[Bug 479983] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479983 --- Comment #6 from Akira TAGOH ta...@redhat.com 2009-01-19 03:26:42 EDT --- Sure. Updated. Spec URL: http://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/emacs-mew/emacs-mew.spec SRPM URL: http://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/emacs-mew/emacs-mew-6.2-3.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480050] Review Request: libchamplain - Map view for Clutter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480050 --- Comment #7 from Rakesh Pandit rakesh.pan...@gmail.com 2009-01-19 03:33:05 EDT --- I can confirm that package builds fine on my machine (F10 x86_64) as well as i686 (my test box): I also did a all arch build on koji which was successful: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1065454 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474535] Review Request: clamtk - Easy to use front-end for ClamAV
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474535 Jerome Soyer sai...@gmail.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 473972] Review Request: nufw - Authentication Firewall Suite for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473972 Jerome Soyer sai...@gmail.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 459548] Review Request: php-gtk - GTK PHP extension
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459548 --- Comment #8 from Patrice FERLET meta...@gmail.com 2009-01-19 04:30:46 EDT --- Hi, I will fix and do some changes for F10. Another problem appears with xulrunner that I have to correct. I've got a lot of work since 6 month, but I will have more time soon... I've already done some packages for my own repository, but none has ever been registered with Fedora. I have no FAS for now. Regards, -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480483] Review Request: gaupol - Subtitle editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480483 Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 2009-01-19 04:33:10 EDT --- OK source files match upstream: 11c62f478bcd9cd10a88752e4545e1d2 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. ACCEPT -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 #35 from Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com 2009-01-19 04:40:03 EDT --- Yes, this was fedora-review+'ed by you but Rex cleared it and reopened the bug in comment 10 (see the history link). -- 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 480528] Review Request: botan - Crypto library 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=480528 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-19 04:40:29 EDT --- botan-1.8.0-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/botan-1.8.0-2.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480528] Review Request: botan - Crypto library 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=480528 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-19 04:40:32 EDT --- botan-1.8.0-2.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/botan-1.8.0-2.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480483] Review Request: gaupol - Subtitle editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480483 Lucian Langa co...@gnome.eu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Lucian Langa co...@gnome.eu.org 2009-01-19 04:42:35 EDT --- Thank you for the review. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: gaupol Short Description: Subtitle editor Owners: lucilanga 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 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 Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #36 from Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com 2009-01-19 04:42:47 EDT --- Yeah, I don't see a need for disttag in the devel branch, and it screws up in some cases when it's there. I've committed and the install -p fix - thanks a lot Robert for the re-review! :) Closing out for good, hopefully... 1065558 build (dist-f11, /cvs/pkgs:rpms/neon/devel:neon-0_28_3-3) completed successfully -- 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 480146] Review Request: python-bicyclerepair - Python Refactoring Browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480146
--- Comment #2 from Jerome Soyer sai...@gmail.com 2009-01-19 05:07:58 EDT ---
Hi,
I put a -2 version with the fixed things. For file in %{python_sitelib} i
prefer to chmod 0644 and remove the shebang, i think it's not necessary
You can find files here :
http://saispo.fedorapeople.org/python-bicyclerepair.spec
http://saispo.fedorapeople.org/python-bicyclerepair-0.9-2.fc11.src.rpm
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 478769] Review Request: spring-installer - Installer for the Spring game's maps and mods
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478769 D Haley my...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||my...@yahoo.com --- Comment #5 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-01-19 05:11:02 EDT --- Hi Aurelien, OK, I have quickly looked at the spec for this one -- I am not able to provide a solid review at this stage. If I get time (weekend), I may provide patches to some of these, if you like. * Not sure about grabbing the data from what appears to be part of their filesystem that is laid out to fit neatly into the ubuntu repository. Might be a bit too dynamic... The Git repository sounds like a much better idea. * I think offering an installer for a TA mod CA may have licencing issues. TA is copyright of what used to be infogrames, which i know think is Atari. The content that this installer obtains is probably copyright protected, as I undesrtand that Complete Annihilation uses TA game data. * Is specifying the content of the sub-package in the main package description normal? I have not seen this before, and it strikes me as a touch confusing. * Using chrpath to remove hardcoding of path information is considered a last resort option [1]. Consider patching the build system to remove invocations to chrpath. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Beware_of_Rpath -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461277] Package Review Request: radial
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461277 Marek Kašík mka...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Marek Kašík mka...@redhat.com 2009-01-19 05:37:12 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: radial Short Description: A simple program for calculating radial velocities of stars in a binary system Owners: mkasik Branches: 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 225707] Merge Review: dosfstools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225707 Peter Vrabec pvra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|pvra...@redhat.com |ska...@redhat.com Flag|needinfo?(pvra...@redhat.co | |m) | --- Comment #6 from Peter Vrabec pvra...@redhat.com 2009-01-19 05:51:28 EDT --- done. /sbin/ was not replaced, since there is no macro for that. All packages that place their files in /sbin use /sbin. I'm removing myself from CC list and assigning kasal as a new maintainer of dosfstools, see: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/dosfstools -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480103] Review Request: bnIRC - An ncurses based IRC client and modular IRC framework.(Need Sponsorship. First time Packager)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480103 --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-01-19 05:47:14 EDT --- I will do a full review soon but be aware I can't sponsor you. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226235] Merge Review: pax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226235 Peter Vrabec pvra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|pvra...@redhat.com |ova...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Peter Vrabec pvra...@redhat.com 2009-01-19 05:55:31 EDT --- I'm removing myself from CC and adding ovasik. He is current maintainer of pax, according to: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/pax -- 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 459548] Review Request: php-gtk - GTK PHP extension
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459548 Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 --- Comment #9 from Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br 2009-01-19 05:58:46 EDT --- unfortunately I can't review your package you need to be sponsored first please follow the guidelines. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join look at Get a Fedora Account -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 165932] Review Request: msmtp - An SMTP Client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=165932 Nikolay Vladimirov niko...@vladimiroff.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||niko...@vladimiroff.com Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Nikolay Vladimirov niko...@vladimiroff.com 2009-01-19 05:59:58 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: msmtp New Branches: EL-5 Owners: turki -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480037] Review Request: cups-pk-helper - PolicyKit support for system-config-printer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480037 Marek Kašík mka...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Marek Kašík mka...@redhat.com 2009-01-19 05:59:57 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: cups-pk-helper Short Description: A helper that makes system-config-printer use PolicyKit Owners: mkasik Branches: 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 165932] Review Request: msmtp - An SMTP Client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=165932 Nikolay Vladimirov niko...@vladimiroff.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? | --- Comment #17 from Nikolay Vladimirov niko...@vladimiroff.com 2009-01-19 06:01:19 EDT --- Sorry about this wrong bug number. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 243631] Review Request: msmtp - an SMTP client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=243631 Nikolay Vladimirov niko...@vladimiroff.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #45 from Nikolay Vladimirov niko...@vladimiroff.com 2009-01-19 06:02:30 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: msmtp New Branches: EL-5 Owners: turki -- 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 459548] Review Request: php-gtk - GTK PHP extension
