[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 --- Comment #15 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2009-03-24 03:19:03 EDT --- The upstream develops have indicated that they would accept a patch for something like 'make dist' producing a second tarball called opal-oss or something that has the ilbc code and the random binaries that are needed for the windows build removed. They don't have the time to do it themselves, and I don't really know how to do something like that with autoconf/automake. Details can be found on the SF tracker below. https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=989748aid=2555959group_id=204472 -- 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 491815] New: Review Request: tcl-mysqltcl - MySQL interface for TCL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: tcl-mysqltcl - MySQL interface for TCL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491815 Summary: Review Request: tcl-mysqltcl - MySQL interface for TCL Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ra...@bludgeon.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://rayvd.fedorapeople.org/tcl-mysqltcl/tcl-mysqltcl.spec SRPM URL: http://rayvd.fedorapeople.org/tcl-mysqltcl/tcl-mysqltcl-3.05-1.src.rpm Description: mysqltcl is an extension to the Tool Command Language (Tcl) that provides high-level access to a MySQL database server. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491815] Review Request: tcl-mysqltcl - MySQL interface for TCL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491815
--- Comment #1 from Ray Van Dolson ra...@bludgeon.org 2009-03-24 03:29:36
EDT ---
Comments:
- rpmlint comes back fine, but I'm not sure about the manpage name (it has a .n
in it)
- Guidelines appear to suggest that I name this tcl-mysqltcl vs mysqltcl
- Tested in mock for EL-5-{i386,x86_64}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485403] Review Request: ytnef - Yerase's TNEF Stream Reader.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485403
Ray Van Dolson ra...@bludgeon.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||ra...@bludgeon.org
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ra...@bludgeon.org
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Ray Van Dolson ra...@bludgeon.org 2009-03-24 03:49:28
EDT ---
Note that correct SRPM URL should be:
http://ispbrasil.com.br/ytnef/ytnef-2.6-2.fc10.src.rpm
At initial glance, can you change the license to GPLv2+?. Also, it's a little
cleaner to use the %{__make}, %{__rm} macros if possible, and you might
consider including ChangeLog as part of the documentation.
I'll do a formal review tomorrow. Going to bed right 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 491647] Review Request: taglib-extras - Taglib support for other formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491647 Eelko Berkenpies fed...@berkenpies.nl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@berkenpies.nl 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 491084] Review Request: medusa - parallel brute forcing pasword cracker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491084 --- Comment #14 from Jan F. Chadima jchad...@redhat.com 2009-03-24 04:02:58 EDT --- Spec URL: http://www.benhur.prf.cuni.cz/medved-7/wydobitki/fedora/medusa.spec SRPM URL: http://www.benhur.prf.cuni.cz/medved-7/wydobitki/fedora/medusa-1.5-5.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 491084] Review Request: medusa - parallel brute forcing pasword cracker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491084 Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com 2009-03-24 04:58:07 EDT --- 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 491647] Review Request: taglib-extras - Taglib support for other formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491647 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@berkenpies.nl -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491519] Review Request: openttd-opengfx - OpenGFX replacement graphics for OpenTTD
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491519
--- Comment #6 from Alexey Torkhov atork...@gmail.com 2009-03-24 04:59:10
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Requires: openttd
seems wrong (because openttd requires this for graphics). I think maybe a
solution is for this to go in %{_datadir}/%{name}/ and when openttd is
installed and requires this, it can symlink %{_datadir}/openttd/data to this
package (if it's too hard to change where openttd looks).
This Requires is needed for game data uninstalled simultaneously with the game
itself. It is pretty standard among game data packages.
This is one argument for including opengfx in openttd (opengfx can be
installed into the correct place without a hack, and the two-way requires
can be avoided).
Separating game from game data allows to decrease size of updates as there is
no need to update data when binary updated and vice versa.
And, after all, bundling multiple projects in not recommended by guidelines.
The use of __command macros is unnecessary (%{__rm}, %{__mv}, etc). Fedora
is not Mandriva.
Agree with this. It makes macros usage non-consistent. Please fix it.
This bit concerns me (slightly):
# These are already in %doc
%{__rm} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/openttd/data/COPYING
%{__rm} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/openttd/data/readme.txt
Are these really never used by OpenTTD? If so it's fine.
