[Bug 479793] Review Request: cpphs - A liberalised re-implementation of cpp, the C pre-processor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479793 --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 03:10:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) Done. (Or I guess, your patch does this.) Although rpmbuild complains as I told you on IRC. Strange - builds ok for me on f10 (and f11 mock) anyway. Hmm, /usr/share/doc/ghc/libraries is owned by ghc-doc but not required by ghc-cpphs - looks like a oversight of the guidelines. Wondering whether we should subpackage haddock docs for this or do something else. Well, at any rate ghc-cpphs must depend on ghc-doc (or ghc-doc if we create a subpackage for the docs). Right. Since ghc-doc is quite big I am leaning towards subpackaging for all libraries' docs generated by haddock. I guess in this case ghc-cpphs-doc say. Any other thoughts from the Haskell SIG? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479832] Review Request: Seeking sponsorship: mmpong - a massively multiplayer pong game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479832 Kai maintai...@mt2009.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: mmpong - a |Review Request: Seeking |massively multiplayer pong |sponsorship: mmpong - a |game|massively multiplayer pong ||game -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460894] Review Request: ocsigen - Web programming 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=460894 --- Comment #5 from Wes Shull wes.sh...@gmail.com 2009-01-14 03:45:35 EDT --- I can verify it now builds, installs, and runs (only did basic testing) without error for me on f10-x86_64; thanks Richard. A few minor points: * /usr/bin/ocsigen is system_u:object_r:bin_t; do we maybe want to make it system_u:object_r:httpd_exec_t like apache httpd since it's just another webserver? * I got no -debuginfo package out of the build, and /usr/bin/ocsigen is not stripped. * The ocsigen quickstart page indicates most distros include an initscript, which we seem to be lacking. I'd volunteer but shell scripts make me want to gouge my eyes out. Apart from these potential considerations, looks good to me. Should I start rabble-rousing on the -devel list to get some real certified reviewers on this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479895] Review Request: perl-DDL-Oracle - DDL generator for Oracle databases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479895 Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 04:02:23 EDT --- OK source files match upstream: 94b43a139feb903609e1e15326e982ae 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 build root is correct. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). OK debuginfo package isn't need. OK rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. ACCEPTED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477313] Review Request: ocaml-preludeml - OCaml utility functions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477313 --- Comment #10 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 04:14:22 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) OK, this one still builds for me, and I guess I'm lucky to be building on the one platform where the tests pass, because I get: Ran: 333 tests in: 0.72 seconds. OK Yes, the tests only work on x86-64. 1/333 fails on 32 bit platforms, and lots of things fail on ppc64. I'm going to raise the issue with upstream. Thanks for your patience looking at 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 477313] Review Request: ocaml-preludeml - OCaml utility functions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477313 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 04:16:08 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ocaml-preludeml Short Description: OCaml utility functions Owners: rjones 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 479645] Review Request: hyphen-uk - Ukrainian hyphenation rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479645 Caolan McNamara caol...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475897] Review Request: ncmpcpp - Clone of ncmpc with new features and written in 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=475897 --- Comment #7 from Michal Nowak mno...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 04:16:31 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) --disable-static should be added to %configure before import. `--disable-static' is used against .a static archives. Which are now not created. Am I missing something? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479951] New: Review Request: iniparser - a library for parsing ini-style files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: iniparser - a library for parsing ini-style files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479951 Summary: Review Request: iniparser - a library for parsing ini-style files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fed...@alexhudson.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.alexhudson.com/fedora/iniparser/iniparser.spec SRPM URL: http://www.alexhudson.com/fedora/iniparser/iniparser-3.0b-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: IniParser is a simple ANSI-C library used by other applications to parse ini-style files as used mainly on Windows. There is a small problem with this library; it doesn't come with a full build system - it has a Makefile which compiles the library, but doesn't even have make install, thus the manual fiddling around in the spec file. I suspect this makes the -debuginfo package less useful - it doesn't come with copies of the source, for example. Another issue is that the library is simply called libiniparser.so.0 - there is no minor version. I imagine this would make it difficult to correctly work out dependencies (for example, if new API was added to the library later and an application wished to declare that dependency) - however, there is also a compatibility issue there if it's changed just for Fedora? I'm contemplating writing a patch which would effectively drop in a more standard autotools build, but would appreciate any easier ideas. Also, this is only the second package I've submitted and I'm not a package maintainer (yet, hopefully ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454668] Review Request: gupnp-vala - vala bindings for gupnp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454668 --- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 04:26:16 EDT --- OK I'll look at this today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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||479874 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479874] Review Request: mingw32-postgresql - postgresql development library's libpq
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479874 --- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 04:23:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) I will mail Tom Lane myself and ask him if he wants to be CC'd on this bug, but he's quite a busy chap. Actually he's already in the CC for the bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454416] Review Request: mingw32-zlib - MinGW Windows zlib compression 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=454416 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||479874 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 #14 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-01-14 04:25:38 EDT --- Also, drop the Requires: pidgin = 2.0.0 line, since one can use the plugin with any piece of software that uses libpurple. After that the package is IMHO good to go, you just need to get sponsored by someone. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479874] Review Request: mingw32-postgresql - postgresql development library's libpq
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479874 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||berra...@redhat.com Depends on||454410, 454416 Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |mingw32-postgresql -|mingw32-postgresql - |postgresql development |postgresql development |library's libpq (MingW) |library's libpq --- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 04:21:46 EDT --- Please send any upstream patches to the PostgreSQL mailing list: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/ I will mail Tom Lane myself and ask him if he wants to be CC'd on this bug, but he's quite a busy chap. this package also depends on secur32.dll mingw32(secur32.dll) is needed by mingw32-postgresql-8.3.5-1snapshot.fc10.noarch We need to add that pseudo-provides to mingw32-filesystem. I'll do this today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479832] Review Request: mmpong - a massively multiplayer pong game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479832 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: Seeking |Review Request: mmpong - a |sponsorship: mmpong - a |massively multiplayer pong |massively multiplayer pong |game |game| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479951] Review Request: iniparser - a library for parsing ini-style 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=479951 Alex Hudson (Fedora Address) fed...@alexhudson.com 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 479646] Review Request: hyphen-mi - Maori hyphenation rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479646 Caolan McNamara caol...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460600] Review Request: msp430-binutils - Cross compiling binutils targeted at the msp430
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460600 --- Comment #9 from Steve Whitehouse swhit...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 04:27:24 EDT --- The URL you've given still points at the old spec file, but I have installed the SRPM which does have the new spec file in it, and that does look much better now. I don't think the patch is an issue which should hold up review. Obviously its much better if you can get the binutils maintainers to take it since it reduces the future work that needs to be done, but its fine for now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479895] Review Request: perl-DDL-Oracle - DDL generator for Oracle databases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479895 Milan Zazrivec mzazri...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Milan Zazrivec mzazri...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 04:28:33 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-DDL-Oracle Short Description: DDL generator for Oracle databases Owners: mzazrive 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 479803] Review Request: haskell-packaging - RPM macros and spec templates for Haskell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479803
--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 04:34:14
EDT ---
Spec URL:
http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/haskell-packaging/haskell-packaging.spec
SRPM URL:
http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/haskell-packaging/haskell-packaging-0.3-1.fc10.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #1)
1) why URL still drafts url?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Haskell
Added a comment
2) just a suggestion. How about using package name as haskell-packager?