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459548 --- Comment #10 from Patrice FERLET meta...@gmail.com 2009-01-19 06:06:59 EDT --- I already ask for sponsor when I packaged Screenlets (refused because licence was not really free...) and roadsend-PHP... I've got aloready read this page, but I don't know why my demand was not accepted again (since 1 year). So, if someone can sponsor :) help ! Have I to create a review with a new subject ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 245120] Review Request: libgsasl - includes support for the SASL 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=245120 Nikolay Vladimirov niko...@vladimiroff.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Nikolay Vladimirov niko...@vladimiroff.com 2009-01-19 06:06:39 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: libgsasl New Branches: EL-5 Owners: turki -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480589] New: Review Request: ctan-cm-lgc-fonts - CM-LGC Type1 fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ctan-cm-lgc-fonts - CM-LGC Type1 fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480589 Summary: Review Request: ctan-cm-lgc-fonts - CM-LGC Type1 fonts Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: paska...@di.uoa.gr QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://gallagher.di.uoa.gr/any/rpms/ctan-cm-lgc-fonts/ctan-cm-lgc-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://gallagher.di.uoa.gr/any/rpms/ctan-cm-lgc-fonts/ctan-cm-lgc-fonts-0.5-14.fc11.src.rpm Description: The CM-LGC PostScript Type 1 fonts are converted from the METAFONT sources of the Computer Modern font families. CM-LGC supports the T1, T2A, LGR, and TS1 encodings, i.e. Latin, Cyrillic, and Greek. This is a request for review for renaming the existing tetex-font-cm-lgc package according to the new font naming guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_naming_(2009-01-13) Although no official documentation for renaming exists, some mail exchanges indicate that a full review should take place for the renaming of the package -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480591] New: Review Request: ctan-kerkis-fonts - Kerkis type 1 fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ctan-kerkis-fonts - Kerkis type 1 fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480591 Summary: Review Request: ctan-kerkis-fonts - Kerkis type 1 fonts Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: paska...@di.uoa.gr QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://gallagher.di.uoa.gr/any/rpms/ctan-kerkis-fonts/ctan-kerkis-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://gallagher.di.uoa.gr/any/rpms/ctan-kerkis-fonts/ctan-kerkis-fonts-2.0-17.fc11.src.rpm Description: Kerkis type 1 fonts for LaTeX. These fonts are particularly useful for typesetting Greek. The Greek repertoire includes full support for polytonic Greek, Greek numerals, and double forms of several letters that occur in variant forms. This is a request for review for renaming the existing tetex-font-cm-lgc package according to the new font naming guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_naming_(2009-01-13) Although no official documentation for renaming exists, some mail exchanges indicate that a full review should take place for the renaming of the package -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459548] Review Request: php-gtk - GTK PHP extension
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459548 --- Comment #11 from Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br 2009-01-19 06:18:30 EDT --- no. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/ what's your fedora account name in Fedora Account System (FAS) ? when you finish to create your account please join the fedora package group in FAS. to get sponsored please post your fas username here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480589] Review Request: ctan-cm-lgc-fonts - CM-LGC Type1 fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480589 Sarantis Paskalis paska...@di.uoa.gr changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||477461 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 --- Comment #5 from Alex Hudson (Fedora Address) fed...@alexhudson.com 2009-01-19 05:29:16 EDT --- Many thanks again, Jochen - I've added the LICENSE and bumped the rpm. Spec URL: http://www.alexhudson.com/fedora/iniparser/iniparser.spec SRPM URL: http://www.alexhudson.com/fedora/iniparser/iniparser-3.0b-3.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467403] Review Request: mingw32-libgpg-error - MinGW Windows GnuPGP error 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=467403 --- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-19 05:17:38 EDT --- I'm sorry about that. My webserver was down this morning, but I've just checked and everything should be alright again 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 245080] Review Request: libntlm - library that implement NTLM authentication derived from Samba sources.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=245080 Nikolay Vladimirov niko...@vladimiroff.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Nikolay Vladimirov niko...@vladimiroff.com 2009-01-19 06:05:58 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: libntlm New Branches: EL-5 Owners: turki -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480591] Review Request: ctan-kerkis-fonts - Kerkis type 1 fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480591 Sarantis Paskalis paska...@di.uoa.gr changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||477462 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467403] Review Request: mingw32-libgpg-error - MinGW Windows GnuPGP error 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=467403 --- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-19 05:22:26 EDT --- Koji scratch-build in dist-f11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1065724 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467416] Review Request: mingw32-cairo - MinGW Windows Cairo 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=467416 --- Comment #8 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-19 05:14:55 EDT --- I can have a look at this one today unless Dan jumps in before me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Kai maintai...@mt2009.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo? --- Comment #3 from Kai maintai...@mt2009.com 2009-01-19 06:29:27 EDT --- Ok, thanks very much for your detailed suggestions. Unfortunately `rpmlint -a` seems to crash on my systems, so I was only able to get a fraction of the errors you posted above. I believe, I was able to work around some (most?) of errors mentioned above, and have updated the SRPM package. Since the spec file is managed by our subversion repository, the revised URL is now: Spec URL: http://mmpong.net/trac/export/442/trunk/dist/rpm/mmpong.spec There is one thing I'm not quite clear about yet: How do I package man pages? When using debian, everything is zipped up automatically, but for fedora I wasn't able to find the right macro to gzip them, so `rpmbuild -ba` still fails... I'd appreciate any hints. And another point: You mentioned that there was no `mmpong` package, and obviously you're right. So, to facilitate things, I thought about making `mmpong` a meta-package, that's basically empty and just depends on the components. Is this the way to go on fedora? Thank you for your help, everyone. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480591] Review Request: ctan-kerkis-fonts - Kerkis type 1 fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480591 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nicolas.mail...@laposte.net --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-01-19 06:43:05 EDT --- will work on it this evening (CET) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475116] Review Request: python-ldaphelper - a wrapper around python-ldap search results
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475116 Ruben Kerkhof ru...@rubenkerkhof.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Ruben Kerkhof ru...@rubenkerkhof.com 2009-01-19 07:15:03 EDT --- Hi Jon, thanks for chasing the license. I did another check of the rpm, and everything looks fine. 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 225854] Merge Review: gperf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225854
--- Comment #2 from Roman Rakus rra...@redhat.com 2009-01-19 07:32:27 EDT ---
[FAILED] 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
- Add COPYING to %doc
Fixed.
