- package demands sugar* packages from updates-testing repo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478384] Review Request: sugar-tamtam-mini - A music and sound exploration application 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=478384 --- Comment #1 from Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org 2008-12-29 03:12:38 EDT --- package demands sugar* packages from updates-testing repo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472639] Review Request: Scilab - Numerical Analysis toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472639
--- Comment #14 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2008-12-29 03:19:34 EDT ---
SPEC URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/scilab-5.0.3-1.spec
SRPM URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/scilab-5.0.3-1.fc10.src.rpm
* Mon Dec 29 2008 mycae(a!t)yahoo.com 5.0.3-1
- Update to new scilab release (5.0.3)
- Add devel section for .h files
- Disable static libs
- Fix documentation build (added jeuclid-core)
- Fix many rpmlint warnings (devel mainly.)
There are still issues with this, the non-showing graphs still seem to elude
me, even after setting (I believe) the claspath correctly in scilabs
classpath.xml. Nor is the documentation being created correctly (no
/usr/share/scilab/modules/helptools/jar/scilab_en_US_help.jar). However, thanks
to the work of others on the deps for scilab, the help dependencies are now
building appropriately (eg. jeuclid-core).
Those are debuginfo extracted by rpm. If you have a problem with them , then I
would suggest that you review how your builsystem is done... thoses are
expected to build fine and ends in %{name}-debuginfo rpm package.
My understanding of the debug build process is that scilab is meant to be
building all components with debugging symbols enabled. rpmbuild will
subsequently generate a subset of files which have the debugging symbols and
set them aside. These are then stripped using strip and reinstated back into
the main package. AFAIK there should not be a separate folder for files with
debugging information as this will distrupt the way that rpmlint operates, as
it will not correctly place the files (say /usr/lib/libscilab.so) with the
version that has debugging symbols, as it will simply insert
/usr/lib/debug/libscilab.so, not replacing as it should.
That said I am certainly not an expert in how rpmbuild operates -- I am
learning as I need.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478359] Review Request: ethstatus - Console-based ethernet statistics monitor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478359 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2008-12-29 03:44:43 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ethstatus Short Description: Console-based ethernet statistics monitor Owners: fab Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font 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=475593 --- Comment #16 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2008-12-29 04:35:28 EDT --- Because those are not user-modifiable config file but static system templates (ie, data). So according to the FHS they should be somewhere else. See the first FPC meeting minutes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478372] Review request: Mathgl - Scientific plotting 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=478372 D Haley my...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||478388 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478388] New: Review Request: UDAV - data visualisation program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: UDAV - data visualisation program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478388 Summary: Review Request: UDAV - data visualisation program Product: Fedora Version: 10 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: my...@yahoo.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Depends on: 478372 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora SPEC URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/udav.spec SRPM URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/udav-0.5-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: UDAV is program for data array visualization and is based on the MathGL library. It supports a wide range of graphical plots, provides a simple scripting language and allows for visual data manipulation and editing via a WYSIWYG interface. rpmlint (spec, RPM and SRPM): empty. koji scratch: No, waiting for dependancy bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457947] Review Request: oldstandard-sfd-fonts - Old Standard Fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457947 --- Comment #25 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2008-12-29 06:03:04 EDT --- The new official templates have removed explicit post and postun in font specs because packagers were messing it up, review couldn't catch all the problems, and the fontconfig maintainer was unhappy at font packagers. Conversion of existing packages to new templates is ongoing and some still use the old conventions. Please make this new package conformant to the new packaging guidelines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429435 Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl --- Comment #17 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2008-12-29 06:15:14 EDT --- This package doesn't work in Rawhide (possibly also other Fedora versions). $ ldd /usr/lib64/nautilus/extensions-1.0/libnautilus-gnubversion.so linux-vdso.so.1 = (0x7fff861fe000) libgnubversion.so.0 = not found libc.so.6 = /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00315000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00363ce0) $ locate libgnubversion.so.0 /usr/lib64/gnubversion/libgnubversion.so.0 /usr/lib64/gnubversion/libgnubversion.so.0.0.0 I think this is caused by the rpath hack which is performed in the .spec file. Without using the rpath, the dynamic linker doesn't know where to find the library libgnubversion.so.0 (as it is in a non-standard path). To work around this, users have to add '/usr/lib64/gnubversion' to /etc/ld.so.conf and re-run /sbin/ldconfig, but such a thing shouldn't be necessary for regular users. