[Bug 478662] Review Request: dustismo-fonts - font with serif and sans-serif versions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478662 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nicolas.mail...@laposte.net --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-01-03 04:27:59 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) GPLv2+ is a bad license for fonts in Fedora. True. Nevertheless currently we do accept GPL-only fonts in Fedora, as long as their packagers continue to try to locate right holders and add the FSF Font exception to the license. There are just too many GPL-only fonts :( Just don't use them to create PDFs -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478674] New: Review Request: pp3 - Creation of sky charts in Postscript or PDF format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: pp3 - Creation of sky charts in Postscript or PDF format https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478674 Summary: Review Request: pp3 - Creation of sky charts in Postscript or PDF format Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mma...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://mmahut.fedorapeople.org/reviews/pp3/pp3.spec SRPM URL: http://mmahut.fedorapeople.org/reviews/pp3/pp3-1.3.3-1.fc8.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1030504 Description: PP3 creates celestial charts. It generates resolution independent maps of very high graphical quality in Postscript or PDF format. They can be used for example as illustrations in books or on web pages. You may use the databases of the distribution or your own databases converted to PP3's simple text format. PP3 uses LaTeX+pstricks as the backend for generating the vector graphics. You can add arbitrary labels to the map. The output is configurable in many ways. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454410] Review Request: mingw32-gcc - MinGW Windows cross-compiler (GCC) for C and C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454410 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||478640 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478640] Review Request: dlfcn - mingw32-dlfcn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478640 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||454410 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478640] Review Request: dlfcn - mingw32-dlfcn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478640 --- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-03 05:49:55 EDT --- Itamar, can you try making a Koji scratch-build of this please. It will make it easier to review. You will need to do something like: koji build --scratch dist-f11 mingw32-dlfcn-r11-1.fc10.src.rpm (I'm not exactly sure if that is the correct command, and upgraded my machine yesterday so Koji is now broken for me, so please check 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 465943] Review Request: NetworkManager-openconnect - NetworkManager VPN integration for openconnect
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465943 --- Comment #16 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2009-01-03 05:48:02 EDT --- I think this is in rawhide, OK to close? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467324] Review Request: mingw32-portablexdr - MinGW Windows PortableXDR XDR / RPC 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=467324 --- Comment #4 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2009-01-03 05:48:50 EDT --- Held up as per this post https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2008-December/msg00023.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478640] Review Request: dlfcn - mingw32-dlfcn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478640 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(ita...@ispbrasil. ||com.br) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467322] Review Request: mingw32-bzip2 - MinGW port of bzip2 file compression utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467322 --- Comment #8 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2009-01-03 05:47:45 EDT --- I think this is in rawhide, OK to close? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467322] Review Request: mingw32-bzip2 - MinGW port of bzip2 file compression utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467322 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #9 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-03 06:01:22 EDT --- Closed - sorry I forgot to do this before :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467324] Review Request: mingw32-portablexdr - MinGW Windows PortableXDR XDR / RPC 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=467324 --- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-03 06:02:54 EDT --- I'm rewriting portablexdr to remove the license issue and also to support a working rpcgen. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 #16 from Sylvestre Ledru sylvestre.le...@inria.fr 2009-01-03 06:20:32 EDT --- * gluegen issue It is not etc/classpath.xml but etc/librarypath.xml classpath is used to set paths to each jar files. librarypath is used to the set java.library.path (equivalent to LD_LIBRARY_PATH) which is the stuff used here to load the native libraries (ex: gluegen) for JNI For example, in Debian: $ dpkg -S libgluegen-rt.so libjogl-jni: /usr/lib/jni/libgluegen-rt.so $ grep /usr/lib/jni etc/librarypath.xml path value=/usr/lib/jni// * Your help issue. Did you add the option --enable-build-help to the configure ? * Work around static lib installation (disable static libs issue?) = what is the problem you had ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459946] Review Request: pfscalibration - Scripts and programs for photometric calibration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459946
--- Comment #6 from Lucian Langa co...@gnome.eu.org 2009-01-03 06:52:56 EDT
---
nrutil.cpp and nrutil.h are public domain.