- Change BuildRoot e.g. to:
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Fixed.
- Use _smpflags for make or explain, why/that it can't used, e.g.
make %{?_smp_mflags}
Fixed.
- Kill Prereq: /sbin/install-info line, replace by
Requires(post): /sbin/install-info
Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info
Fixed.
- Shouldn't it be the following rather the current (add || :)?
%preun
if [ $1 = 0 ]; then
/sbin/install-info --delete %{_infodir}/gperf.info.gz %{_infodir}/dir || :
fi
exit 0
Is it necessary? Fixed.
- Please let us talk about why nearly nothing of gperf/doc/* currently ends up
in the package, there's *.pdf, *.ps, *.html documentation. Reasons?
Added *.{html,ps,pdf}
fixed in gperf-3.0.3-5.fc11
--
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 480552] Review Request: poweradmin - A friendly web-based DNS administration tool for Bert Hubert's PowerDNS 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=480552 --- Comment #3 from Ruben Kerkhof ru...@rubenkerkhof.com 2009-01-19 07:40:02 EDT --- Hi Kevin, thanks for the review. 1. Seems like all the files that refer to the license say or later, so shouldn't this be 'GPLv3+' ? Fixed. 2. You seem to have a typo in your Source0 line. A 'i' that shouldn't be there. Ah, fat fingers. Fixed as well. 3. You should probibly require 'httpd' instead of 'webserver' as you are putting files in httpd specific locations. Hmm, interesting issue. On the one hand, poweradmin works fine with lighttpd under fastcgi for example, on the other hand, most people will run this under apache. Adding the httpd conf file makes it run almost out of the box for the most users. But if you want to run poweradmin under another http server, it would still drag in httpd as a dependency. phpMyAdmin does exactly the same btw. What do you think? 4. The URL seems wrong... www.poweradmin.org instead of www.poweradmin.com ? Oops, fixed as well. New spec: http://ruben.fedorapeople.org/poweradmin.spec New srpm: http://ruben.fedorapeople.org/poweradmin-2.1.2-2.fc11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469997] Review Request: ratproxy - A passive web application security assessment tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469997 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-19 07:43:10 EDT --- ratproxy-1.51-4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ratproxy-1.51-4.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 469997] Review Request: ratproxy - A passive web application security assessment tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469997 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-19 07:43:07 EDT --- ratproxy-1.51-4.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ratproxy-1.51-4.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469997] Review Request: ratproxy - A passive web application security assessment tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469997 Rakesh Pandit rakesh.pan...@gmail.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 476536] Review Request: zapplet - Zenoss monitoring tray applet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476536 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-19 08:11:10 EDT --- zapplet-0.1-4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zapplet-0.1-4.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 476536] Review Request: zapplet - Zenoss monitoring tray applet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476536 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-19 08:11:06 EDT --- zapplet-0.1-4.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zapplet-0.1-4.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480607] New: Review Request: bluecove - Implementation of JSR-82 Java Bluetooth API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: bluecove - Implementation of JSR-82 Java Bluetooth API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480607
Summary: Review Request: bluecove - Implementation of JSR-82
Java Bluetooth API
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: fkoo...@tuxed.net
QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://users.tuxed.net/fkooman/rpmbuild/SPECS/bluecove.spec
SRPM URL:
http://users.tuxed.net/fkooman/rpmbuild/SRPMS/bluecove-2.1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm
Description:
BlueCove is a JSR-82 implementation on Java Standard Edition (J2SE) that
currently interfaces with the Mac OS X, WIDCOMM, BlueSoleil and Microsoft
Bluetooth stack. Originally developed by Intel Research and currently
maintained by volunteers.
Implementation of JSR-82 Java Bluetooth API. Additional GPL licensed module to
support BlueCove runtime on Linux BlueZ.
Issues with this package that still need to addressed:
- in the i386 builds the bluecove-gpl package includes debug files, this is not
the case on x86_64, I have no idea what is going on here.
- whether or not to have a bluecove-gpl subpackage as bluecove package without
bluecove-gpl package installed is useless.
- the bluecove-gpl jar file and the native library are installed in
%{_libdir}/bluecove but the main bluecove.jar file is installed in
%{_javadir}, this seems a bit cluttered as you now need to include 2 jars from
different locations in your apps classpath
- rpmlint complains about No binary in the bluecove.jar file, it should
probably be noarch, but I didn't find many JAR files that have BuildArch:
noarch...
- javadoc subpackage should be BuildArch: noarch as well?