OpenTTD uses metadata from *.obg. Those files are only docs.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491518] Review Request: openttd - Transport system simulation 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=491518 --- Comment #4 from Alexey Torkhov atork...@gmail.com 2009-03-24 05:07:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) Is --with-ccache something relevant for the koji builders? (Should you require ccache then?) It is relevant with default mock settings where ccache is installed, not sure about koji. It should check whether ccache present and silently continue if it is not. (In reply to comment #3) I'm going to say this falls on the acceptable side of the trademark line. Lifting FE-Legal. Thanks for checking this! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491694] Review Request: Anyterm - Web based terminal emulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491694 Gianluca Sforna gia...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gia...@gmail.com --- Comment #8 from Gianluca Sforna gia...@gmail.com 2009-03-24 05:39:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) Changes ommitted: * boost still included, not sure whether you were referring to the boost req or boost-devel buildreq (or both) and if they actually will be pulled in I was referring to the Require: line. Usually, runtime dependencies are auto-detected during rpmbuild, but that is not bullet-proof. That's why I suggested we double check with a mock build. * source0 location, essentially I checked out the code from the anyterm svn repo trunk, added the spec, init and sysconfig scripts, made a few changes to the code base, and then generated / submitted the srpm and spec here. I'm not sure how exactly my changes, specifically the new files I added and the changes to the code will be available and make my way into the codebase when listing the hosted anyterm release tarball One review item is to check if the source tarball matches upstream sources. That's why you should, when possibile, use an unmodified upstream tarball; I usually download it with spectool -g name.spec and this also checks Source0: is correct Additional stuff you need to use for packaging should go either in additional SourceX: or PatchX: lines; are you saying you are not sure how to use these? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470830] Review Request: open64 - The Open64 compiler suite (C, C++, Fortran)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470830 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski r...@greysector.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|r...@greysector.net Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #19 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski r...@greysector.net 2009-03-24 05:32:01 EDT --- Taking 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 226160] Merge Review: mpage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226160 --- Comment #2 from Michal Hlavinka mhlav...@redhat.com 2009-03-24 05:49:23 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) rpmlint output: mpage.src:9: W: hardcoded-path-in-buildroot-tag /var/tmp/mpage-root fixed mpage.src: W: no-url-tag fixed mpage.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot A tool for printing multiple pages of text on each printed page. fixed mpage.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/mpage-2.5.6/CHANGES fixed - Some problem with the license? Program source code seems to be licensed under the following license: * Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim * copies of this document as received, in any medium, provided * that this copyright notice is preserved, and that the * distributor grants the recipient permission for further * redistribution as permitted by this notice. On the other hand, the file gpl.in states that mpage is licensed under GPLv2+. Please contact upstream to clarify license. I've asked upstream, waiting for answer. - Include FAQ, COPYING, COPYING.LESSER to copyright. fixed -- 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 491820] New: Review Request: ibus-sayura - The Sinhala IME engine for IBus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ibus-sayura - The Sinhala IME engine for IBus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491820 Summary: Review Request: ibus-sayura - The Sinhala IME engine for IBus Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: panem...@gmail.com ReportedBy: psatp...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- SPEC URL: http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/ibus-sayura/ibus-sayura.spec SRPM URL: http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/ibus-sayura/ibus-sayura-1.0.0.20090324-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: The Sinhala IME Engine for IBus -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470830] Review Request: open64 - The Open64 compiler suite (C, C++, Fortran)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470830 --- Comment #20 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-03-24 06:09:25 EDT --- Thanks. Fixed license tag, found other licenses using licensecheck.pl. http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/open64.spec http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/open64-4.2.1-7.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491820] Review Request: ibus-sayura - The Sinhala IME engine for IBus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491820 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added 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 491821] New: Review Request: hyphen-hsb - Upper Sorbian hyphenation rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: hyphen-hsb - Upper Sorbian hyphenation rules https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491821 Summary: Review Request: hyphen-hsb - Upper Sorbian hyphenation rules Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caol...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/hyphen-hsb.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/hyphen-hsb-0.20080619-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Upper Sorbian hyphenation rules -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491822] New: Review Request: hyphen-hsb - Upper Sorbian hyphenation rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: hyphen-hsb - Upper Sorbian hyphenation rules https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491822 Summary: Review Request: hyphen-hsb - Upper Sorbian hyphenation rules Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: CLOSED Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caol...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com, panem...@gmail.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||panem...@gmail.com Resolution||DUPLICATE Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/hyphen-hsb.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/hyphen-hsb-0.20080619-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Upper Sorbian hyphenation rules --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-03-24 06:32:31 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 491821 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491647] Review Request: taglib-extras - Taglib support for other formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491647
--- Comment #4 from Eelko Berkenpies fed...@berkenpies.nl 2009-03-24
06:01:53 EDT ---
I had no problems compiling and building this package on F10 i386. Everything
seems to be fine except for 2 issues.