(http://www.nr.com/public-domain.html)
I do not think there is need for patch1.
Source0 URL is still wrong, it should be:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/pfstools/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478616] Review Request: srm - Secure file deletion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478616 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jussi.leht...@iki.fi 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 478616] Review Request: srm - Secure file deletion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478616 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-01-03 07:17:43 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: srm Short Description: Secure file deletion Owners: fab Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470914] Review Request: slv2 - An LV2 host 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=470914
Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bugs.mich...@gmx.net
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-01-03
06:59:33 EDT ---
License:LGPLv2+
Web page says Licensed under the GPL v2 or later for now.
File COPYING contains the GPL v2.
Only a few source files contain a LGPL header.
This suggests the project is:
= License: GPLv2+
Summary: An LV2 host library
Suggest dropping the An .
%descriptiondevel
slv2-devel contains the headers and development libraries for slv2.
Suggest
This package contains the headers and development libraries for SLV2.
for consistency and to avoid repeating the pkg name.
%files
%doc AUTHORS COPYING README
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%defattr ought to be moved one line up.
%{_libdir}/*.a
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exclusion_of_Static_Libraries
* The slv2.pc pkg-config file adds a redundant -L/usr/lib -lrdf from redland.pc
* 0.6.2 is available (still marked unstable, though)
* Run-time warning (in src/world.c) about Redland librdf not being new enough:
$ lv2_list
Warning: Unable to create trees RDF storage.
Performance can be improved by upgrading librdf.
* src/world.c contains hardcoded /usr/lib and /usr/local/lib paths
also on 64-bit platforms!
* The only real blockers:
* licence
* static lib
* hardcoded lib paths
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478616] Review Request: srm - Secure file deletion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478616 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-01-03 06:57:08 EDT --- Package adheres to guidelines. 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 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 #4 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-01-03 07:35:41 EDT --- Requires: perl(XML::Simple) Redundant. rpmbuild adds it already. -- 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 478290] Review Request: screenie - A small and lightweight screen wrapper
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478290 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-01-03 07:49:12 EDT --- Thanks Manuel for the review. I will add the missing 'Requires' before cvs import. BTW, happy new year -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478290] Review Request: screenie - A small and lightweight screen wrapper
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478290 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-01-03 07:50:23 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: screenie Short Description: A small and lightweight screen wrapper Owners: fab Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478534] Review Request: gnome-mastermind - Mastermind-like game 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=478534 Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||musur...@gmail.com Blocks||182235 --- Comment #3 from Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com 2009-01-03 08:41:41 EDT --- Please read this thread: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/games/2008-December/68.html The name of this package is a problem. Blocking FE-LEGAL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478605] Review Request: arpcheck - Ethernet Layer 2 checking 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=478605 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||fed...@christoph-wickert.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@christoph-wickert.de 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 477971] Review Request: arping - Ethernet Layer 2 ping 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=477971 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||fed...@christoph-wickert.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@christoph-wickert.de 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 477953] Review Request: podcatcher - Armangil's podcast client for the command line
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477953 Christof Damian chris...@damian.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 --- Comment #5 from Christof Damian chris...@damian.net 2009-01-03 08:54:24 EDT --- I just reread the join process page and noticed that I forgot to mention that this is my first package and I need a sponsor. I added the FE-NEEDSPONSOR to the block list now. I also have some other packages, which I will submit once I have a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478362] Review Request: fmirror - Mirror directories from ftp servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478362 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||fed...@christoph-wickert.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@christoph-wickert.de 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 478655] Review Request: sion - GIO/GVFS management 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=478655 --- Comment #4 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-01-03 09:27:16 EDT --- Important: The package needs to require gvfs to provide gvfs-open. You also should require fuse because fusermount is needed, see http://mmassonnet.blogspot.com/2008/09/mount-remote-file-systems-tape-2.html Not sure if you also should require gnome-mount, because this can be configured in the settings and the gnome-mount package has been orphaned recently (or is going to be soon, I don't remember). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478655] Review Request: sion - GIO/GVFS management 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=478655
--- Comment #5 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-01-03
09:34:57 EDT ---
I think requiring %{_bindir}/gvfs-open and %{_bindir}/fusermount is better than
the package names.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477971] Review Request: arping - Ethernet Layer 2 ping 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=477971
Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |needinfo?(fab...@bernewirel
||ess.net)
--- Comment #4 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-01-03
10:00:47 EDT ---
Oops, I did not read the comments before I took the review. This arping
implementation is a little different and installs to %{_bindir} instead of
%{_sbindir}, but the manpage collides with the one from iputils.