Still thinking on this - added a comment in spec - I need to look at some other
packages for examples.
3) Can it be possible to have all those Source files be tarred and released
with license file on fedorapeople currently till you get fedorahosted page?
Done (but untested:)
4) spec templates can be installed in /etc/rpmdevtools location instead to go
for some %{_datadir}/%{name} location.
Done
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479793] Review Request: cpphs - A liberalised re-implementation of cpp, the C pre-processor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479793 --- Comment #7 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 04:38:14 EDT --- I updated the templates in the draft haskell-packaging package to handle doc subpackages btw (haven't tested it though yet:). You could try http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/haskell-packaging/haskell-packaging-0.3-1.fc10.noarch.rpm (though the cabal2spec will conflict with the one in ghc currently). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476440] Review Request: latexdiff - Determine and mark up significant differences between latex 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=476440 Dan Kenigsberg dan...@cs.technion.ac.il changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479667] Review Request: perl-ORLite-Migrate - Extremely light weight SQLite-specific schema migration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479667 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-14 04:49:38 EDT --- BuildRequires: perl = 1:5.6.0 is redundant, we ship 5.8 for a lng long time There seems to exist a missing BR: ERROR: Bad build req: No Package Found for perl(File::pushd). Exiting. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479956] New: Review Request: hyphen-ro - Romanian hyphenation rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: hyphen-ro - Romanian hyphenation rules https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479956 Summary: Review Request: hyphen-ro - Romanian hyphenation rules Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caol...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/hyphen-ro.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/hyphen-ro-3.3-0.1.test3.fc10.src.rpm Description: Romanian hyphenation rules -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479955] New: Review Request: hyphen-pt - Portuguese hyphenation rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: hyphen-pt - Portuguese hyphenation rules https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479955 Summary: Review Request: hyphen-pt - Portuguese hyphenation rules Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caol...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/hyphen-pt.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/hyphen-pt-0.20021021-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Portuguese hyphenation rules -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479953] New: Review Request: gtksourceviewmm - C++ wrapper for the gtksourceview widget library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gtksourceviewmm - C++ wrapper for the gtksourceview widget library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479953 Summary: Review Request: gtksourceviewmm - C++ wrapper for the gtksourceview widget library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: de...@poolshark.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.poolshark.org/src/gtksourceviewmm.spec SRPM URL: http://www.poolshark.org/src/gtksourceviewmm-2.2.0-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: gtksourceviewmm is a C++ wrapper for the gtksourceview widget library. It offers all the power of gtksourceview with an interface familiar to c++ developers, including users of the gtkmm library. Notes to reviewer: this package is a renaming of the existing libgtksourceviewmm package (which got renamed since the 2.0 release). Currently only 2 applications use it (nemiver and glom), both of which can support the 2.0 API already. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479667] Review Request: perl-ORLite-Migrate - Extremely light weight SQLite-specific schema migration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479667 --- Comment #2 from Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 04:56:31 EDT --- The missing requirement was imported today into CVS. You can find it here http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=7455 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467389] Review Request: mingw32-pthreads - MinGW pthread 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=467389 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-14 05:10:39 EDT --- mingw32-pthreads-2.8.0-4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-pthreads-2.8.0-4.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 467389] Review Request: mingw32-pthreads - MinGW pthread 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=467389 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #8 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 05:07:51 EDT --- Thanks everyone for helping out with this. It's now built in EL-5, F-10 and Rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467397] Review Request: mingw32-libpng - MinGW Windows Libpng 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=467397 --- Comment #8 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 05:11:29 EDT --- Thanks everyone. I've built this for EL-5 and Rawhide, but cannot yet build it for F-10 because I'm waiting for the mingw32-zlib dependency to work its way into dist-f10-updates. I'll leave the bug open until then. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468797] Review Request: JRosetta - A common base to build a graphical console
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468797 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: jrosetta - |Review Request: JRosetta - |JRosetta provides a common |A common base to build a |base for graphical |graphical console |component | --- Comment #4 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com 2009-01-14 05:11:38 EDT --- Spec URL: http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/JRosetta.spec SRPM URL: http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/JRosetta-1.0.2-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: A common base to build a graphical console Changelog - Fix License (GPLv2 only) (was confirmed by phone call with upstream, the shortname license can be seen in the MANIFEST of the jar files.) - Fix Summary - Update to 1.0.2 - previous patch merged upstream - Rename to JRosetta Koji scratch build for Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1051591 rpmlint is quiet on local build from 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 461106] Review Request: libnotifymm - C++ interface for libnotify
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461106 Denis Leroy de...@poolshark.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #7 from Denis Leroy de...@poolshark.org 2009-01-14 05:21:00 EDT --- Yes, had to figure out why it didn't build on rawhide. Fixed now, 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 479956] Review Request: hyphen-ro - Romanian hyphenation rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479956 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com 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 460894] Review Request: ocsigen - Web programming 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=460894 --- Comment #7 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 05:34:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) * The ocsigen quickstart page indicates most distros include an initscript, which we seem to be lacking. I'd volunteer but shell scripts make me want to gouge my eyes out. Probably best to copy the one from Debian, if they have one: http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-ocaml-maint/packages/ocsigen.git;a=summary Here we go, smimram wrote one: http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-ocaml-maint/packages/ocsigen.git;a=blob_plain;f=debian/ocsigen.init;hb=HEAD -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479955] Review Request: hyphen-pt - Portuguese hyphenation rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479955 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-01-14 05:33:34 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock. Koji build = http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1051701 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream. 327989bbbfc9f9d56eb772427a344eb3 hyph_pt_PT.zip + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc files present. + BuildRequires are proper. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + no scriptlets are used. + Not a GUI app. 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 479667] Review Request: perl-ORLite-Migrate - Extremely light weight SQLite-specific schema migration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479667
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-14
05:43:57 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
[!] Rpmlint output:
source RPM:
perl-ORLite-Migrate.src: E: description-line-too-long SQLite is a light weight
single file SQL database that provides an excellent platform for e
mbedded
perl-ORLite-Migrate.src: E: description-line-too-long storage of structured
data. ORLite is a light weight single class Object-Relational Mapper
(ORM)
perl-ORLite-Migrate.src: E: description-line-too-long system specifically
designed for (and limited to only) work with SQLite. ORLite::Migrate is
a light
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings.