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478393] New: Review Request: sugar-imageviewer - Simple image viewer for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: sugar-imageviewer - Simple image viewer for Sugar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478393 Summary: Review Request: sugar-imageviewer - Simple image viewer for Sugar Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fab...@bernewireless.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/XO/sugar-imageviewer.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/XO/sugar-imageviewer-5-1.fc10.src.rpm Project URL: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Image_Viewer Description: The Image Viewer activity is a simple and fast image viewer tool for Sugar. It has features one would expect of a standard image viewer, like zoom, rotate, etc. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1024626 rpmlint output: [...@laptop24 noarch]$ rpmlint sugar-imageviewer-5-1.fc10.noarch.rpm sugar-imageviewer.noarch: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [...@laptop24 SRPMS]$ rpmlint sugar-imageviewer-5-1.fc10.src.rpm sugar-imageviewer.src: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477190] Review Request: cas - core analysis 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=477190 --- Comment #4 from Adam Stokes asto...@redhat.com 2008-12-29 06:34:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) Looking at the code, it looks like it is GPLv3+. Thanks for the catch, this makes sense as I am not committed to v3 only Why are the man pages separate from the upstream source? Seems like they'd be a logical fit to go inside the tarball, or at the very least, uploaded to the fedorahosted site. If you opt for the latter route, please provide full upstream URLs. Fixed Do you still need Source1? It doesn't seem to be used anymore. Fixed You also don't need the Requires: python = 2.4 Fedora's RPM will detect the python bits in the package and add a proper versioned Requires on python(abi). For example, in rawhide, we get: [s...@velociraptor ~]$ rpm -qp /home/spot/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/cas-0.13-113.fc11.noarch.rpm --requires /usr/bin/python config(cas) = 0.13-113.fc11 crash python = 2.4 python(abi) = 2.6 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) = 4.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 Thus, your manual python Requires is unnecessary. Fixed Also, the last sentence of the description doesn't make much sense. Can you fix that up a bit? :) Hopefully I cleared up the description, my writing skills are subpar :( Thanks http://astokes.fedorapeople.org/cas-0.13-114.src.rpm http://astokes.fedorapeople.org/cas.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 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429435 --- Comment #18 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2008-12-29 07:23:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17) /usr/lib64/gnubversion/libgnubversion.so.0 /usr/lib64/gnubversion/libgnubversion.so.0.0.0 Whoops, this is something I probably overlooked. (In reply to comment #9) gvn-checkout: error while loading shared libraries: libgnubversion.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory Hm...you no need to move them to _libdir. once this package is installed, you have to restart your X environment to update nautilus. perhaps your ldconfig needs to be update as well. Currently works fine on mine without move any lib to _lidir. I'll chroot another one to check closer this issue. You're wrong here. The libgnubversion.so.0 really needs to go to _libdir, unlike libnautilus-gnubversion.so, which should stay in nautilus extension directory. Please move it. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478398] New: Review Request: httping - Ping alike tool for http requests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: httping - Ping alike tool for http requests https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478398 Summary: Review Request: httping - Ping alike tool for http requests Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fab...@bernewireless.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/httping.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/httping-1.2.9-1.fc9.src.rpm Project URL: http://www.vanheusden.com/httping/ Description: Httping is like 'ping' but for http-requests. Give it an url, and it'll show you how long it takes to connect, send a request and retrieve the reply (only the headers). Be aware that the transmission across the network also takes time. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1024702 rpmlint output: [...@laptop024 i386]$ rpmlint httping* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [...@laptop024 SRPMS]$ rpmlint httping-1.2.9-1.fc9.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457219] Review Request: python-twisted-web2 - Next generation Twisted Web Server 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=457219