Fabian, IMO i doesn't make sense to have another arping. If you want to submit
something, do arping-ng (and install as arping-ng to avoid namespace
collisions). What do you think?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478683] New: Review Request: perl-Net-Google-AuthSub - Provides interface to interact with sites that implement Google style AuthSub
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-Net-Google-AuthSub - Provides interface to interact with sites that implement Google style AuthSub https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478683 Summary: Review Request: perl-Net-Google-AuthSub - Provides interface to interact with sites that implement Google style AuthSub Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: a...@smile.org.ua QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://smile.org.ua/~andy/prj/Fedora/perl-Net-Google-AuthSub.spec SRPM URL: http://smile.org.ua/~andy/prj/Fedora/perl-Net-Google-AuthSub-0.4-1.sh7.src.rpm Description: AuthSub is Google's method of authentication for their web services. It is also used by other web sites. You can read more about it here. http://code.google.com/apis/accounts/Authentication.html A Google Group for AuthSub is here. http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Accounts-API -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478662] Review Request: dustismo-fonts - font with serif and sans-serif versions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478662 --- Comment #3 from Sven Lankes s...@lank.es 2009-01-03 10:44:13 EDT --- I have contacted the author and asked about his thoughts on relicensing as GPL + Font Exceptions. Considering that all his websites are down (and have been down for quite a while) I'm not sure the email will ever reach him (at least I haven't received a bounce 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 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 #17 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-01-03 10:43:49 EDT --- * Your help issue. Did you add the option --enable-build-help to the configure ? Yes, it is set in the configure line. (see .spec file to confirm) * Work around static lib installation (disable static libs issue?) Static libs get built and installed even with --disable-static-libs . However they do not get used, so I have to rm them. $ grep /usr/lib/jni etc/librarypath.xml * glugen-rt is in /usr/share/java. Other components are in /usr/lib. Unlike debian. where gluegen-rt is in /usr/lib/jni/. Modifying this file to include has no effect. We should probably move further discussions elsewhere, to not clutter up this bug too much. I'll have another crack at getting it working soon. Thanks for the input however. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478605] Review Request: arpcheck - Ethernet Layer 2 checking 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=478605 --- Comment #1 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-01-03 11:35:52 EDT --- The scrip itself is nice, but having the config inside the script itself is really bad. In the current state this should not be packaged as rpm. How about moving the the basic config to lets say /etc/arpcheck.conf, /etc/archeck/arpreck.conf or /etc/sysconfig/arpcheck and modify the script a little? # CONFIGURATION ### ONLY CHANGE IN /etc/sysconfig/arpcheck !!! if [ ! -f /etc/sysconfig/arpcheck ]; then echo Configuration file /etc/sysconfig/arpckeck not found. echo Please copy /usr/share/doc/arpcheck-1.8-1/arpcheck.conf.default echo to /etc/sysconfig/arpckeck and edit it for your needs. exit 1 fi . /etc/sysconfig/arpcheck ### End of basic config Issues: - Default config is not sane: Defaults for dMACLIST, BLACKLIST and WHITELIST are not same. If the script is executed with root privileges somewhere is accidentially creates files that are left behind because they are not owned by the package - Log path requires root privileges - No documentation except in the script itself. Include a README with some of the info from the header of the script Ideas: - Allow per user config ~/.arpcheck.conf - Include a template for the configuration instead of providing the config file automatically to make sure the user edits the file before usage. Something like if [ ! -f /etc/sysconfig/arpcheck ]; then echo Please copy /usr/share/doc/arpcheck-1.8-1/arpcheck.conf.default echo to /etc/sysconfig/arpckeck and edit it for your needs. exit 1 fi - Include a README.FFEDORA for distro specific changes - Install to /usr/sbin if this is only meant to be run as root -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468631] Review Request: libgarmin - C library to parse and use Garmin image files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468631 Balint Cristian re...@rdsor.ro changed: What|Removed |Added CC||re...@rdsor.ro --- Comment #6 from Balint Cristian re...@rdsor.ro 2009-01-03 12:15:28 EDT --- Folks, - I think this package violates Garmin (TM) proprietary format and their patents.We should be careful by adding such a package to Fedora, Garmin (TM) never released any specifications of their format, everything is a pure reverse engineering. On top of all it contains some patent subjected (not sure which one) which allows very smart routing information store. - Legal folk, can state some points over 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 478470] Review Request: mrpt - The Mobile Robot Programming Toolkit (MRPT)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478470 --- Comment #3 from Jose Luis joseluisblan...@gmail.com 2009-01-03 12:20:53 EDT --- Mamoru, thanks a lot for all the notes! I'll write here again when I can process all the information and fix everything. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478694] New: Review Request: rfdump - RFID-Tags detector