binary RPM:
perl-ORLite-Migrate.noarch: E: description-line-too-long SQLite is a light
weight single file SQL database that provides an excellent platform fo
r embedded
perl-ORLite-Migrate.noarch: E: description-line-too-long storage of structured
data. ORLite is a light weight single class Object-Relational Mapp
er (ORM)
perl-ORLite-Migrate.noarch: E: description-line-too-long system specifically
designed for (and limited to only) work with SQLite. ORLite::Migrate
is a light
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings.
= current lines have 92 chars, exceeding the 80 chars limit checked by rpmlint
[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 G
uidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic
[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: 010475d7e87a17316db969c4fe9ce71602c0cb6f
ORLite-Migrate-0.01.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.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[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: koji scratch build + devel/x86_64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: koji scratch build + devel/x86_64
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check is present and the tests pass.
[Bug 479955] Review Request: hyphen-pt - Portuguese hyphenation rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479955 Caolan McNamara caol...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Caolan McNamara caol...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 05:47:23 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: hyphen-pt Short Description: Portuguese hyphenation rules Owners: caolanm Branches: devel 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 479956] Review Request: hyphen-ro - Romanian hyphenation rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479956 Caolan McNamara caol...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Caolan McNamara caol...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 05:48:23 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: hyphen-ro Short Description: Romanian hyphenation rules Owners: caolanm Branches: devel 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 478640] Review Request: mingw32-dlfcn - Implements a wrapper for dlfcn (dlopen dlclose dlsym dlerror)
Please do not reply directly 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 #7 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 05:48:36 EDT --- dos2unix issue raised with FPC: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-January/msg00066.html Here's an updated package which reverts the dos2unix change and should fix everything else: Spec URL: http://hg.et.redhat.com/cgi-bin/hg-misc.cgi/fedora-mingw--devel/file/tip/dlfcn/mingw32-dlfcn.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/mingw/fedora-10/src/SRPMS/mingw32-dlfcn-0-0.3.r11.fc10.src.rpm * Wed Jan 14 2009 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com - 0-0.3.r11 - Use Version 0 (https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-January/msg00064.html) - Revert use of dos2unix for now (https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-January/msg00066.html) - Use _smp_mflags. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479956] Review Request: hyphen-ro - Romanian hyphenation rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479956 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-01-14 05:33:31 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock. Koji build = http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1051694 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream. b984466d932377b9a81a93644efcf663 hyph_ro_RO.3.3-test3.zip + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc files present. + BuildRequires are proper. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + no scriptlets are used. + Not a GUI app. 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 468189] Review Request: rear - Relax and Recovery (disaster recovery framework)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468189 --- Comment #20 from Gratien D'haese gratien.dha...@it3.be 2009-01-14 05:33:55 EDT --- Ran the validation script on 2.6.26.6-79.fc9.x86_64 type of system with the same results (as on a x86 platform): # valrear == == Make a fresh RPM of Relax and Recover (rear) URL: http://rear.sourceforge.net == == Relax Recover Version 1.7.12 / 2009-01-09 Creating archive '/tmp/rear-1.7.12.tar.gz' OK Creating RPM packages OK OK Wrote: /home/gdha/RPM/RPMS/noarch/rear-1.7.12-1.fc9.noarch.rpm Wrote: /home/gdha/RPM/SRPMS/rear-1.7.12-1.fc9.src.rpm Finished in 3 seconds. == Unpack /home/gdha/RPM/SRPMS/rear-1.7.12-1.fc9.src.rpm == rear## == rpmlint -v -i /home/gdha/RPM/RPMS/noarch/rear-1.7.12-1.fc9.noarch.rpm == rear.noarch: I: checking 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. == rpmlint -v -i /home/gdha/RPM/SRPMS/rear-1.7.12-1.fc9.src.rpm == rear.src: I: checking 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. == rpmlint -v -i /home/gdha/RPM/SPECS/rear.spec == 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. == rpm -qp --requires /home/gdha/RPM/RPMS/noarch/rear-1.7.12-1.fc9.noarch.rpm == /bin/bash binutils config(rear) = 1.7.12-1.fc9 iputils mingetty portmap rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 == rpm -qp --info /home/gdha/RPM/RPMS/noarch/rear-1.7.12-1.fc9.noarch.rpm == Name: rear Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 1.7.12Vendor: (none) Release : 1.fc9 Build Date: Wed 14 Jan 2009 11:25:28 AM CET Install Date: (not installed) Build Host: sloeber Group : Applications/ArchivingSource RPM: rear-1.7.12-1.fc9.src.rpm Size: 468819 License: GPLv2+ Signature : (none) URL : http://rear.sourceforge.net Summary : Relax and Recover (ReaR) is a Linux Disaster Recovery framework Description : Relax and Recover (abbreviated rear) is a highly modular disaster recovery framework for GNU/Linux based systems, but can be easily extended to other UNIX alike systems. The disaster recovery information (and maybe the backups) can be stored via the network, local on hard disks or USB devices, DVD/CD-R, tape, etc. The result is also a bootable image that is capable of booting via PXE, DVD/CD and tape (OBDR). This is work in progress, so some features are not yet implemented. == rpm -qpd /home/gdha/RPM/RPMS/noarch/rear-1.7.12-1.fc9.noarch.rpm (docfiles) == /usr/share/doc/rear-1.7.12/CHANGES /usr/share/doc/rear-1.7.12/README /usr/share/doc/rear-1.7.12/readme.txt /usr/share/doc/rear-1.7.12/validated/Fedora/9/i386.txt == rpm -qpc /home/gdha/RPM/RPMS/noarch/rear-1.7.12-1.fc9.noarch.rpm (configfiles) == /etc/rear/Debian/ia64.conf /etc/rear/GNU/Linux.conf /etc/rear/GNU/Linux.conf.rpmnew /etc/rear/GNU/Linux.conf.rpmsave /etc/rear/Linux-i386.conf /etc/rear/Linux-ia64.conf /etc/rear/Linux-x86_64.conf /etc/rear/Ubuntu/7.10.conf /etc/rear/default.conf /etc/rear/local.conf /etc/rear/os.conf /etc/rear/site.conf /etc/rear/templates/EFI_readme.txt
[Bug 460894] Review Request: ocsigen - Web programming 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=460894 --- Comment #8 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 06:00:55 EDT --- About ocamlduce, see bug 479970. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454668] Review Request: gupnp-vala - vala bindings for gupnp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454668 --- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 06:15:07 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=328966) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=328966) Patch to add BR libsoup-devel You need the patch attached here. I will continue the review assuming you have added this 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 479874] Review Request: mingw32-postgresql - postgresql development library's libpq