--- Comment #15 from Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com 2008-12-29 07:37:26
EDT ---
Matthias,
excellent, now that you updated Twisted to 8.1.0 in Rawhide, we can hopefully
get web2 in too. I'll re-review your latest package today. There's one thing I
noticed immediately on the first line of the spec file:
%{?!python:%define python python}
Looks like switched order: ?! - !?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478399] New: Review Request: ircp-tray - Infrared file transfer applet for GNOME panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ircp-tray - Infrared file transfer applet for GNOME panel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478399 Summary: Review Request: ircp-tray - Infrared file transfer applet for GNOME panel Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: lkund...@v3.sk QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora SPEC: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/ircp-tray.spec SRPM: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/ircp-tray-0.7.3-1.el5.src.rpm Description: Ircp-Tray is am infrared file transfer program. It stays inside your system tray, listening for incoming OBEX file transfer request, as well as sending file out to remote devices via IrDA. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478399] Review Request: ircp-tray - Infrared file transfer applet for 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=478399 --- Comment #1 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2008-12-29 07:56:50 EDT --- Oh, yes, I should probably depend on glib-devel 2.14, since this uses the new -fashioned timeouts; I'll fix that on next spin. RHEL 5 has older glib. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473477] Review Request: tryton - Client for the Tryton application 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=473477 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lkund...@v3.sk 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 478399] Review Request: ircp-tray - Infrared file transfer applet for 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=478399 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||d...@danny.cz AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@danny.cz 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 473477] Review Request: tryton - Client for the Tryton application 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=473477 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lkund...@v3.sk Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2008-12-29 08:21:03 EDT --- Good Work. * filelists fine * provides/requires sane * rpmlint silent * builds in mock * license ok, text included in %doc * seems to run fine Just a few notes, definitely not blockers: 1.) Please set vendor to fedora in the desktop entry https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.desktop_file_creation 2.) The description seems completely irrelevant to me I'd expect it to tell me what's in the package (the client), not the description of framework architecture. Please reconsider it. 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 478399] Review Request: ircp-tray - Infrared file transfer applet for 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=478399 --- Comment #2 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2008-12-29 09:01:52 EDT --- formal review is here, see the notes below: OK source files match upstream: ed6b34290c06150f168a31f5e137dbfbf7fcfa94 ircp-tray-0.7.3.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. BAD 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. BAD 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. BAD no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK correct scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. BAD GUI app with desktop file. - no need to have pkgconfig as BR: , it is resolved from all used -devel BRs, gtk2-devel is a dependency of libnotify-devel, so the BRs should be only intltool gettext libnotify-devel openobex-devel - what is the reason for using a file as Requires? (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_Dependencies) - the desktop file is listed twice in %files - upstream desktop file installed, but not validated (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 424841] Review Request: ndisc6 - IPv6 diagnostic tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=424841 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2008-12-29 09:22:53 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 475058] Review Request: netbeans-platform - 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 Adel Gadllah adel.gadl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||adel.gadl...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Adel Gadllah adel.gadl...@gmail.com 2008-12-29 09:54:24 EDT --- REVIEW: [+] = OK [-] = NOT OK [1] = SEE COMMENTS [?] = WTF? === [+] source files match upstream: sha1: 90bad27d62e4ab5813a200feec2c5ae34e615813 [+] package meets naming and versioning guidelines. [1] specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. [+] dist tag is present. [+] build root is correct. [+] license field matches the actual license. [+] license is open source-compatible. GPLv2 with exceptions or CDDL [+] license text included in package. [+] latest version is being packaged. 