X rpmlint must be run on every package. The output:
taglib-extras-0.1-2.fc10.src.rpm:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
taglib-extras-0.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
taglib-extras-devel-0.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm:
taglib-extras-devel.i386: W: no-documentation
taglib-extras-devel.i386: W: no-dependency-on
taglib-extras/taglib-extras-libs/libtaglib-extras
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
taglib-extras-debuginfo-0.1-3.fc10.i386.rpm:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- The spec file name matches the base package.
- The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
Guidelines.
- The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- The spec file is written in American English.
- The spec file for the package is legible.
X The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL:
Source RPM:
d173458b0c70177a07dd2017f902bf98 taglib-extras-0.1.tar.gz
Upstream source:
c6d32e4f203768a2e4b5a83c5285f0a7 taglib-extras-0.1.tar.gz
- The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
- Package stores shared library files in any of the dynamic linker's default
paths, ldconfig in %post and %postun are used correctly.
- Package owns all directories that it creates.
- Fedora package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
- Permissions on files must are set properly and every %files section has a
%defattr(...) line.
- Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- Package consistently uses macros.
- The package contains code, or permissable content.
- Header files are in a -devel package.
- The package contains pkgconfig (.pc) files and uses 'Requires: pkgconfig'.
- Package contains library files with a suffix, base library files are in a
-devel package.
- Devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
- Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives.
- Package is not a GUI application and does not need a %{name}.desktop file.
- Package does not change ownership of files or directories already owned by
other packages.
- The package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at %install.
- All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
Needswork?:
The no-dependency-on warning for the devel-package can probably ignored as it
relies on macro's.
The md5sum of the source in the SRC RPM doesn't seem to match upstream package.
This is my first review, any comments/suggestions are greatly appreciated.
--- Comment #5 from Eelko Berkenpies fed...@berkenpies.nl 2009-03-24
06:07:07 EDT ---
I had no problems compiling and building this package on F10 i386. Everything
seems to be fine except for 2 issues.
X rpmlint must be run on every package. The output:
taglib-extras-0.1-2.fc10.src.rpm:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
taglib-extras-0.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
taglib-extras-devel-0.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm:
taglib-extras-devel.i386: W: no-documentation
taglib-extras-devel.i386: W: no-dependency-on
taglib-extras/taglib-extras-libs/libtaglib-extras
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
taglib-extras-debuginfo-0.1-3.fc10.i386.rpm:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- The spec file name matches the base package.
- The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
Guidelines.
- The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- The spec file is written in American English.
- The spec file for the package is legible.
X The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL:
Source RPM:
d173458b0c70177a07dd2017f902bf98 taglib-extras-0.1.tar.gz
Upstream source:
c6d32e4f203768a2e4b5a83c5285f0a7 taglib-extras-0.1.tar.gz
- The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
- Package stores shared library files in any of the dynamic linker's default
paths, ldconfig in %post and %postun
[Bug 491647] Review Request: taglib-extras - Taglib support for other formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491647
--- Comment #4 from Eelko Berkenpies fed...@berkenpies.nl 2009-03-24
06:07:07 EDT ---
I had no problems compiling and building this package on F10 i386. Everything
seems to be fine except for 2 issues.
X rpmlint must be run on every package. The output:
taglib-extras-0.1-2.fc10.src.rpm:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
taglib-extras-0.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
taglib-extras-devel-0.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm:
taglib-extras-devel.i386: W: no-documentation
taglib-extras-devel.i386: W: no-dependency-on
taglib-extras/taglib-extras-libs/libtaglib-extras
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
taglib-extras-debuginfo-0.1-3.fc10.i386.rpm:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- The spec file name matches the base package.
- The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
Guidelines.
- The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- The spec file is written in American English.
- The spec file for the package is legible.
X The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL:
Source RPM:
d173458b0c70177a07dd2017f902bf98 taglib-extras-0.1.tar.gz
Upstream source:
c6d32e4f203768a2e4b5a83c5285f0a7 taglib-extras-0.1.tar.gz
- The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
- Package stores shared library files in any of the dynamic linker's default
paths, ldconfig in %post and %postun are used correctly.
- Package owns all directories that it creates.
- Fedora package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
- Permissions on files must are set properly and every %files section has a
%defattr(...) line.
- Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- Package consistently uses macros.
- The package contains code, or permissable content.
- Header files are in a -devel package.
- The package contains pkgconfig (.pc) files and uses 'Requires: pkgconfig'.
- Package contains library files with a suffix, base library files are in a
-devel package.
- Devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
- Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives.
- Package is not a GUI application and does not need a %{name}.desktop file.
- Package does not change ownership of files or directories already owned by
other packages.
- The package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at %install.