Upstream is very helpful in helping resolving packaging issues and committed
already some things useful for packaging to svn :)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429809] Review Request: mumble - low-latency, high quality voice chat 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=429809 Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|Reopened| Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks||201449 Resolution||NOTABUG Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #13 from Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-19 07:52:40 EDT --- Kevin Fenzi told me that this is not the right way to continue a closed review. I closed this and will open a new review request after i fixed the problems. perhaps someone is faster than me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477883] Review Request: rubygem-nokogiri - An HTML, XML, SAX, and Reader parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477883 Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com 2009-01-19 08:24:54 EDT --- APPROVED by Darryl Pierce (dpie...@redhat.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 480380] Review Request: python-epdb - extended python debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480380 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-19 08:41:15 EDT --- python-epdb-0.11-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-epdb-0.11-1.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462621] Review Request: pycryptopp - Python wrappers for the Crypto++ 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=462621 Ruben Kerkhof ru...@rubenkerkhof.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX --- Comment #2 from Ruben Kerkhof ru...@rubenkerkhof.com 2009-01-19 08:39:18 EDT --- I've been working with upstream for a while now to build pycryptopp againsts the cryptopp library provided by Fedora, instead of the cryptopp source that is shipped with pycryptopp. We've bumped into an issue between C++ and python, and so far haven't found a solution. I'll close this bug 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 480380] Review Request: python-epdb - extended python debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480380 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-19 08:41:10 EDT --- python-epdb-0.11-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-epdb-0.11-1.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480538] Review Request: iptux -- a tool for sharing and transporting files and directories in Lan
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480538 --- Comment #3 from Liang Suilong liangsuil...@gmail.com 2009-01-19 08:39:38 EDT --- Thank Jochen Schmitt and Simon Wesp for your help! I am fixing my spec file. Later I will submit a new spec file which has been fixed to this bug report. Could you review my new spec file again? For the reason that I did not used koji server, I really do not know building a RPM file is quite different from in my local machine. Yes! It is very smooth to build an iptux RPM package in my machine. Are there difference between koji and rpmbuild in local machine? I am a Chinese student, so my English is so poor. I need to practise English more. PS: I am not an author of iptux. I just built a RPM for iptux. I feel it is a good software. So I want it to be added into Fedora repository soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226235] Merge Review: pax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226235
Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-01-19
08:42:35 EDT ---
You are welcome Ondrej. There is one more thing that I missed last time. The
guidelines state that:
Fedora's RPM includes a %makeinstall macro but it must NOT be used when make
install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} works. [1]
For pax, this really doesn't matter much since %makeinstall just works as
desired. But it is stated in the above guideline as a MUST so I had to bring
it into your attention.
Otherwise, I couldn't find any problems. Review is done on my side.
---
This Merge Review (pax) is APPROVED by oget
---
[1]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used
--
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 199154] Review Request: Slony-1 (postgresql-slony-engine)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=199154 --- Comment #50 from Ruben Kerkhof ru...@rubenkerkhof.com 2009-01-19 08:46:38 EDT --- Devrim, what's up with this package, do you still want to proceed. I'm running out of patience after two years ;-) -- 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 459548] Review Request: php-gtk - GTK PHP extension
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459548 --- Comment #12 from Patrice FERLET meta...@gmail.com 2009-01-19 08:57:37 EDT --- Alright, I have created my account. I didn't undestood what was missing :) Ok my FAS is metal3d. 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 225908] Merge Review: iptstate
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225908 Thomas Woerner twoer...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(twoer...@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #2 from Thomas Woerner twoer...@redhat.com 2009-01-19 09:27:53 EDT --- Please have a look at iptables-2.2.1-4.fc11. -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318
Gratien D'haese gratien.dha...@it3.be changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gratien.dha...@it3.be
--- Comment #46 from Gratien D'haese gratien.dha...@it3.be 2009-01-19
09:36:45 EDT ---
Official review of 47a66f982319e2c8d0b73a6400f4342f mondo-2.2.8-1.fc9.src.rpm
- 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 .
Good.
- 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
Good.
- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
== in spec file the line:
Source: ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/src/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
can better be called
Source0: ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/src/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .
Good.
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
Good.
- 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.
Good.
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
Good.
- 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/).
Good. Might want to trim the changelog (getting too large to be useful in spec
file)
- 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.
Good.
- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
Good.
- 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
Spec file mentions: ExcludeArch: ppc
== Please read above recommendation carefully and do what is required.
- 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.
Requires: rtld(GNU_HASH)
seems to be missing.
- MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
Good.
- 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.
Good.
- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
Good.
- 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.