6.5-20081111-ml [+] BuildRequires are proper. [+] %clean is present. [+] package builds in koji. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1024679 [+] package installs properly. [2] rpmlint is silent. [3] final provides and requires are sane. [+] owns the directories it creates. [+] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. [+] no duplicates in %files. [+] file permissions are appropriate. [3] scriptlets are sane [+] code, not content. [+] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. [+] no headers. [+] no pkgconfig files. [+] no libtool .la droppings. == COMMENTS: [1] Do we really need the Distrubution tag? AFAIK nothing in Fedora makes use of it. Package groups are handled via comps. Changelog: Please remove the 6.1 references because they are not really related to this package. (changelog entries from the former platform8 package) [2] Its not see comments above. The only thing that can/should be fixed are the W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm warnings, see [4] [3] rpm -qp netbeans-platform-6.5-2.fc11.noarch.rpm --provides libnb-platform9 = 6.5 netbeans-platform = 6.5-2.fc11 rpm -qp netbeans-platform-harness-6.5-2.fc11.noarch.rpm --provides libnb-platform9-devel = 6.5 netbeans-platform-harness = 6.5-2.fc11 Any reason why they are called libnb-platform9 and libnb-platform9-devel ? Those should be renamed to libnb-plaform/-devel (other packages can use the version to require it). [4] Whats the purpose of the noautoupdate scriptlets? Wouldn't it be better to just package those files (generate them in %install section and add entries in %files). This way rpm will handle the deletion/creation of this files and there would be no need for the scriptlets. Besides those the package/spec looks fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473477] Review Request: tryton - Client for the Tryton application 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=473477 --- Comment #3 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2008-12-29 09:59:00 EDT --- Thanks for the review. Updated Spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/tryton/tryton.spec Updated SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/tryton/tryton-1.0.1-2.fc10.src.rpm * Mon Dec 29 2008 Dan Horák dan[at]danny.cz 1.0.1-2 - set vendor for the desktop file - improve Description -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473477] Review Request: tryton - Client for the Tryton application 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=473477 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2008-12-29 10:00:21 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: tryton Short Description: Client for the Tryton application framework 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 478368] Review Request: linsmith - a Smith Charting program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478368 --- Comment #4 from Chitlesh GOORAH cgoo...@yahoo.com.au 2008-12-29 10:15:35 EDT --- Updated: Spec URL: http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/linsmith.spec SRPM URL: http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/linsmith-0.99.11-2.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429435
--- Comment #19 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-29
10:21:31 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #18)
(In reply to comment #9)
gvn-checkout: error while loading shared libraries: libgnubversion.so.0:
cannot
open shared object file: No such file or directory
Hm...you no need to move them to _libdir.
once this package is installed, you have to restart your X environment to
update
nautilus. perhaps your ldconfig needs to be update as well.
Currently works fine on mine without move any lib to _lidir. I'll chroot
another
one to check closer this issue.
You're wrong here. The libgnubversion.so.0 really needs to go to _libdir,
unlike
libnautilus-gnubversion.so, which should stay in nautilus extension directory.
Please move it. Thanks!
Well, no. It can be guessed that the fact that this software
(or the upstream) tries to install libgnubversion.so.0 under %_libdir/%name
means that this software should work (at least for the upstream)
without moving the library into %_libdir (well, there are not a few
cases in which upstream make mistakes, however this is not
the case).
The culprit is the following lines.
--
#Remove Rpath
sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=\\${wl}--rpath
\\${wl}\\$libdir|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=|g' libtool
sed -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' libtool
---
Well, I see these lines in many spec files, however this method
removes _all_ rpaths, which sometimes makes the software
unusable like this case and bug 432468.
The unneeded rpath _only_ should be removed
(on x86_64 it is /usr/lib64, on i386 there is nothing on this package) and
%_libdir/%name rpath should be preserved, and libgnubversion.so.0
should not be moved to %_libdir. Refer to anjuta spec file about
how to deal with this for example.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457219] Review Request: python-twisted-web2 - Next generation Twisted Web Server 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=457219
--- Comment #16 from Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com 2008-12-29 10:18:55
EDT ---
Please fix the !?/?! confusion.