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rfdump - RFID-Tags detector https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478694 Summary: Review Request: rfdump - RFID-Tags detector 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/rfdump.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/rfdump-1.6-1.fc9.src.rpm Project URL: http://www.rfdump.org Description: RFDump is a tool to detect RFID-Tags and show their meta information: Tag ID, Tag Type, manufacturer etc. The user data memory of a tag can be displayed and modified using either a Hex or an ASCII editor. Tag contents can be stored and loaded using a specific XML fomrat. This effectively allows to copy data from one tag to another. In addition, the integrated cookie feature demonstrates how easy it is for a company to abuse RFID technology to spy on their customers. RFDump works with the ACG Multi-Tag Reader or similar card reader hardware. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1030722 rpmlint output: [...@laptop024 i386]$ rpmlint rfdump* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [...@laptop024 SRPMS]$ rpmlint rfdump-1.6-1.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 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 #5 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2009-01-03 12:56:04 EDT --- Feel free to remove it. -- 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 468631] Review Request: libgarmin - C library to parse and use Garmin image files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468631 --- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-01-03 13:03:09 EDT --- I think this package violates Garmin (TM) proprietary format and their patents You're not the Garmin's legal representative to make such statement. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459210] Review Request: gnustep-base - GNUstep base package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459210 --- Comment #11 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-03 13:14:16 EDT --- Michel, 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 469843] Review Request: unhide - Tool to find hidden processes and TCP/UDP ports from rootkits
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469843 --- Comment #11 from Rakesh Pandit rakesh.pan...@gmail.com 2009-01-03 13:31:22 EDT --- No reply regarding license. I have resend the message. Probably maintainer is on holidays. Lets wait for few more days. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467627] Review Request: fsniper - A tool that monitors directories for new files and invokes scripts on them
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467627 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wo...@nobugconsulting.ro --- Comment #4 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-03 13:37:16 EDT --- It looks like the patch included in the srpm is neither the one that you have submitted to http://bugs.l3ib.org/index.php?do=detailstask_id=21, nor the one approved by Andrew Yates (andrewy). You use 077 in the bundled patch, suggest 177 and Andrew uses 0177. I suggest to create a new src.rpm with http://code.l3ib.org/?p=fsniper.git;a=blobdiff;f=src/main.c;h=cd49dffebe4b4c728b62c28c1381c4fb6f5ad87d;hp=03a8d701d6f9802ba346b591429e58741ca53479;hb=82cb0b46c48485fd4f6231ce3169c7be87d1ea07;hpb=2bbeb5d6e6b55bb9692c043fcdbeab15d9723c9e as patch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468631] Review Request: libgarmin - C library to parse and use Garmin image files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468631 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235 --- Comment #8 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-01-03 13:44:08 EDT --- Add Legal Blocker. Let's see what's Fedora Legal says. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475508] Review Request: javassist - The Java Programming Assistant provides simple Java bytecode manipulation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475508 Sandro Mathys s...@sandro-mathys.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Sandro Mathys s...@sandro-mathys.ch 2009-01-03 13:47:30 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: javassist Short Description: The Java Programming Assistant provides simple Java bytecode manipulation Owners: red Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476386] Review Request: perl-verilog - Verilog parsing routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476386 --- Comment #5 from Chitlesh GOORAH cgoo...@yahoo.com.au 2009-01-03 14:24:17 EDT --- Updates http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/perl-Verilog-3.100-1.fc10.src.rpm http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/perl-Verilog.spec As from this %release: - this package is named perl-Verilog and no longer perl-verilog. Thereby, following upstream namings and follows the namings of perl-Verilog-Codegen and perl-Verilog-Readmem - upstream has renamed vpm and vppp as comment #3 pointerd - test suites are not included. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459946] Review Request: pfscalibration - Scripts and programs for photometric calibration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459946
--- Comment #7 from Ulrich Drepper drep...@redhat.com 2009-01-03 14:27:39
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
nrutil.cpp and nrutil.h are public domain.