==
In spec file there is : %defattr(-,root,root)
Please replace it with
[Bug 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468462 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-19 10:03:20 EDT --- sbackup-0.10.5-5.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sbackup-0.10.5-5.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468462 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-19 10:02:08 EDT --- sbackup-0.10.5-5.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sbackup-0.10.5-5.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #15 from Lillian Angel lan...@redhat.com 2009-01-19 10:05:20 EDT --- can you comment on t his? $ sudo rpm -Uvh netbeans-platform-6.5-4.fc11.noarch.rpm netbeans-platform-6.5-4.fc11.src.rpm netbeans-platform-harness-6.5-4.fc11.noarch.rpm netbeans-platform-javadoc-6.5-4.fc11.noarch.rpm error: Failed dependencies: netbeans-platform8 = 6.1 is needed by (installed) netbeans-ide9-6.1-9.fc10.noarch netbeans-platform8 = 6.1 is needed by (installed) netbeans-apisupport1-6.1-9.fc10.noarch netbeans-platform8 = 6.1 is needed by (installed) netbeans-6.1-9.fc10.noarch netbeans-platform8 is needed by (installed) java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel-1:1.6.0.0-8.b14.fc11.i386 netbeans-platform8-harness = 6.1 is needed by (installed) netbeans-apisupport1-6.1-9.fc10.noarch netbeans-platform8-harness = 6.1 is needed by (installed) netbeans-6.1-9.fc10.noarch $ sudo rpm -e --nodeps netbeans-platform8-harness netbeans-platform8 $ sudo rpm -Uvh netbeans-platform-6.5-4.fc11.noarch.rpm netbeans-platform-6.5-4.fc11.src.rpm netbeans-platform-harness-6.5-4.fc11.noarch.rpm netbeans-platform-javadoc-6.5-4.fc11.noarch.rpm Preparing...### [100%] 1:netbeans-platform ### [ 25%] 2:netbeans-platform-harne### [ 50%] 3:netbeans-platform-javad### [ 75%] 4:netbeans-platform warning: user mockbuild does not exist - using root warning: group mockbuild does not exist - using root ### [100%] error: unpacking of archive failed on file /home/langel/rpmbuild/SOURCES/netbeans-6.5-20081111-ml-platform-src.zip;497495d0: cpio: open failed - Permission denied -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475097] Review Request: gimp-fourier-plugin - A fourier transformation plugin for GIMP.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475097 --- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-19 10:39:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) I contacted the author, he'll include the missing license informations in the next release. Does this mean that the upstream is going to release the new version in a short time? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477883] Review Request: rubygem-nokogiri - An HTML, XML, SAX, and Reader parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477883 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-19 10:54:12 EDT --- Thank you! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: rubygem-nokogiri Short Description:An HTML, XML, SAX, and Reader parser Owners: mtasaka Branches: F-10 F-9 InitialCC:(nobody) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW AssignedTo|joc...@herr-schmitt.de |nob...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #6 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-01-19 11:18:09 EDT --- Sorry, I'm not a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480646] New: Review Request: urlwatch - A tool for monitoring webpages for updates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: urlwatch - A tool for monitoring webpages for updates https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480646 Summary: Review Request: urlwatch - A tool for monitoring webpages for updates Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fab...@bernewireless.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/urlwatch.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/urlwatch-1.7-1.fc9.src.rpm Project URL: http://thpinfo.com/2008/urlwatch/ Description: This script is intended to help you watch URLs and get notified (via email or in your terminal) of any changes. The change notification will include the URL that has changed and a unified diff of what has changed. The script supports the use of a filtering hook function to strip trivially-varying elements of a webpage. Basic features * Simple configuration (text file, one URL per line) * Easily hackable (clean Python implementation) * Can run as a cronjob and mail changes to you * Always outputs only plaintext - no HTML mails :) * Supports removing noise (always-changing website parts) * Example hooks to filter content in Python Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1066723 rpmlint output: [...@laptop024 noarch]$ rpmlint urlwatch-1.7-1.fc9.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [...@laptop024 SRPMS]$ rpmlint urlwatch-1.7-1.fc9.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478743] Review Request: saga - SAGA is a free, hybrid, cross-platform GIS 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=478743 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com 2009-01-19 12:09:38 EDT --- I'll review this. I tried building it on F-10, and got the following output at the end of the rpmbuild run: RPM build errors: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/lib64/libsaga_api.a /usr/lib64/saga/libcontrib_a_perego.a /usr/lib64/saga/libgeostatistics_grid.a /usr/lib64/saga/libgeostatistics_kriging_variogram.a /usr/lib64/saga/libgeostatistics_points.a /usr/lib64/saga/libgrid_analysis.a /usr/lib64/saga/libgrid_calculus.a /usr/lib64/saga/libgrid_discretisation.a /usr/lib64/saga/libgrid_filter.a /usr/lib64/saga/libgrid_gridding.a /usr/lib64/saga/libgrid_spline.a /usr/lib64/saga/libgrid_tools.a /usr/lib64/saga/libgrid_visualisation.a /usr/lib64/saga/libio_esri_e00.a /usr/lib64/saga/libio_gps.a /usr/lib64/saga/libio_grid.a /usr/lib64/saga/libio_grid_gdal.a /usr/lib64/saga/libio_grid_grib2.a /usr/lib64/saga/libio_grid_image.a /usr/lib64/saga/libio_shapes.a /usr/lib64/saga/libio_shapes_dxf.a /usr/lib64/saga/liblectures_introduction.a /usr/lib64/saga/libpj_georeference.a /usr/lib64/saga/libpj_proj4.a /usr/lib64/saga/librecreations_fractals.a /usr/lib64/saga/librecreations_games.a /usr/lib64/saga/libshapes_grid.a /usr/lib64/saga/libshapes_lines.a /usr/lib64/saga/libshapes_points.a /usr/lib64/saga/libshapes_polygons.a /usr/lib64/saga/libshapes_tools.a /usr/lib64/saga/libsim_cellular_automata.a /usr/lib64/saga/libsim_ecosystems_hugget.a /usr/lib64/saga/libsim_fire_spreading.a /usr/lib64/saga/libsim_hydrology.a /usr/lib64/saga/libta_channels.a /usr/lib64/saga/libta_hydrology.a /usr/lib64/saga/libta_lighting.a /usr/lib64/saga/libta_morphometry.a /usr/lib64/saga/libta_preprocessor.a /usr/lib64/saga/libta_profiles.a /usr/lib64/saga/libtable_calculus.a /usr/lib64/saga/libtable_tools.a /usr/lib64/saga/libtin_tools.a Since you built shared libraries, too, you probably don't want to build the static libraries. I suggest passing --disable-static to %configure. I also see that you are installing the *.la files. Normally, this should not be done; see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries. Is there some reason for installing those files in this case? I'll do a full review shortly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478743] Review Request: saga - SAGA is a free, hybrid, cross-platform GIS 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=478743 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com 2009-01-19 12:17:59 EDT --- Sorry, I read the spec file incorrectly. You are excluding the .la files. So I've added --disable-static to my copy of the spec file to get a clean build and will base a review on that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480538] Review Request: iptux -- a tool for sharing and transporting files and directories in Lan