- All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
Needswork?:
The no-dependency-on warning for the devel-package can probably ignored as it
relies on macro's.
The md5sum of the source in the SRC RPM doesn't seem to match upstream package.
This is my first review, any comments/suggestions are greatly appreciated.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491647] Review Request: taglib-extras - Taglib support for other formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491647
--- Comment #4 from Eelko Berkenpies fed...@berkenpies.nl 2009-03-24
06:01:53 EDT ---
I had no problems compiling and building this package on F10 i386. Everything
seems to be fine except for 2 issues.
X rpmlint must be run on every package. The output:
taglib-extras-0.1-2.fc10.src.rpm:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
taglib-extras-0.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
taglib-extras-devel-0.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm:
taglib-extras-devel.i386: W: no-documentation
taglib-extras-devel.i386: W: no-dependency-on
taglib-extras/taglib-extras-libs/libtaglib-extras
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
taglib-extras-debuginfo-0.1-3.fc10.i386.rpm:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- The spec file name matches the base package.
- The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
Guidelines.
- The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- The spec file is written in American English.
- The spec file for the package is legible.
X The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL:
Source RPM:
d173458b0c70177a07dd2017f902bf98 taglib-extras-0.1.tar.gz
Upstream source:
c6d32e4f203768a2e4b5a83c5285f0a7 taglib-extras-0.1.tar.gz
- The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
- Package stores shared library files in any of the dynamic linker's default
paths, ldconfig in %post and %postun are used correctly.
- Package owns all directories that it creates.
- Fedora package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
- Permissions on files must are set properly and every %files section has a
%defattr(...) line.
- Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- Package consistently uses macros.
- The package contains code, or permissable content.
- Header files are in a -devel package.
- The package contains pkgconfig (.pc) files and uses 'Requires: pkgconfig'.
- Package contains library files with a suffix, base library files are in a
-devel package.
- Devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
- Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives.
- Package is not a GUI application and does not need a %{name}.desktop file.
- Package does not change ownership of files or directories already owned by
other packages.
- The package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at %install.
- All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
Needswork?:
The no-dependency-on warning for the devel-package can probably ignored as it
relies on macro's.
The md5sum of the source in the SRC RPM doesn't seem to match upstream package.
This is my first review, any comments/suggestions are greatly appreciated.
--- Comment #5 from Eelko Berkenpies fed...@berkenpies.nl 2009-03-24
06:07:07 EDT ---
I had no problems compiling and building this package on F10 i386. Everything
seems to be fine except for 2 issues.
X rpmlint must be run on every package. The output:
taglib-extras-0.1-2.fc10.src.rpm:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
taglib-extras-0.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
taglib-extras-devel-0.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm:
taglib-extras-devel.i386: W: no-documentation
taglib-extras-devel.i386: W: no-dependency-on
taglib-extras/taglib-extras-libs/libtaglib-extras
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
taglib-extras-debuginfo-0.1-3.fc10.i386.rpm:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- The spec file name matches the base package.
- The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
Guidelines.
- The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- The spec file is written in American English.
- The spec file for the package is legible.
X The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL:
Source RPM:
d173458b0c70177a07dd2017f902bf98 taglib-extras-0.1.tar.gz
Upstream source:
c6d32e4f203768a2e4b5a83c5285f0a7 taglib-extras-0.1.tar.gz
- The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
- Package stores shared library files in any of the dynamic linker's default
paths, ldconfig in %post and %postun
[Bug 491647] Review Request: taglib-extras - Taglib support for other formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491647
Eelko Berkenpies fed...@berkenpies.nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||needinfo?(rdie...@math.unl.
||edu)
--- Comment #4 from Eelko Berkenpies fed...@berkenpies.nl 2009-03-24
05:57:13 EDT ---
I had no problems compiling and building this on F10 i386. Everything seems to
be fine except for 2 issues.
X rpmlint must be run on every package. The output:
taglib-extras-0.1-2.fc10.src.rpm:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
taglib-extras-0.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
taglib-extras-devel-0.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm:
taglib-extras-devel.i386: W: no-documentation
taglib-extras-devel.i386: W: no-dependency-on
taglib-extras/taglib-extras-libs/libtaglib-extras
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
taglib-extras-debuginfo-0.1-3.fc10.i386.rpm:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- The spec file name matches the base package.
- The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
Guidelines.
- The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- The spec file is written in American English.
- The spec file for the package is legible.
X The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL:
Source RPM:
d173458b0c70177a07dd2017f902bf98 taglib-extras-0.1.tar.gz
Upstream source:
c6d32e4f203768a2e4b5a83c5285f0a7 taglib-extras-0.1.tar.gz
- The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
- Package stores shared library files in any of the dynamic linker's default
paths, ldconfig in %post and %postun are used correctly.