I suggest adjusting Summary and %description. Upstream no longer calls Web2 the
next generation framework, they now call it experimental. According to
http://twistedmatrix.com/trac/wiki/TwistedWeb2 they are merging its
functionality into Twisted-Web. When they're done, Web2 will be obsoleted.
Everything else looks OK. Details:
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
python-twisted-web2.src: I: checking
python-twisted-web2.x86_64: I: checking
python-twisted-web2.x86_64: E: no-binary
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
OK. This error is expected here and should be ignored.
# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK.
# MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK.
# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK.
Checked: Naming, Legal, No pre-built binaries, Spec legibility, Arch support,
Filesystem layout, Rpmlint, Changelogs, BuildRoot (it's not the most preferred
form, but it's one of the allowed ones, and RPM 4.6 ignores it anyway),
Requires, BuildRequires, Summary and description, Encoding, Documentation,
Debuginfo packages, Duplication of system libraries, Macros, Timestamps,
Scriptlets requirements, File and Directory Ownership, Conflicts, No External
Kernel Modules, No Files or Directories under /srv, Bundling of multiple
projects
N/A: Compiler flags, Shared Libraries, Exclusion of Static Libraries, Beware of
Rpath, Configuration files, Initscripts, Desktop files, Handling Locale Files,
Parallel make, Conditional dependencies, Relocatable packages, Code Vs Content,
Users and Groups, Web Applications,
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
OK. MIT license.
# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
OK.
# MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
OK.
# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK.
# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK.
# MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK. 4a03e62453037b009ee5f0e1396be792249b9e2f TwistedWeb2-8.1.0.tar.bz2
# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK. Builds in Koji on all archs:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1024731
# MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
N/A.
# MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK.
# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
N/A.
# MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
N/A.
# MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
N/A.
# MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
OK.
# MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
OK.
# MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK.
# MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).
OK.
# MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
OK.
# MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines .
OK.
# MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the
[Bug 359941] Review Request: drupal-calendar - This module will display any Views date field in calendar formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=359941 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2008-12-29 10:30:55 EDT --- Thanks, post back with developments. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226510] Merge Review: udev
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226510 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2008-12-29 10:29:40 EDT --- Can you comment in the spec, or even here, on why these are bogus? -- 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 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429435
--- Comment #20 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2008-12-29 11:50:40 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #19)
You're wrong here. The libgnubversion.so.0 really needs to go to _libdir,
unlike
libnautilus-gnubversion.so, which should stay in nautilus extension
directory.
Please move it. Thanks!
Well, no. It can be guessed that the fact that this software
(or the upstream) tries to install libgnubversion.so.0 under %_libdir/%name
means that this software should work (at least for the upstream)
without moving the library into %_libdir (well, there are not a few
cases in which upstream make mistakes, however this is not
the case).
The culprit is the following lines.
--
#Remove Rpath
sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=\\${wl}--rpath
\\${wl}\\$libdir|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=|g' libtool
sed -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' libtool
---
Well, I see these lines in many spec files, however this method
removes _all_ rpaths, which sometimes makes the software
unusable like this case and bug 432468.
The unneeded rpath _only_ should be removed
(on x86_64 it is /usr/lib64, on i386 there is nothing on this package) and
%_libdir/%name rpath should be preserved, and libgnubversion.so.0
should not be moved to %_libdir. Refer to anjuta spec file about
how to deal with this for example.