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480538 --- Comment #5 from Liang Suilong liangsuil...@gmail.com 2009-01-19 13:31:13 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=329376) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=329376) iptux srpm I also upload an iptux SRPM. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480538] Review Request: iptux -- a tool for sharing and transporting files and directories in Lan
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480538 --- Comment #4 from Liang Suilong liangsuil...@gmail.com 2009-01-19 13:28:38 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=329375) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=329375) a new iptux specfile Now I fix the problems and build RPMs again in my machine. After that, I create a new directory and copy packages and specfile to test by rpmlint in CLI. The result is that: [fed...@fedora-desktop iptux]$ ls -a . iptux-0.4.4-1.fc10.i386.rpm iptux-debuginfo-0.4.4-1.fc10.i386.rpm .. iptux-0.4.4-1.fc10.src.rpm iptux.spec [fed...@fedora-desktop iptux]$ rpmlint -a * 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/share/rpmlint/rpmlint.py, line 295, in module main() File /usr/share/rpmlint/rpmlint.py, line 139, in main for item in ts.IDTXload(): AttributeError: 'rpm.ts' object has no attribute 'IDTXload' Is it OK now? Should I correct AttributeError? If it needs to be fixed, I do not know how to fix the AttributeError exactly. Could you help me? I upload a new iptux specfile as an attachment. You can download it and see it. At last, how can I find a sponsor to sponsor me? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-19 13:43:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) Unfortunately `rpmlint -a` seems to crash on my systems Anyway I reported this issue as bug 480664. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480646] Review Request: urlwatch - A tool for monitoring webpages for updates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480646 Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||joc...@herr-schmitt.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|joc...@herr-schmitt.de Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-01-19 14:12:01 EDT --- God: + Basename of SPEC file matches with package name + Package name fits with maming guidelines + Consistently usage of rpm macros + Package contains no subpackages + Source tar ball could downloaed via spectool + Tar ball in package matches with upstream (md5sum: 29b3a00caad5f45c905ec621bec26687) + Package contains valid License tag + License tag has MIT as an valid OSS license + Package contains verbatin copy of the license text + Buildroot will be clean on the beginning of %install and %clean + Package has a %clean stanza + Local buidl works fine. + Local install works fine + Simple call to urlwatch works without crash + Local uninstall works fine + Build on koji works fine + Package will be build as noarch + Rpmlint has no complaints for source rpm + Rpmlint has no complaints for binary rpm + Files has proper file permissions + All packaged files are owned by the package + No packaged files are claimed by other packages + %doc stanza has small amount of files, so we need no separate doc subpackage *** 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 478743] Review Request: saga - SAGA is a free, hybrid, cross-platform GIS 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=478743
--- Comment #3 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com 2009-01-19 14:15:17 EDT
---
It turns out that adding --disable-static isn't enough. Your attempt to use
the system libtool wasn't quite right. You need to pass the -f flag to
autoreconf, and throw away the first of your two sed invocations. That it, the
%build section should contain this:
autoreconf -i -f
sed -i -e 's|SG_T(\LD_LIBRARY_PATH\)|SG_T(\%{_libdir}\)|g' \
src/saga_core/saga_api/module_library.cpp
%configure --enable-unicode --disable-static
make %{?_smp_mflags}
Even then, rpmlint shows that there are still some problems in this package.
This is what I get:
saga.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/bin
saga.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libsaga_api.so.0.0.0
saga.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libsaga_api.so.0.0.0
saga.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/saga-2.0.3/AUTHORS
saga.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/saga-2.0.3/NEWS
saga.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/saga-2.0.3/ChangeLog
saga.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/saga-2.0.3/README
saga.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libsaga_api.so.0.0.0
saga.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsaga_api.so.0.0.0
/usr/lib64/libwx_gtk2u_richtext-2.8.so.0
saga.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsaga_api.so.0.0.0
/usr/lib64/libwx_gtk2u_aui-2.8.so.0
saga.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsaga_api.so.0.0.0
/usr/lib64/libwx_gtk2u_xrc-2.8.so.0
saga.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsaga_api.so.0.0.0
/usr/lib64/libwx_gtk2u_qa-2.8.so.0
saga.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsaga_api.so.0.0.0
/usr/lib64/libwx_gtk2u_html-2.8.so.0
saga.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsaga_api.so.0.0.0
/usr/lib64/libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.8.so.0
saga.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsaga_api.so.0.0.0
/usr/lib64/libwx_baseu_xml-2.8.so.0
saga.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsaga_api.so.0.0.0
/usr/lib64/libwx_baseu_net-2.8.so.0
Finally, I see in the build output that there are a number of incorrect printf
directives in this program. They may cause no harm, but it is probably worth
checking whether they will cause any trouble. Look for warnings of the form:
warning: format '%FLAG' expects type 'TYPE1' but argument N has type 'TYPE2'
Some of those look like they will print integers incorrectly on 64-bit
platforms.