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479874 --- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 05:24:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) this package also depends on secur32.dll mingw32(secur32.dll) is needed by mingw32-postgresql-8.3.5-1snapshot.fc10.noarch We need to add that pseudo-provides to mingw32-filesystem. I'll do this today. I've done this now. You will need to adjust the dependencies as follows: branch dependency devel: mingw32-filesystem = 42 F-10: mingw32-filesystem = 40-3 EL-5: mingw32-filesystem = 40-3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479955] Review Request: hyphen-pt - Portuguese hyphenation rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479955 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com 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 454668] Review Request: gupnp-vala - vala bindings for gupnp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454668
--- Comment #6 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 06:22:13
EDT ---
- rpmlint output
gupnp-vala.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/vala/vapi/gssdp-1.0.deps
gupnp-vala.x86_64: E: no-binary
gupnp-vala-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings.
I think the first third errors are real ones which
need to be looked at. Not sure about the 'no-binary'
error.
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
- license matches the actual package license
No, the license is LGPLv2+
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
26f9c6d5de9a300cf2ec3cc04313e2ea 104744
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
x86_64
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
(assuming you add the BR in the patch in comment 5)
+ %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun
+ does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8
Optional:
n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
- reviewer should build the package in mock
- the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
- review should test the package functions as described
n/a scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
A few things to fix there.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225725] Merge Review: elinks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225725 --- Comment #12 from Ondrej Vasik ova...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 06:22:27 EDT --- I guess Tyler approved that package before, so no reason to ping him. Patrice afaik withdrawn from Fedora process ~1 month ago, I fixed versioned obsoletes in rawhide now, but I'm reluctant to remove links symlinks for links v2 package. Links v.2 (with graphics) brings framebuffer/X-Windows requirement. It is common in other linux distributions to have its binary named links2 and to ship links version 0.X or 1.X separately (RedHat shipped links v.0.X until 0.96, then replaced by elinks). I'm ok with removing those symlinks if the links v.1.X package will be added to Fedora - not for links v.2+. So the only question is if John is ok with it - then we could close that merge review again. -- 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 460894] Review Request: ocsigen - Web programming 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=460894 --- Comment #6 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 05:33:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) I can verify it now builds, installs, and runs (only did basic testing) without error for me on f10-x86_64; thanks Richard. A few minor points: * /usr/bin/ocsigen is system_u:object_r:bin_t; do we maybe want to make it system_u:object_r:httpd_exec_t like apache httpd since it's just another webserver? I have absolutely no idea how to do this, but sure it sounds like a good idea. * I got no -debuginfo package out of the build, and /usr/bin/ocsigen is not stripped. Debuginfo isn't really that useful for OCaml programs, since gdb doesn't know about OCaml. So you end up having to debug assembler. * The ocsigen quickstart page indicates most distros include an initscript, which we seem to be lacking. I'd volunteer but shell scripts make me want to gouge my eyes out. Probably best to copy the one from Debian, if they have one: http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-ocaml-maint/packages/ocsigen.git;a=summary Apart from these potential considerations, looks good to me. Should I start rabble-rousing on the -devel list to get some real certified reviewers on this? Sure thing! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460894] Review Request: ocsigen - Web programming 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=460894 --- Comment #9 from Wes Shull wes.sh...@gmail.com 2009-01-14 06:38:56 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) (In reply to comment #5) * /usr/bin/ocsigen is system_u:object_r:bin_t; do we maybe want to make it system_u:object_r:httpd_exec_t like apache httpd since it's just another webserver? I have absolutely no idea how to do this, but sure it sounds like a good idea. bug 243302 details another package dealing with the same thing (yay for bz being indexed by google now) I do have a reasonable level of familiarity with creating selinux modules, so unless you've nothing else to do, leave it for me and I'll take a poke at it tomorrow. Once we've got something tested/working we can run it by dwalsh to make sure it's not insane. Debuginfo isn't really that useful for OCaml programs, since gdb doesn't know about OCaml. So you end up having to debug assembler. I take it the symbols are of use to ocamldebug then? Or could we just strip useless baggage and discard? * The ocsigen quickstart page indicates most distros include an initscript, which we seem to be lacking. I'd volunteer but shell scripts make me want to gouge my eyes out. Probably best to copy the one from Debian, if they have one: http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-ocaml-maint/packages/ocsigen.git;a=summary I can handle that level of copy-and-tweak, again unless you've just nothing better to do. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479978] New: Review Request: libnewmat - Newmat C++ matrix library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: libnewmat - Newmat C++ matrix library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479978 Summary: Review Request: libnewmat - Newmat C++ matrix library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: pascal...@parois.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://svn.debroglie.net/specs/trunk/libnewmat.spec SRPM URL: http://fedora.debroglie.net/fedora-test/SRPMS/10/libnewmat-10D-1.fc10.debroglie.src.rpm Description: This C++ library is intended for scientists and engineers who need to manipulate a variety of types of matrices using standard matrix operations. Emphasis is on the kind of operations needed in statistical calculations such as least squares, linear equation solve and eigenvalues. rpmlint gives the following warnings: - libnewmat-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation (the documentation is in the libnewmat package) - libnewmat.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 41) (the tabulation is within a echo string) - libnewmat.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libnewmat.so.10.4 e...@glibc_2.2.5 The package has been successfully built in mock. It's my first package and I am seeking for a sponsor. Cheers, Pascal -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226519] Merge Review: usermode
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226519 --- Comment #4 from Miloslav Trmac m...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 07:10:34 EDT --- Thanks for the review, everything should be fixed in rawhide usermode-1.99-2. -- 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 474787] Review Requrest: stxxl - C++ STL drop-in replacement for extremely large datasets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474787
--- Comment #6 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-01-14 07:31:36 EDT ---
SPEC URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/stxxl-3.spec
SRPM URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/stxxl-1.2.1-3.fc10.src.rpm
Rpmlint:
SRPM: empty
SPEC: empty
RPM: empty
Summary of -devel package is not short and concise as recommended by the
guidelines, but two sentences squeezed into an overlong line.