I still tend to disagree. There's really no good reason for that library not
being in libdir. Well, upstream does that, but that's a pretty bad excuse for
using RPATH, though a good reason for a bug report upstream.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225896] Merge Review: icu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225896 --- Comment #2 from Caolan McNamara caol...@redhat.com 2008-12-29 12:06:02 EDT --- Give 4.0-6 a whirl. Moving icu-config into sources rather than a patch should sort out those warnings, and tweaking the linker link should fix up the shared-lib-without-dependency-information Error and related unused-direct-shlib-dependency warnings, along with most of the other warnings. -- 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 478399] Review Request: ircp-tray - Infrared file transfer applet for 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=478399 --- Comment #3 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2008-12-29 13:24:24 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) formal review is here, see the notes below: BAD BuildRequires are proper. BAD final provides and requires look sane. BAD no duplicates in %files. BAD GUI app with desktop file. - no need to have pkgconfig as BR: , it is resolved from all used -devel BRs, Well, did not use to be the case; but this won't go to EPEL anyway since RHEL lacks IrDA stack, so I removed the explicit pkgconfig dependency in the new package. gtk2-devel is a dependency of libnotify-devel, so the BRs should be only intltool gettext libnotify-devel openobex-devel Again -- it did not used to be. Also, I'm wondering if the redundant buildrequires are forbidden? It makes a lot more sense to me to depend on libnotify explicitly no matter if gtk does, since it's not guaranteed for non-essential dependencies to go away (though it is not likely in this case). - what is the reason for using a file as Requires? (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_Dependencies) Well, the original reasoning behind that was that I though openobex-apps package is mis-named (it's far more common to either call it -utils, or place executables in the main package and put the libraries into -libs package), and I was afraid it can change. I did not file a bug report for that, and I don't really care, so I changed the require to openobex-apps. - the desktop file is listed twice in %files Oops, must have been a typo. - upstream desktop file installed, but not validated (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage) Good catch. Thanks! SPEC: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/ircp-tray.spec SRPM: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/ircp-tray-0.7.3-2.el5.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 424841] Review Request: ndisc6 - IPv6 diagnostic tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=424841 --- Comment #11 from Stjepan Gros stjepan.g...@gmail.com 2008-12-29 13:25:49 EDT --- I'm here, but I was busy doing my PhD and then came Christmas. I'll look into packages that need review to see if there are related ones. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478412] New: Review Request: mpop - POP3 client for recieving mail from POP3 mailboxes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mpop - POP3 client for recieving mail from POP3 mailboxes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478412 Summary: Review Request: mpop - POP3 client for recieving mail from POP3 mailboxes Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fab...@bernewireless.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/mpop.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/mpop-1.0.16-1.fc9.src.rpm Project URL: ttp://mpop.sourceforge.net/ Description: mpop is a small and fast POP3 client. Features include mail filtering, delivery to mbox files, maildir folders or a mail delivery agent, a very fast POP3 implementation, many authentication methods, good TLS/SSL support, IPv6 support, and more. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1025081 rpmlint output: [...@laptop024 i386]$ rpmlint mpop* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [...@laptop024 SRPMS]$ rpmlint mpop-1.0.16-1.fc9.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 424841] Review Request: ndisc6 - IPv6 diagnostic tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=424841 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2008-12-29 13:33:45 EDT --- I suppose that's a pretty good excuse. :) Hope it went well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 451298] Review Request: pidgin-msn-pecan - Alternative MSN protocol plugin for libpurple
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451298 Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||felipe.contre...@gmail.com --- Comment #7 from Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com 2008-12-29 13:58:37 EDT --- I'm the main author and I'm interested in this. If you need anything just let me know. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 451298] Review Request: pidgin-msn-pecan - Alternative MSN protocol plugin for libpurple