(http://www.nr.com/public-domain.html)
I do not think there is need for patch1.
The files used in the package are not on the list. This might be an oversight
but it's really not necessary to bicker about this. The code is using so
little from these files it's absolutely unnecessary to pull in so much code.
The patch is also an optimization.
Source0 URL is still wrong, it should be:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/pfstools/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
That's not what the URL referenced in comment #4 says and it shouldn't matter:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
This works just as 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 476386] Review Request: perl-verilog - Verilog parsing routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476386
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-03
16:23:43 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 including the Perl specific items
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM: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 according to spec: Artistic (same as perl)
License type according to source: unclear, probably (GPL+ or Artistic).
See also note 1
[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 matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: 14c8c0227f290e7358fa8bb12f86f03bf2255f8f
Verilog-Perl-3.100.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] 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.
[!] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
See note 2
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
[x] Package consistently uses 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.
=== 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
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: koji scratch build
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: koji scratch build
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[*] Make test is OK
==
Notes
==
1. It's a bit unclear to me what license the programmer wants to use. All
source files written in Perl start with:
// Copyright 2000-2009 by Wilson Snyder. This program is free software;
// you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either the GNU
// General Public License or the Perl Artistic License.
//
and end with:
Copyright 2000-2009 by Wilson Snyder. This package is free software; you
can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either the GNU
Lesser General Public License or the Perl Artistic License.
I am far from being an expert but IMHO using (artistic or GPL+) and (artistic
or LGPL+) does not fly because GPL and LGPL are specified in the same file. I
assume GPL+ takes precedence, but I strongly suggest to ask the author what's
the real intent (and maybe also adding the
[Bug 469585] Review Request: moon-buggy - Drive and jump with some kind of car across the moon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469585 Robert Scheck red...@linuxnetz.de changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | Summary|Review Request: moon-buggy |Review Request: moon-buggy |- Drive and jump with some |- Drive and jump with some |car across the moon |kind of car across the moon Flag|needinfo?(p...@linuxeinstei | |ger.net)| --- Comment #15 from Robert Scheck red...@linuxnetz.de 2009-01-03 16:28:04 EDT --- I've locally built a new moon-buggy package with several fixes and enhancements. I'll let Simon test it a bit (because I rebased it on an older spec file by him) and afterwards I will put it into this review. Mamoru, will you then go for the review or shall I already look for somebody else doing this review? Removing fe-needsponsor blocker requirement as Philipp is no longer a real Fedora contributor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478362] Review Request: fmirror - Mirror directories from ftp servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478362
--- Comment #1 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-01-03
16:35:57 EDT ---
REVIEW FOR deecdd74d33f7ed0cb2cd358c27663c0 fmirror-0.8.4-1.fc9.src.rpm
OK - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/fmirror-*
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The spec file matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
FIX - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines, see below for
details
OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines (GPLv2+)
OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license (GPLv2+)
OK - MUST: The source package includes the text of the license in its own file,
and that file is included in %doc.
OK - MUST: The spec file is written in American English.
OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible.
OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL: md5sum 78652ce5bb50e6c120c9ca0988cb9dca
OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture: tested on i386
N/A - 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.
OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires: None, because
all build deps are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines.
N/A - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
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.
OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates: None except in
docdir
FIX - MUST: The package does not contain duplicate files in the %files listing,
but the files listing needs work, see below
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: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The package contains code.
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
OK - MUST: Files included something as %doc do not affect the runtime of the
application.
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
N/A - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by
other packages.
OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are be valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items:
N/A - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: The package builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: The package compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported
architectures: tested in koji
OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described
N/A - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase,
and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel
pkg.
N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
/sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package
[Bug 469585] Review Request: moon-buggy - Drive and jump with some kind of car across the moon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469585 --- Comment #16 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-03 16:39:29 EDT --- Robert/Simon: I suggest to close this bug and the one of you who wants to push the package forward should create a new bugzilla entry. This way we will have a correct bug owner / submitter (because AFAIK bugzilla unfortunately does not allow changing the bug owner) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469585] Review Request: moon-buggy - Drive and jump with some kind of car across the moon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469585 Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #17 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de 2009-01-03 17:17:30 EDT --- Manuel, I really don't care about that. Just let's finish the review and then we're fine. Same situation can ever happen, e.g. once the owner of a package changes (e.g. review request with somebody else than later a bug report). Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/moon-buggy.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/moon-buggy-1.0.51-1.src.rpm Mamoru, would you be so kind and do the review? I think, I shouldn't have forgotten anything - hopefully. I'm aware about the two rpmlint errors, but that's the same accepted practice like at e.g. typespeed and nethack: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/moon-buggy 02755 E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/moon-buggy 0775 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 --- Comment #16 from John Anderson john.e.ander...@gmail.com 2009-01-03 18:14:20 EDT --- With fixes from comments 12-15 http://transfer.eragen.com/rpm/mumbles.spec http://transfer.eragen.com/rpm/mumbles-0.4-6.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 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 --- Comment #17 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-01-03 18:31:22 EDT --- AFIACS everything is fine except the desktop-file-install. The starter from comment # 15 was meant as an addition to the starter in the menu. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 --- Comment #18 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-01-03 18:32:31 EDT --- This mean you need to run desktop-file-install twice. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468516] Review Request: verilator - A fast simulator of synthesizable Verilog HDL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468516 --- Comment #19 from Chitlesh GOORAH cgoo...@yahoo.com.au 2009-01-03 18:35:56 EDT --- Lane, you have commented perl-verilog on #BuildRequires: perl-verilog, perl-systemc, systemc I'm packaging perl-Verilog https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476386 I haven't yet looked at the details, do you think enabling perl-Verilog our verilator will provide more features ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468516] Review Request: verilator - A fast simulator of synthesizable Verilog HDL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468516 --- Comment #20 from Chitlesh GOORAH cgoo...@yahoo.com.au 2009-01-03 19:26:35 EDT --- #001: These should not be shipped /usr/share/verilator/include/verilated.mk.in -- duplicate with /usr/share/verilator/include/verilated.mk #002: do we need to ship these with this package ? usr/share/verilator/perl-systemc/src /usr/share/verilator/perl-systemc/src/SpCommon.h /usr/share/verilator/perl-systemc/src/SpTraceVcdC.cpp /usr/share/verilator/perl-systemc/src/SpTraceVcdC.h /usr/share/verilator/perl-systemc/src/systemperl.h Wouldn't it be wise to package perl-SystemPerl ? I have already started packaging perl-SystemPerl. Soon I'll post a package review for perl-SystemPerl -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468516] Review Request: verilator - A fast simulator of synthesizable Verilog HDL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468516 --- Comment #21 from Lane dir...@gmail.com 2009-01-03 19:34:42 EDT --- (In reply to comment #20) #002: do we need to ship these with this package ? usr/share/verilator/perl-systemc/src /usr/share/verilator/perl-systemc/src/SpCommon.h /usr/share/verilator/perl-systemc/src/SpTraceVcdC.cpp /usr/share/verilator/perl-systemc/src/SpTraceVcdC.h /usr/share/verilator/perl-systemc/src/systemperl.h Wouldn't it be wise to package perl-SystemPerl ? I have already started packaging perl-SystemPerl. Soon I'll post a package review for perl-SystemPerl Are you packaging the system perl from Wilson Snyder at www.veripool.org? These files are included because they are get compiled into the verilator models whenever you want to do tracing to see your waveforms. If you are packaging the one from Wilson Snyder, then I can remove these files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468462
--- Comment #5 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-01-03
20:15:28 EDT ---
REVIEW FOR 9050675dce622f3983571eb094ca60ec sbackup-0.10.5-3.fc10.src.rpm
OK - MUST: ]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/sbackup-0.10.5-3.fc11.*
sbackup.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 76)
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
can be ignored, see comment # 4.
OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
FIX - MUST: The package does not meet the Packaging Guidelines.
- Timestamp of Source0 does not match
OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license (GPLv2+) and
meets the Licensing Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license.
OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc.
OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English.
OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible.
OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source by
MD5 0d754b72da3b5cadf6de203cdf7afe13
OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on
i386
N/A - 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.
OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
OK - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro.
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.
OK - MUST: The package is not designed to be relocatable.
OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates.
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. Every %files section includes
a %defattr(...) line.
OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
OK - MUST: The package contains code.
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application.
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
FIX - MUST: The Package contains a GUI application and includes a
%{name}.desktop file that is properly installed with desktop-file-install in
the %install section, but there are some issues with the desktop files, see
below.
OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by
other packages.
OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items:
N/A - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: The package builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described.
OK - SHOULD: The scriptlets used are must be sane.
N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase,
and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel
pkg.
N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
/sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the
file instead of the file itself.
Issues:
- Timestamp of Source0 does not match, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps
- Desktop files:
- paths are hardcoded
- key Categories is a list and does not have a semicolon as trailing
character
- Categories are IMO not
[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 --- Comment #19 from John Anderson john.e.ander...@gmail.com 2009-01-03 21:57:18 EDT --- Ah, I see now whats going on there. Thanks for the clarification. Here it is with both desktop-file-installs. I believe this is correct. http://transfer.eragen.com/rpm/mumbles.spec http://transfer.eragen.com/rpm/mumbles-0.4-7.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 225776] Merge Review: gamin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225776 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tbza...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-03 22:21:12 EDT --- I happened to stumble on gamin yesterday so I figured I could do a bit of cleanup and finish the merge review as well. I am submitting the new version as an attachment. I have also added Tomas to the CC: list because PKGDB shows him as primary maintainer in devel. Issues that might still be needed to be fixed: - the license: in July, Spot changed the license tag to LGPLv2. However at least one file is GPLv2 so I think that the whole package should therefore be considered GPLv2. I have added a comment about that (but left the tag as it was, as most probably Spot knows better) - I have removed the exec bit on the .py files included as doc in gamin-python and I have also solved the rpath issue which was triggered by _gamin.so. Most of the warnings from rpmlint are now gone, but two of them are still there: gamin-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gamin.py 0644 gamin-python.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/_gamin.a Most probably gamin.py does not need to be executable because (if I have correctly undestood the docs) it is meant to be imported by other scripts. OTOH I have no idea if _gamin.a is needed and if it is, if it should be packaged in -devel or in -python. -- 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 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 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #20 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-01-03 22:25:14 EDT --- Ok, that's fine with me, but you should also add GNOME and GTK in the first desktop-file-install. But you can do this after import, this package is APPROVED Good work! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Jon Stanley jonstan...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jonstan...@gmail.com --- Comment #6 from Jon Stanley jonstan...@gmail.com 2009-01-03 22:22:56 EDT --- A few issues with this package (I haven't done a full review of it yet, these are just some things that stick out): I have no idea where or how to get this exact source. If this is an svn snapshot (which from the version looks like it is), you'll want to include instructions in the spec file on how to obtain this exact version - i.e. something like 'svn export -r1234 http://svn.example.com/svn/example example ; tar -czvf example.tar.gz example/' or whatever). You'll also want to version the package per the guidance found at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages rpmlint complains about the summary not starting with a capital letter, pretty simple to fix. The changelog is not in a proper format. You have: %changelog * Mon Dec 29 2008 MindTouch servi...@mindtouch.com - 8.08.12159 nightly built Which should be: * Mon Dec 29 2008 MindTocuh servi...