I shortened it in the main package, though I thought it was pretty short to
begin with. In the devel section it has been corrected, as it was clearly
overlong. The main summary is slightly shortened but cannot be shortened
further without losing information.
Run rpmlint also on your src.rpm
My apologies if I had not -- I thought I had, as stated in comment 3. Clearly
not, as running it produces a myriad of errors.
src.rpm download URL gives 404 Not Found
Again, that's just sloppy on my part -- I didn't transfer it to the server.
Both the old and the new have been uploaded.
%description of the -devel package is the same as the description of the main
package.
Fixed.
-devel pkg typically must Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} to stay
in sync with the main package.
Fixed
%files devel section contains unowned directories!
Fixed -- would have been evident had i run rpmlint correctly.
%files devel section is missing %defattr parameter
Done.
Note : That could also be the answer to your problem with the .so symlink. The
symlink must be in the -devel package, and the -devel package requires the main
package which contains the library file.
It wasn't that -- I worked it out in the end with the help of
http://en.opensuse.org/Shared_Library_Packaging_Policy . Which was very clear,
both in procedure and rationale. Seems to keep rpmlint happy and matches what
is happening in other packages in my /usr/lib/.
I hope this package is less sloppy than the last attempt!
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460600] Review Request: msp430-binutils - Cross compiling binutils targeted at the msp430
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460600 --- Comment #10 from Robert Spanton rspan...@zepler.net 2009-01-14 07:39:45 EDT --- Hi Steve, Thanks. I did change the specfile on the server. I guess it could be a cache issue. R -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479978] Review Request: libnewmat - Newmat C++ matrix 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=479978 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 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 479903] gdesklets plug-in, Cycle through a collection of pictures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479903 MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #328928|0 |1 is obsolete|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479903] gdesklets plug-in, Cycle through a collection of pictures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479903 MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #328929|0 |1 is obsolete|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479903] gdesklets plug-in, Cycle through a collection of pictures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479903 MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #328927|0 |1 is obsolete|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479903] gdesklets plug-in, Cycle through a collection of pictures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479903
--- Comment #3 from MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2009-01-14 07:49:01 EDT
---
The new spec file:
-
Name: gdesklet-slideshow
Version: 0.9
Release: 1%{?dist}
Summary: Cycle through a collection of pictures
Group: User Interface/Desktops
License: GPL+
URL: http://www.gdesklets.de
Source0:
http://http://www.gdesklets.de/files/desklets/SlideShow/SlideShow-%{version}.tar.gz
Source1:
http://www.gdesklets.de/files/controls/ImageSlideShow/ImageSlideShow-0.8.tar.gz
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch: noarch
%define _appname SlideShow
%define _ctrlname ImageSlideShow
BuildRequires: python
Requires: gdesklets
Requires: python-imaging
%description
Cycle through a collection of pictures. Will display image captions
(IPTC,Jpeg Comment, EXIF) if available.
%prep
%setup -q -n %{_appname}
tar -xf %{SOURCE1} -C ../
%build
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
#need to install the control first
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/gdesklets/Controls/%{_ctrlname}/
install -p -m644 ../%{_ctrlname}/*
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/gdesklets/Controls/%{_ctrlname}/.
#add shebang and execution mode
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/gdesklets/Controls/%{_ctrlname}/. \( -name
*.py \) -exec sed -i '1i\#!/usr/bin/python' {} \;
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/gdesklets/Controls/%{_ctrlname}/. \( -name
*.py \) | xargs chmod a+x
#install the display now
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/gdesklets/Displays/%{_appname}/
cp -rp * $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/gdesklets/Displays/%{_appname}/.
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc LICENSE
#%{_datadir}/gdesklets/
%dir %{_datadir}/gdesklets/Controls/%{_ctrlname}
%dir %{_datadir}/gdesklets/Displays/%{_appname}
%{_datadir}/gdesklets/Controls/%{_ctrlname}/*
%{_datadir}/gdesklets/Displays/%{_appname}/*
%changelog
* Mon Jan 12 2009 Jonathan MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com - 0.9-1
- Initial Packaging for Fedora
-
rpmlint:
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/gdesklet-slideshow-0.9-1.fc10.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/gdesklet-slideshow-0.9-1.fc10.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/gdesklet-slideshow.spec
0 packages and 1 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 469052] Review Request: ris-linux - RIS for Linux - Boot winpe from the net / Ris Windows Installation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469052 --- Comment #6 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com 2009-01-14 07:53:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) Could you define WinPE in your %description? Just a parenthetical Windows Preinstallation Environment should be sufficient. Also, it needs a period at the end. Fixed. You're missing Requires(preun): initscripts, and also a python dependency for your %post script. Fixed. Does it make sense to include the sample .sif files? What about the manual from the upstream web site (http://oss.netfarm.it/guides/ris-linux.pdf)? I've included the sample .sif file, although I'm reluctant to say it's good enough. The upstream .pdf documentation though I'm not including. Other documentation is in the works that includes using Cobbler to manage the largest part of what is in the upstream documentation, and I'd rather set the record straight then whilst not confusing users of the package now (like with patching in.tftpd). This package is a little odd in that it installs as a service, but doesn't actually put any executables in %path. There isn't anything in the guidelines that would prohibit this as far as I can tell, but it seems a little admin-unfriendly. I don't know what to do about it; maybe a wrapper script that just calls python /usr/share/ris-linux/binlsrv.py. But I'll leave that up to you. Fixed, and actually works way better for service ris-linuxd status. Maybe this should be a Packaging Guidelines? ;-) New SPEC: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/ris-linux.spec New SRPM: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f10/SRPMS/ris-linux-0.4-4.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460894] Review Request: ocsigen - Web programming 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=460894
--- Comment #10 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-14
07:19:58 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Debuginfo isn't really that useful for OCaml programs, since
gdb doesn't know about OCaml. So you end up having to debug
assembler.