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451298 --- Comment #8 from Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br 2008-12-29 14:07:13 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) I'm the main author and I'm interested in this. If you need anything just let me know. Do you already have a fedora account ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Get_a_Fedora_Account -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471145] Review Request: procinfo-ng - System monitoring application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471145 Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bugs.mich...@gmx.net Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2008-12-29 14:26:06 EDT --- Packaging-wise: APPROVED [...] * The manual page could/should be patched to remove references to the old hidden option -f (full screen), which has been removed. * procinfo-ng -n1 mode gives strange/unexpected results here. Except for the first second it shows bad values inf% and nan% for the CPU usage percentage numbers and vmm stats. (usually inf = infinite and nan = not a number) It seems it somehow switches into diff-mode automatically and calculates values it cannot display. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457219] Review Request: python-twisted-web2 - Next generation Twisted Web Server 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=457219 --- Comment #17 from Matthias Saou matth...@rpmforge.net 2008-12-29 15:02:40 EDT --- Thanks for the review! The switched !? comes from a copy/paste from the other twisted packages, where it was reversed. I had fixed them, but missed web2. I've now fixed it and updated the description and summary. I didn't bother bumping the release for such minor changes, 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 478399] Review Request: ircp-tray - Infrared file transfer applet for 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=478399 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2008-12-29 15:06:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) (In reply to comment #2) formal review is here, see the notes below: BAD BuildRequires are proper. BAD final provides and requires look sane. BAD no duplicates in %files. BAD GUI app with desktop file. - no need to have pkgconfig as BR: , it is resolved from all used -devel BRs, Well, did not use to be the case; but this won't go to EPEL anyway since RHEL lacks IrDA stack, so I removed the explicit pkgconfig dependency in the new package. gtk2-devel is a dependency of libnotify-devel, so the BRs should be only intltool gettext libnotify-devel openobex-devel Again -- it did not used to be. Also, I'm wondering if the redundant buildrequires are forbidden? It makes a lot more sense to me to depend on libnotify explicitly no matter if gtk does, since it's not guaranteed for non-essential dependencies to go away (though it is not likely in this case). No, redundant BRs are not forbidden and this is the case when it makes sense to use them. All issues are fixed now, so this package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429435 --- Comment #21 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-29 15:32:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #20) I still tend to disagree. There's really no good reason for that library not being in libdir. Well, upstream does that, but that's a pretty bad excuse for using RPATH, though a good reason for a bug report upstream. There is no need to install libraries only used by the software to system-wide library directory. Such files should be installed under its software specific directory (usually %_libdir/%name) to avoid name space pollution as much as possible. If upstream intends to make the library also used by other applications (with providing header files for API, for example), such file must be installed to system wide library directory. Otherwise it is better to hide files into software specific directories if possible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478399] Review Request: ircp-tray - Infrared file transfer applet for 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=478399 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2008-12-29 15:54:22 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ircp-tray Short Description: Infrared file transfer applet for GNOME panel Owners: lkundrak Branches: F-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 457219] Review Request: python-twisted-web2 - Next generation Twisted Web Server 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=457219 Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #18 from Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com 2008-12-29 16:13:07 EDT --- OK, the latest spec file is fine. Setting flag fedora-review+. You can request CVS branches for the 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 472098] Review Request: dekiwiki - a powerful opensource wiki which runs on Mono
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472098 --- Comment #5 from Mathieu OUDART servi...@mindtouch.com 2008-12-29 16:25:38 EDT --- Here is an update including the latest bits : Spec URL: http://nightlybuild.mindtouch.com/Submitted_Packages/Fedora/src/dekiwiki.spec SRPM URL: http://nightlybuild.mindtouch.com/Submitted_Packages/Fedora/src/dekiwiki-8.08.12159-1.1.src.rpm I also had to remove the %elseif statements because they're not supported on all platforms. Please let me know if there's still some work to do on this package. Cheers -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478429] New: Review Request: tinc - A virtual private network daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: tinc - A virtual private network daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478429 Summary: Review Request: tinc - A virtual private network daemon Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fab...@bernewireless.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/tinc.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/tinc-1.0.9-1.fc9.src.rpm Project URL: http://www.tinc-vpn.org/ Description: tinc is a Virtual Private Network (VPN) daemon that uses tunnelling and encryption to create a secure private network between hosts on the Internet. Because the tunnel appears to the IP level network code as a normal network device, there is no need to adapt any existing software. This tunnelling allows VPN sites to share information with each other over the Internet without exposing any information to others. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1025251 rpmlint output: [...@laptop024 i386]$ rpmlint tinc* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [...@laptop024 SRPMS]$ rpmlint tinc-1.0.9-1.fc9.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. This package fails at the moment on ppc. - configure: error: OpenSSL libraries not found. All other archs all ok. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 424841] Review Request: ndisc6 - IPv6 diagnostic tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=424841 --- Comment #13 from Stjepan Gros stjepan.g...@gmail.com 2008-12-29 17:07:40 EDT --- Ok, I fixed the omission in the changelog section. The new spec and src.rpm files are available on the following URLs: Spec URL: http://www.zemris.fer.hr/~sgros/stuff/fedora/ndisc6/ndisc6.spec SRPM URL: http://www.zemris.fer.hr/~sgros/stuff/fedora/ndisc6/ndisc6-0.9.8-2.fc8.src.rpm As for review of some packages, I will be hard to find one that's not already reviewed. :) Do you maybe have some suggestion? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455925] Review Request: htop - interactive process viewer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455925 Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||ita...@ispbrasil.com.br Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE --- Comment #9 from Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br 2008-12-29 17:15:11 EDT --- lost bug, closing it. htop seems to be ok -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457219] Review Request: python-twisted-web2 - Next generation Twisted Web Server 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=457219 Matthias Saou matth...@rpmforge.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #19 from Matthias Saou matth...@rpmforge.net 2008-12-29 17:20:10 EDT --- Great, thanks! I'm being optimistic by requesting extra branches, but I really hope we get Twisted updated on them at some point. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: python-twisted-web2 Short Description: Experimental Twisted Web Server Framework Owners: thias Branches: F-10 F-9 EL-5 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478432] New: Review Request: dwscan - Displays access point information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: dwscan - Displays access point information https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478432 Summary: Review Request: dwscan - Displays access point information Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fab...@bernewireless.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/dwscan.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/dwscan-0.2-1.fc9.src.rpm Project URL: http://dag.wieers.com/home-made/dwscan/ Description: Dwscan displays access point information in a useful manner. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1025373 rpmlint output: [...@laptop024 noarch]$ rpmlint dwscan-0.2-1.fc9.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [...@laptop024 SRPMS]$ rpmlint dwscan-0.2-1.fc9.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478432] Review Request: dwscan - Displays access point information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478432 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||478300 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478300] Review Request: python-wifi - Python binding for the wireless extensions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478300 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||478432 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478434] New: Review Request: FSMDesigner4 - A Finite State Machine design tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: FSMDesigner4 - A Finite State Machine design tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478434 Summary: Review Request: FSMDesigner4 - A Finite State Machine design tool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cgoo...@yahoo.com.au QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/FSMdesigner/FSMDesigner4.spec SRPM URL: http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/FSMdesigner/FSMDesigner4-1.2-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: FSMDesigner4 is a C++ based implementation for a Finite State Machine (FSM) design tool with integrated Hardware Description Language (HDL) generation. FSMDesigner4 uses the Simple-Moore FSM model guaranteeing efficient fast complex control circuits. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 449869] Review Request: tasque - A simple task management app
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449869 --- Comment #47 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2008-12-29 20:25:15 EDT --- tasque-0.1.8-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tasque-0.1.8-1.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 449869] Review Request: tasque - A simple task management app
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449869 --- Comment #46 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2008-12-29 20:24:37 EDT --- tasque-0.1.8-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tasque-0.1.8-1.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 #44 from Peter Scheie pe...@scheie.homedns.org 2008-12-29 20:31:56 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: k12linux-quick-start-guide Short Description: Document on how to enable ltsp services on k12linux. Owners: peterscheie Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: wtogami -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225894] Merge Review: icon-naming-utils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225894 --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2008-12-29 23:13:16 EDT --- ping? -- 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