Can you fix all of this and roll a new package so I don't get confused as to
what you have and what I changed? Thanks. If you need a hand with any of it,
let me know.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #26 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2009-01-19 14:35:59 EDT --- 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 480646] Review Request: urlwatch - A tool for monitoring webpages for updates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480646 Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ita...@ispbrasil.com.br --- Comment #2 from Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br 2009-01-19 14:34:14 EDT --- the license stated in urlwatch website is another. http://thpinfo.com/2008/urlwatch/ License urlwatch is released under the terms of the BSD license why MIT in 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 478769] Review Request: spring-installer - Installer for the Spring game's maps and mods
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478769 --- Comment #6 from Aurelien Bompard gau...@free.fr 2009-01-19 14:41:26 EDT --- * Not sure about grabbing the data from what appears to be part of their filesystem that is laid out to fit neatly into the ubuntu repository. Might be a bit too dynamic... The Git repository sounds like a much better idea. Actually, the tarballs are better to check that I'm not introducing malware in Fedora. With a Git clone, it would be a little harder to check, and the SCM has already changed in the past. I have contacted the author about this, so hopefully he's aware of this issue. * I think offering an installer for a TA mod CA may have licencing issues. TA is copyright of what used to be infogrames, which i know think is Atari. The content that this installer obtains is probably copyright protected, as I undesrtand that Complete Annihilation uses TA game data. The package does not contain the copyrighted files, you still have to download them by hand. The CA installer does not download them. * Is specifying the content of the sub-package in the main package description normal? I have not seen this before, and it strikes me as a touch confusing. Oops, no, that's a cut-n-paste mistake. Good catch ! * Using chrpath to remove hardcoding of path information is considered a last resort option [1]. Consider patching the build system to remove invocations to chrpath. It looks like it very very hard to remove rpath with ocaml. I've search the web but the only available option seems to use chrpath. If you find a cleaner way, I'm interested of course. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467413] Review Request: mingw32-fontconfig - MinGW Windows Fontconfig 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=467413 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|467416 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467325] Review Request: mingw32-iconv - GNU libraries and utilities for character set conversion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467325 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||467416 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||467416 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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||467416 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467416] Review Request: mingw32-cairo - MinGW Windows Cairo 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=467416 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|467396, 467413 |478640, 467325, 454416 --- Comment #9 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-19 14:44:24 EDT --- Spec URL: http://hg.et.redhat.com/cgi-bin/hg-misc.cgi/fedora-mingw--devel/file/tip/cairo/mingw32-cairo.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/mingw/fedora-10/src/SRPMS/mingw32-cairo-1.8.0-3.fc10.src.rpm * Mon Jan 19 2009 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com - 1.8.0-3 - Include license file in documentation section. - Disable building static library to save time. - Remove BRs on mingw32-fontconfig and mingw32-freetype which are not needed on Win32. - Use _smp_mflags. - Added BRs mingw32-dlfcn, mingw32-iconv, mingw32-zlib. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467396] Review Request: mingw32-freetype - Free and portable font rendering engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467396 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|467416 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467384 --- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-19 14:52:11 EDT --- Sorry, I meant to get round to this one today, but I've run out of time. I will attempt to look at it tomorrow morning. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480567] Review Request: dnssec-conf - DNSSEC and DLV configuration and priming tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480567
Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||joc...@herr-schmitt.de
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|joc...@herr-schmitt.de
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-01-19
14:54:51 EDT ---
God:
+ Basename of the SPEC files matches with package name
+ Name of the package fits naming guidelines
+ Package contains most recent release
+ Package contains valid License tag
+ License tag contains GPLv2+ as a valid OSS license
+ License review on source files state, that GPLv2 may be
+ Package contains a verbatin copy of the license text
+ Package has no subpackages
+ Local buidl works fine
+ Package contains %clean stanza
+ Buildroot will be deleted on the beginning of %clean and %install
+ Local install works fine
+ Local uninstall works fine
+ Start of dnssec-conf without argument works witoht crash
+ Build on koji works fine
+ Rpmlint has no complaints about the source package
+ Rpmlint has no complaints about the binary package
+ Files has proper file permissions
+ All packaged files belong to the package
+ Package contains no files belong to other packages
+ %doc subpackage has a small amont, so we need no separate doc subpackage
+ Package contains proper %changelog
Bad.
- source tag not fully quallified
- Package use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}
- License review on source files state, that GPLv2 may be
right value for the license tag
TODO:
- Please notify upstream, that eatch source file should have
a proper copyright notice
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478941] Review Request: celt - An audio codec for use in low-delay speech and audio communication
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478941 Ray Strode rstr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rstr...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Ray Strode rstr...@redhat.com 2009-01-19 14:58:23 EDT --- Any updates on this, Peter? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226210] Merge Review: opal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226210 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235 --- Comment #12 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-01-19 15:54:35 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) Sorry to bother you again, but, please, provide more explanations - it still not clear for some people, whether iLBC legal or not. Opal ships this implementation of RFC3951 ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3951 ), which distributes under very strange license: http://www.ilbcfreeware.org/documentation/gips_iLBClicense.pdf See also this thread: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/90195 We already removed iLBC support from Asterisk - can we re-add this support back? Sorry for the delay. Red Hat Legal got this one wrong (it happens to everyone sometimes). The iLBC codec needs to be removed from the opal tarball. Reblocking FE-Legal. -- 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 480646] Review Request: urlwatch - A tool for monitoring webpages for updates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480646 --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-01-19 16:00:10 EDT --- Itamar, you are right the license seems more to match the 'New BSD (no advertising, 3 clause)' than MIT. I will change the license tag to BSD before cvs import. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475097] Review Request: gimp-fourier-plugin - A fourier transformation plugin for GIMP.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475097 --- Comment #4 from Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de 2009-01-19 17:05:20 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) (In reply to comment #2) I contacted the author, he'll include the missing license informations in the next release. Does this mean that the upstream is going to release the new version in a short time? There was just a new version released upstream and updated the SRPM and spec files. http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~fabiand/fedora/fourier/gimp-fourier-plugin-0.3.2-1.fc9.src.rpm http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~fabiand/fedora/fourier/gimp-fourier-plugin.spec As of http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=568351 I also introduced a small hack to get around it. Koji scratch build ran fine. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1067281 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225854] Merge Review: gperf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225854 --- Comment #3 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de 2009-01-19 17:28:26 EDT --- Roman, thank you for taking action. I think, I've forgotten the suggestion of preserving timestamps before and to avoid the usage of %makeinstall, thus we recommend packagers to use instead: make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install INSTALL='install -p' Regarding the documentation I'm not really happy. We've currently much more documentation rather rest of gperf inside of the package. We've multiple options: Creating -docs subpackage and moving everything out there OR just kill the huge *.ps from %doc (*.ps vs. *.pdf seems to be a bit redundant and *.pdf is usually better searchable) - last of it was accepted and got told to be useful in Freenode #fedora-devel, #fedora-de by several packagers. Choose what you like as packager and let me know. I can deal with both or even a better option - afterwards we should be (hopefully) fine with review. -- 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 480589] Review Request: ctan-cm-lgc-fonts - CM-LGC Type1 fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480589 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nicolas.mail...@laposte.net |paska...@di.uoa.gr 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 480589] Review Request: ctan-cm-lgc-fonts - CM-LGC Type1 fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480589