I take it the symbols are of use to ocamldebug then? Or could we just strip
useless baggage and discard?
In ordinary Fedora C packages, foo-debuginfo contains the unstripped
object files (ie. containing DWARF debugging info). The base
package ('foo') is stripped of course. However the programs in
the base package contain a special buildid section, which, with a
suitably modified version of gdb, causes gdb to get the right
symbols out of the corresponding foo-debuginfo file.
All well and good for ordinary C/C++ programs. However OCaml has
its own native code generator (ie. it generates machine code directly).
This code generator doesn't embed any DWARF debugging info, and as
a result if you try to generate a ocaml-foo-debuginfo subpackage
it will usually be empty. (Except in some special cases, ie.
where C code is linked in to the program). Thus we disable
generation of ocaml-foo-debuginfo subpackages as a matter of policy.
There's a separate issue which is that gdb is still able to
find ordinary symbols in unstripped OCaml executables, but because
gdb doesn't have DWARF info and in any case doesn't know anything
about the OCaml language, all it can do is show symbol locations
in assembler. Believe it or not, I have debugged OCaml programs
on many occasions using gdb like this ...
ocamldebug is quite separate. Firstly it only works on bytecode-
compiled OCaml programs. Secondly, OCaml bytecode contains its
own debugging information, not related to and totally incompatible
with DWARF, which is only understood by ocamldebug and a few other
programs like ocamlprof.
Some enterprising person with LOTS of time on their hands needs
to add DWARF output to the OCaml native code generator(s), and
add support for the OCaml language in gdb.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226495] Merge Review: tmpwatch
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226495 --- Comment #7 from Miloslav Trmac m...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 05:54:51 EDT --- Thanks. I'll fix the URL in the next release (which won't be available as a wiki attachment), I don't think it's worth the effort to fix it in 2.9.13. -- 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 479976] New: Review Request: xwxapt - An application for decoding and saving weather images.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: xwxapt - An application for decoding and saving weather images. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479976 Summary: Review Request: xwxapt - An application for decoding and saving weather images. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: randyn3...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/SPECS/xwxapt.spec SRPM URL: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/SRPMS/xwxapt-1.2-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: xwxapt is a GTK+ graphical version of wxapt. An application for decoding and saving weather images transmitted in the APT format of NOAA and METEOR satellites. It seems that at the present time (fall 2005) there are still no satellites transmitting in the latter format in the 137 MHz band, that I know of at least. But there are a few NOAA satellites that operate continuously in this mode and frequency band: NOAA-12 and NOAA-15 are the veterans of the field and NOAA-17 and NOAA-18 are the current morning and afternoon pass birds. It uses the same decoding engine as wxapt but it displays APT images at half-size as they are received, storing the full-sized files when reception is completed. It also displays some status information (audio level, sync level, sync status etc) and text messages as it runs. * Wed Jan 14 2009 Randall J. Berry 'Dp67' d...@fedoraproject.org 1.2-1 - Upstream upgrade to 1.2 - Mock build f9/f10/devel - check rpmlint 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. - submit for 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 479903] gdesklets plug-in, Cycle through a collection of pictures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479903 --- Comment #4 from MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2009-01-14 07:59:44 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=328981) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=328981) SPEC file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479903] gdesklets plug-in, Cycle through a collection of pictures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479903 --- Comment #5 from MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2009-01-14 08:00:33 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=328982) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=328982) The src.rpm file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479903] gdesklets plug-in, Cycle through a collection of pictures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479903 --- Comment #7 from MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2009-01-14 08:02:42 EDT --- Easy install on f10: $ su -m -c 'wget http://bioinformatiques.free.fr/gdesklet-slideshow-0.9-1.fc10.noarch.rpm yum --nogpgcheck localinstall gdesklet-slideshow-0.9-1.fc10.noarch.rpm' Easy install on F9: su -m -c 'wget http://bioinformatiques.free.fr/gdesklet-slideshow-0.9-1.fc9.noarch.rpm yum --nogpgcheck localinstall gdesklet-slideshow-0.9-1.fc9.noarch.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 479667] Review Request: perl-ORLite-Migrate - Extremely light weight SQLite-specific schema migration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479667 Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 08:03:55 EDT --- Thank you. I cut the description. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-ORLite-Migrate Short Description: Extremely light weight SQLite-specific Owners: mmaslano Branches: F-10 devel InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479982] New: Review Request: wxapt - A command line tool for decoding weather images transmitted by satellites.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: wxapt - A command line tool for decoding weather images transmitted by satellites. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479982 Summary: Review Request: wxapt - A command line tool for decoding weather images transmitted by satellites. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: randyn3...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/SPECS/wxapt.spec SRPM URL: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/SRPMS/wxapt-1.3-2.fc10.src.rpm Description: wxapt is a non-interactive command line tool for decoding weather images transmitted by satellites using the APT format. Currently wxapt can decode images in the American NOAA and Russian Meteor satellite APT formats. Images are decoded either in real time direct from the receiver o/p through the computer's sound card, or from a file of sound samples recorded by wxapt. * Wed Jan 14 2009 Randall J. Berry 'Dp67' dp67 at fedoraproject dot org 1.3-2 - mock build F9/10/devel - rpmlint 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. - Submit for 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 226032] Merge Review: libjpeg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226032 --- Comment #8 from Matthias Saou matth...@rpmforge.net 2009-01-14 08:21:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) BTW, the ftp.uu.net address *is* the original, well-published, and still functional URL. Let's not have any historical revisionism in the specfile. My bad, I had to hunt down a working URL when I saw that there was no .tar.bz2 there, but that has been resolved since. As for the makefile change, the one I suggest is trivial and (IMHO) clean. It just sets the paths to the usual Fedora values and adds a $(DESTDIR). I've just has a look at the sf.net project, and the latest files in CVS don't look much different, so it seems like you have high hopes... I'd suggest cleaning up the package as much as possible now, and if things ever get better later, then great, but if they don't, we'll at least have the package in a somewhat cleaner state. -- 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 479903] gdesklets plug-in, Cycle through a collection of pictures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479903 --- Comment #8 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-14 08:20:45 EDT --- Why don't you simply act like everyone else and provide the URL for spec and src.rpm in the bug number, instead of providing them over and over again as attachments in bugzilla ? At first I assumed that you do not have a place to host the files, but comment #7 proves that you obviously do. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479903] gdesklets plug-in, Cycle through a collection of pictures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479903 --- Comment #6 from MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2009-01-14 08:01:19 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=328983) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=328983) the rpm file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479667] Review Request: perl-ORLite-Migrate - Extremely light weight SQLite-specific schema migration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479667 --- Comment #5 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-14 08:23:02 EDT --- I suggest to rephrase the Short Description. It is almost as unclear as it could be. Maybe into light weight SQLite-specific schema migration or something similar ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479397] internal system error, package manager error add/remove software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479397 Richard Hughes rhug...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rhug...@redhat.com Flag||needinfo? --- Comment #1 from Richard Hughes rhug...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 08:23:33 EDT --- What does the internal error say? What version PackageKit are you using? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454979] Review Request: python-slip - Miscellaneous convenience, extension and workaround code for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454979 Nils Philippsen nphil...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #6 from Nils Philippsen nphil...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 08:26:23 EDT --- Long since built, sorry for not closing earlier. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473235] Review Request: system-config-date-docs - Documentation for setting the system date and time
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473235 Nils Philippsen nphil...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #8 from Nils Philippsen nphil...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 08:24:51 EDT --- Whoops, sorry, they're built already. Forgot about closing this with all the holidays and stuff. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473318] Review Request: system-config-nfs-docs - Documentation for configuring an NFS server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473318 Nils Philippsen nphil...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473406] Review Request: system-config-users-docs - Documentation for administering users and groups
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473406 Nils Philippsen nphil...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473452] Review Request: system-config-services-docs - Documentation for configuring system services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473452 Nils Philippsen nphil...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473413] Review Request: system-config-samba-docs - Documentation for configuring a Samba server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473413 Nils Philippsen nphil...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460600] Review Request: msp430-binutils - Cross compiling binutils targeted at the msp430
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460600 Steve Whitehouse swhit...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Steve Whitehouse swhit...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 08:28:50 EDT --- Yes, I see now, sorry about that, anyway it looks good to me. I've set the + flag so that you should now be able to submit the request for CVS access. The only thing that I've not done yet is to sponsor you. Its the first time I've done that, so I'm currently enquiring as to the correct way to go about it and I'll try and get the process underway as soon as I can. Btw, if you are able, it would be helpful if you could also submit the other packages for review now too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479983] New: Review Request: emacs-mew - Email client for GNU Emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: emacs-mew - Email client for GNU Emacs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479983 Summary: Review Request: emacs-mew - Email client for GNU Emacs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ta...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/emacs-mew/emacs-mew.spec SRPM URL: http://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/emacs-mew/emacs-mew-6.2-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Mew provides a very easy user interface to email, MIME and PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) on the Emacs and the Editors derived from the Emacs and so on. This is a request to rename a srpm to make mew package better for Packaging policy. I'm not starting to orphan old package yet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479667] Review Request: perl-ORLite-Migrate - Extremely light weight SQLite-specific schema migration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479667 --- Comment #6 from Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 08:33:35 EDT --- Ok. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-ORLite-Migrate Short Description: light weight SQLite-specific schema migration Owners: mmaslano Branches: F-10 devel InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Victor G. Vasilyev victor.vasil...@sun.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #14 from Victor G. Vasilyev victor.vasil...@sun.com 2009-01-14 08:44:07 EDT --- The koji build (dist-f11, devel:netbeans-platform-6_5-4_fc11) completed successfully: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1052085 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479982] Review Request: wxapt - A command line tool for decoding weather images transmitted by satellites.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479982 Steven M. Parrish smparr...@shallowcreek.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||smparr...@shallowcreek.net AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|smparr...@shallowcreek.net 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 225725] Merge Review: elinks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225725 --- Comment #13 from Patrice Dumas pertu...@free.fr 2009-01-14 08:55:35 EDT --- I withdrawn from Fedora, but I can still make evil comments ;-). The versionned Obsoletes doesn't looks good to me. The Obsolete version should be the old links version, not the elinks version. So could be along Obsoletes: links 1:0.97 Provides: links = 1:0.97-1 though I didn't found a full list of old links rpm in RHEL or fedora this seems to be fine, since as you said above 0.96 was the latest packages and upstream is already at 0.99 or 1.00pre. Otherwise, I am fine with keeping the symlink as long as links is not brought back in fedora. Once it is in, maybe using alternatives would be better. And I am also fine with using links2 for the links 2 package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470703] Review Request: links 2 - text mode browser with graphics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470703 --- Comment #14 from Patrice Dumas pertu...@free.fr 2009-01-14 08:52:07 EDT --- Ok for me with using links2. There is a wiki page with those kind of name changes to coordinate with other distros, but I can't find 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 479397] internal system error, package manager error add/remove software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479397 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added CC|fedora-package-rev...@redha | |t.com | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479903] gdesklets plug-in, Cycle through a collection of pictures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479903 --- Comment #9 from MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2009-01-14 09:18:38 EDT --- rpm and src.rpm for F9: http://bioinformatiques.free.fr/gdesklet-slideshow-0.9-1.fc9.noarch.rpm http://bioinformatiques.free.fr/gdesklet-slideshow-0.9-1.fc9.src.rpm - rpm and src.rpm for F10: http://bioinformatiques.free.fr/gdesklet-slideshow-0.9-1.fc10.noarch.rpm http://bioinformatiques.free.fr/gdesklet-slideshow-0.9-1.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 479982] Review Request: wxapt - A command line tool for decoding weather images transmitted by satellites.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479982
Steven M. Parrish smparr...@shallowcreek.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag||needinfo?(randyn3...@gmail.
||com)
--- Comment #1 from Steven M. Parrish smparr...@shallowcreek.net 2009-01-14
09:22:34 EDT ---
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
Clean.
- 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 on Package Naming Guidelines
.
OK.
- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK.
- MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
OK.
- 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.
N/A
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK.
- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is
unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora
is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest
(http://www.ioccc.org/).
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.
- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
OK.