@mindtouch.com - 0.08.12159 - Nightly built or something similar. Refer to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs fore more info (It looks like you're using the third format sort of, but I've never seen anyone use that in practice and was kind of surprised to see it in the guidelines). In %post, you're adding users - please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UsersAndGroups for guidance on doing this. Similarly, according to the guidelines, we don't want to delete the user for the reasons stated. You're also installing content into /var/www - according to the guidelines, this should be instead in /usr/share/dekiwiki - see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Web_Applications for more details. I also noticed that your logfile is %ghost'ed - I wouldn't do that (but I don't think there's a guideline against it) because the administrator might want to keep the logfile around from the uninstalled package, and it doesn't do anything for logfiles that have been rotated. I think that's it for now, I'd like someone more familiar with mono than myself to look this over too. The guidelines for mono packages can be found at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Mono -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225776] Merge Review: gamin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225776 --- Comment #2 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-03 22:22:29 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=328123) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=328123) cleaned up spec, silences most of rpmlint complains -- 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 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 John Anderson john.e.ander...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #21 from John Anderson john.e.ander...@gmail.com 2009-01-03 22:38:12 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mumbles Short Description: growl like notification system for GNOME Owners: janderson Branches: F-10 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476936] Review Request: hello - Prints a Familiar, Friendly Greeting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476936 Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #4 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2009-01-03 23:05:19 EDT --- Built in rawhide, closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 466717] Review Request: python-cvxopt - A Python Package for Convex Optimization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466717 Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #17 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2009-01-03 23:04:15 EDT --- Built in rawhide, closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475032] Review Request: gnaural - A multi-platform programmable binaural-beat generator.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475032 Rakesh Pandit rakesh.pan...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from Rakesh Pandit rakesh.pan...@gmail.com 2009-01-03 23:24:52 EDT --- Fixed all issues. SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/gnaural.spec SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/gnaural-1.0.20080808-2.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 478506] Review Request: trac-customfieldsadmin-plugin - expose ticket custom fields via web admin 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=478506
Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com 2009-01-04 00:13:36 EDT
---
Problems:
1. Name of specfile and %name don't match.
2. None of the directory names given in the comments above the Source0 line
actually match the directory name used in %setup. (I see
customfieldsadminplugin and customfieldsadminplugin-0.10, when both should
be trac-customfieldsadminplugin-0.10.)
3. trac-webadmin-plugin (a Requires) doesn't actually exist anywhere in Fedora.
Please submit that package for review and add a dependency from this ticket to
that ticket. (I'll review the other one too...)
4. %{__python} setup.py build needs to go in %build.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478614] Review Request: python-transitfeed - Google Transit Feed Specification library and 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=478614 --- Comment #3 from Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com 2009-01-04 00:22:55 EDT --- Spec: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-transitfeed/1.1.9-3/python-transitfeed.spec SRPM: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-transitfeed/1.1.9-3/python-transitfeed-1.1.9-3.fc10.src.rpm * Sat Jan 03 2009 Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com 1.1.9-3 - Add a gfts- prefix to everything in /usr/bin to get rid of naming conflicts -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478722] New: Review Request: ossim - Open Source Software Image Map
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ossim - Open Source Software Image Map https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478722 Summary: Review Request: ossim - Open Source Software Image Map Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: re...@rdsor.ro QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ossim.spec SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ossim-1.7.14-0.1.svn13945.fc11.src.rpm Description: OSSIM provides advanced geo-spatial processing capabilities through a state of the art C++ software library. A number of tools, applications, and examples are included with the 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 478614] Review Request: python-transitfeed - Google Transit Feed Specification library and 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=478614 Jon Stanley jonstan...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Jon Stanley jonstan...@gmail.com 2009-01-04 01:23:44 EDT --- Looks good to me. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478614] Review Request: python-transitfeed - Google Transit Feed Specification library and 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=478614 Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com 2009-01-04 01:30:47 EDT --- Thanks, Jon. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: python-transitfeed Short Description: Google Transit Feed Specification library and tools Owners: ianweller Branches: F-9 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