--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-01-19
17:32:04 EDT ---
1. you need a
%define _texmf_main %{_datadir}/texmf
or import it from something you buildrequires (I assume the _ means you intend
to import it from some central package)
2. the main package does not need to
Requires: fontpackages-filesystem
3. didn't check if all the font names were accounted for in the fontconfig
rules
You should probably test if the recipe Behdad suggested in
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18724
works for you and manages to create a single unicode font from all the local
type one variants of each font family
That being said the obsoletes work and that's all I'm supposed to check in a
rename review, so
❱❱❱ APPROVED ❰❰❰
Please don't forget to add your fonts subpackages to comps
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Comps_fonts_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 480103] Review Request: bnIRC - An ncurses based IRC client and modular IRC framework.(Need Sponsorship. First time Packager)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480103 --- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-01-19 17:40:49 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=329407) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=329407) rpmlint output There are still some issues. - From my point of view, the name should be bnirc.spec https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Case_Sensitivity https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name - One line per BR would be nice - The %file section needs some work - duplicates - ownership - You need to make a devel subpackage - *.la files must be deleted https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries The rpmlint output [...@laptop024 i386]$ rpmlint bnIRC* bnIRC.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/src/debug/bnIRC-1.1.1/plugins/server_strings/server_strings.c bnIRC.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/bnirc.debug bnIRC.i386: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/bnirc.debug 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 22 errors, 75 warnings. see attachment for full details -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477533] Review Request: rubygem-mechanize - A handy web browsing ruby object
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477533 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-01-19 17:43:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) Thank you for initial comments. You're welcome. (In reply to comment #3) * The license file and the website license page say GPLv2+. The source code files do not indicate a license. I think setting the license as GPLc2+ will be more appropriate. - Well, what URL shows that this is under GPLv2+? (note that I saw that rubyforge.org website says that this is under GPLv2, however I guess this license tag is automatically tagged from license text. Moreover I saw that in many cases the license tag on website is wrong) On the bottom of the homepage for this gem: http://mechanize.rubyforge.org/mechanize/ there is a LICENSE section. When I click on the LICENSE, it gives me the full text of GPLv2 (which has the or later clause). Don't you think we should believe the website? * Latest version must be packaged. I can't find any information to confirm this. Where is download section on the website? - See: http://gems.rubyforge.org/gems/ Yeah I tried to go there before and got a 403 mirror. I guess I hit to a bad mirror. Now I confirm that 0.9.0 is the latest version. Everything else is fine. This package (rubygem-mechanize) is APPROVED by oget -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480037] Review Request: cups-pk-helper - PolicyKit support for system-config-printer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480037 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-19 17:56:15 EDT --- cvs 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 464781] Review Request: flexdock - Java docking UI element. First package.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464781 --- Comment #23 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski r...@greysector.net 2009-01-19 17:55:25 EDT --- Some comments before full review: Why do you have: BuildArch: i386 BuildArch: x86-64 BuildArch: ppc in the spec? BuildArch: can only be specified once, so merge these three. Otherwise it fails with: $ rpmbuild -bb flexdock.spec error: No compatible architectures found for build x86-64 is not a valid arch designation, by the way. You should use x86_64. I think you should use ExcludeArch: ppc64 to disable the unsupported arch instead and open a bug for that (blocking FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64 tracker bug). Fails to build in mock on rawhide/i386: [...] ++ build-classpath jgoodies-looks skinlf /usr/bin/build-classpath: error: Could not find jgoodies-looks Java extension for this JVM /usr/bin/build-classpath: error: Could not find skinlf Java extension for this JVM /usr/bin/build-classpath: error: Some specified jars were not found [...] You seem to have forgotten to add these as BuildRequires as well. Once the above are fixed, it builds in mock, but rpmlint output is not clean: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock//fedora-rawhide-i386/result flexdock-debuginfo.i386: E: empty-debuginfo-package flexdock.src:157: E: files-attr-not-set flexdock.src:158: E: files-attr-not-set flexdock.src:159: E: files-attr-not-set 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings. You need to fix that. According to Java Packaging Guidelines, you're installing the files in the wrong location. Please fix that. Also, the specfile has lots of trailing whitespace and inconsistent usage of spaces and tabs for indentation. Please fix that, 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 477883] Review Request: rubygem-nokogiri - An HTML, XML, SAX, and Reader parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477883 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-19 17:59:53 EDT --- cvs 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 478565] Review Request: gupnp-igd - Library to handle UPnP IGD port mapping
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478565 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-19 17:58:44 EDT --- cvs 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 480646] Review Request: urlwatch - A tool for monitoring webpages for updates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480646 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-19 18:01:04 EDT --- cvs 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 464781] Review Request: flexdock - Java docking UI element. First package.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464781 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski r...@greysector.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | --- Comment #24 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski r...@greysector.net 2009-01-19 17:57:01 EDT --- Removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR, as you are already sponsored. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478398] Review Request: httping - Ping alike tool for http requests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478398 --- Comment #6 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-01-19 18:02:25 EDT --- Manuel, thanks for the patch and the reworked spec file. Here are the new files: Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/httping.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/httping-1.2.9-2.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480591] Review Request: ctan-kerkis-fonts - Kerkis type 1 fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480591 --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-01-19 18:05:01 EDT --- 1. needs _texmf_main defined like cm-lgc 2. rpmlint complains of mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs 3. kerkis calligraphic and the small caps variants clearly needs their own subpackage. Please make sure you only group in the same font subpackage fonts of the same family (differing only in weight, width or slant). I didn't check the others 4. the main package does not need to Requires: fontpackages-filesystem 5. It's probably a good idea to add fontconfig substitution rules for the URW fonts kerkis is derived of, assuming the Kerkis creators didn't change the design and metrics too much (cf the substitution template in filepackages-devel) 6. please try to get you fontconfig files merged in upstream kerkis once you're happy with them 7. please add your new fonts subpackages to comps http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Comps_fonts_rules 8. you obsoletes should be Obsoletes: tetex-font-kerkis 2.0-17 to provide an upgrade path to the F10 kerkis package, so this version does not pass rename 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 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 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski r...@greysector.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski r...@greysector.net 2009-01-19 18:04:43 EDT --- Very nice, 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 472792] Review Request: jempbox - A Java library that implements Adobe's XMP specification
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472792 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski r...@greysector.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235 --- Comment #4 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski r...@greysector.net 2009-01-19 18:16:31 EDT --- We should have RH Legal look at it just in case. Blocking FE-Legal 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