- 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next
to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla
entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the
comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and
replace the long explanation with the bug number. The bug should be marked as
blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues:
FE-ExcludeArch-x86 , FE-ExcludeArch-x64 , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc ,
FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64
*** Does not successfully compile on PPC or PPC64. See build log here
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1052191name=build.log
- 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.
OK.
- MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each
subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig.
An example of the correct syntax for this is:
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
NA.
- 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
NA.
- 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. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.
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
[Bug 226495] Merge Review: tmpwatch
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226495 --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-01-14 09:55:27 EDT --- I agree completely. Thanks for your time. -- 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 253355] Review Request: twill - A simple scripting language for Web browsing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253355 --- Comment #14 from Matthias Saou matth...@rpmforge.net 2009-01-14 09:54:28 EDT --- Ping? I'm going to need this package for elisa-plugins-ugly in another 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 478504] Review Request: gget - Download Manager for the GNOME desktop.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478504
--- Comment #20 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-14
09:57:28 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #17)
(In reply to comment #16)
Other packages failing to rebuild have also prevented major packages in
your sense from being upgraded. I can see no gain to loose dependency
on this package for the reason you raised (and for this package
you can simply remove this, while for gnome-desktop (for example)
we actually have to wait until (almost) all package are rebuilt)
I was not talking about packages that fail to rebuild but about packages that
stop working after an update, although all dependencies are still met.
So my viewpoint is that in this case the dependency is _not_
satisfied because gget-epiphany _actually_ needs epiphany(abi) = 2.22.
For ruby, all ruby modules package have Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8
even if they are noarch and currently this is mandatory by ruby
packaging guideline on Fedora.
With forcely removing Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8 line from the spec
file for ruby module package built as noarch, the package will allow
ruby to be upgraded to 1.9 or so (I don't know ETA on Fedora, though),
however then the ruby module will stop working.
Current ruby package guideline strictly bans this.
Please ask yourself, what is better from a users point of view:
a) When epiphany gets updated he will loose the functionality of the gget
extension until it's getting rebuilt. When gget gets updated afterwards,
everything is fine again: everything works, no orphaned dirs
b) When epiphany gets updated the update will fail due to broken deps. The
user
has to work around them by removing gget-epiphany-extension and installing it
and to re-install it when it was rebuilt. Or he has to wait and to bear the
risk that epiphany itself gets broken.
So my opinition is b) (and on rawhide this frequently happens because
it's rawhide... On released stable branches this should not occur)
Then:
if epiphany has 2.22{,X} version, the epiphany won't conflict
with these two.
You are right, I did not think if the minor version. Nevertheless Conflicts
must only be used when packages really conflict, this means they cannot be
installed at the same time, e.g. because both provide the same files or
functionality.
This is exactly functionality case.
And we have mozilla-filesystem and we have ... I think a filesystem package
would be overkill here, but I agree you pointed out some valid points.
OK, but I want to make a constructive suggestion and not only open a bug. So
hat do you think abut my suggestion from the bottom of comment #13?
Well, I don't know if I grasped what you want to say here correctly,
however anyway my current idea is
- ephiphany should have Provides: epiphany(abi) = 2.22 or so
- epiphany should own %_libdir/epiphany//extensions (and
some other epiphany related directories if any)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478877] Review Request: python-progressbar - Text progressbar library for python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478877 --- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-14 10:06:07 EDT --- Please rebuild your package also on F-10 and EL-5, and for F-10 please visit bodhi https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ and submit updates request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475107] Review Request: guiloader-c++ - C++ Binding to GuiLoader 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=475107 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-14 10:10:11 EDT --- Okay, thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225725] Merge Review: elinks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225725 --- Comment #14 from Ondrej Vasik ova...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 10:06:53 EDT --- Ok, you are right, I thought about that possibility as well... will change the versioned obsoletes to that better style in next release... thanks for evil comment :). -- 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 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 --- Comment #11 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-14 10:09:25 EDT --- Please rebuild your package also on F-11. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475055] Review Request: gfan - Software for Compu ting Gröbner Fans and Tropical Varieties
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475055 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-14 10:11:36 EDT --- Okay, I re-approve 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 226189] Merge Review: neon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226189 --- Comment #30 from Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com 2009-01-14 10:18:15 EDT --- I've fixed the former upstream; not sure what is causing the latter, the last changelog entry looks fine to me * Thu Aug 28 2008 Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com 0.28.3-2 - update to 0.28.3 -- 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 478504] Review Request: gget - Download Manager for the GNOME desktop.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478504 --- Comment #21 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-01-14 10:18:13 EDT --- (In reply to comment #20) (In reply to comment #17) Conflicts must only be used when packages really conflict, this means they cannot be installed at the same time, e.g. because both provide the same files or functionality. This is exactly functionality case. You suggested epiphany to conflict with gget-epiphany-extension, but a web browser certainly does not provide the same functionality as download manager. Well, I don't know if I grasped what you want to say here correctly, however anyway my current idea is - ephiphany should have Provides: epiphany(abi) = 2.22 or so Please take a look at bug # 479921, where I have taken this suggestion into account. Malte obviously understood what I'm talking about. - epiphany should own %_libdir/epiphany//extensions (and some other epiphany related directories if any) Yes, also applies to the plugins dir. Simply owning %_libdir/epiphany//extensions will not help. We also need to get rid of the version, but all this is explained in bug # 479921. (In reply to comment #19) Maybe I should have just disabled the epiphany-extension :) No need to, Malte already fixed it in rawhide, see http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1052223 Not sure if/when this will appear in the other releases. Nah, this is interesting. Indeed. Thanks to Mamoru for his feedback. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468797] Review Request: JRosetta - A common base to build a graphical console
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468797
--- Comment #5 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com 2009-01-14
10:19:06 EDT ---
@Haley
---
%setup -qc
[...snip]
pushd .
[...snip]
popd
#The zip file is a bit messy.
#We reshuffle the top level dir
mv %{name}-%{version}-GPL/* .
mv %{name}-%{version}-GPL/.[A-z]* .
---
This is weird to fix problem you have introduced with not using the correct
%setup macro:
%setup -q -n %{name}-%{version}-GPL
Along with your debuginfo tweak in the scilab package (that, again, isn't
needed), You seem to have a strange buildsys. At this time, I don't know if you
got inattentive or your buildsys is buggy. The result is that I cannot trust
any packages that comes from your side.
I hope you can solve this, because we really need hands for scilab and
others...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