- Package owns all directories that it creates.
- Fedora package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
- Permissions on files must are set properly and every %files section has a
%defattr(...) line.
- Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- Package consistently uses macros.
- The package contains code, or permissable content.
- Header files are in a -devel package.
- The package contains pkgconfig (.pc) files and uses 'Requires: pkgconfig'.
- Package contains library files with a suffix, base library files are in a
-devel package.
- Devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
- Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives.
- Package is not a GUI application and does not need a %{name}.desktop file.
- Package does not change ownership of files or directories already owned by
other packages.
- The package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at %install.
- All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
Needswork?:
The no-dependency-on warning for the devel-package can probably ignored as it
relies on macro's.
The md5sum of the source in the SRC RPM doesn't seem to match upstream package.
This is my first review. Any comments/suggestions are greatly appreciated.
--- Comment #5 from Eelko Berkenpies fed...@berkenpies.nl 2009-03-24
06:01:53 EDT ---
I had no problems compiling and building this package on F10 i386. Everything
seems to be fine except for 2 issues.
X rpmlint must be run on every package. The output:
taglib-extras-0.1-2.fc10.src.rpm:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
taglib-extras-0.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
taglib-extras-devel-0.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm:
taglib-extras-devel.i386: W: no-documentation
taglib-extras-devel.i386: W: no-dependency-on
taglib-extras/taglib-extras-libs/libtaglib-extras
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
taglib-extras-debuginfo-0.1-3.fc10.i386.rpm:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- The spec file name matches the base package.
- The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
Guidelines.
- The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- The spec file is written in American English.
- The spec file for the package is legible.
X The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL:
Source RPM:
d173458b0c70177a07dd2017f902bf98 taglib-extras-0.1.tar.gz
Upstream source:
[Bug 491647] Review Request: taglib-extras - Taglib support for other formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491647 --- Comment #8 from Eelko Berkenpies fed...@berkenpies.nl 2009-03-24 06:36:47 EDT --- Wow. Sorry for the spam. Bugzilla went bezerk on posting my comments. I was getting 502 proxy errors without any confirmation that my comment was processed. Apparently they all have thought. Again, sorry for 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 491821] Review Request: hyphen-hsb - Upper Sorbian hyphenation rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491821 --- Comment #2 from Caolan McNamara caol...@redhat.com 2009-03-24 06:43:15 EDT --- See bug 490862 for COPYING i.e. relicense the file as LPPL 1.3a and include a copy of the email as %doc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-24 07:02:05 EDT --- beteckna-fonts-0.3-4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/beteckna-fonts-0.3-4.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 486302] Review Request: parrot - Parrot is a virtual machine.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486302 --- Comment #17 from Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 2009-03-24 07:14:13 EDT --- It would be nice to have parrot in Fedora, when it had realeased v1.0. The rpmlint output should be really fixed before review. rpmlint parrot-doc has huge output and also parrot-devel has serious error. parrot-devel.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libparrot.so Would be someone from previous packagers interested in reviewing this? It seems to me that you spend a lot of time on this issue and you'll make the most thorough 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 226412] Merge Review: setup
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226412 --- Comment #9 from Ondrej Vasik ova...@redhat.com 2009-03-24 07:22:38 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) You are right, rpmlint can always be ignored, just as suggestion - I guess errors for empty files should be silenced or changed to warnings in the case of config files. Config files purpose is user modification and could be empty many times. (In reply to comment #7) Done, COPYING file in %doc shipped in setup-2.8.2-1.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 490438] Review Request: rhn-client-tools - Support programs and libraries for Red Hat Network or Spacewalk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490438 --- Comment #2 from Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com 2009-03-24 07:27:59 EDT --- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491240] Review Request: dropwatch - monitor for dropped network packets in the kernel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491240 --- Comment #13 from Neil Horman nhor...@redhat.com 2009-03-24 07:12:49 EDT --- Yeah, you'll be able to test on F-10 and rawhide shortly. Dropwatch needs some kernel bits that I wrote to work properly. Specifically, it needs these patches, which are slated for 2.6.30: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next-2.6.git;a=commit;h=4893d39e865b2897bf9fcd329697d37032d853a1 http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next-2.6.git;a=commit;h=ead2ceb0ec9f85cff19c43b5cdb2f8a054484431 http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next-2.6.git;a=commit;h=9a8afc8d3962f3ed26fd6b56db34133860ed1e72 http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next-2.6.git;a=commit;h=273ae44b9cb9443e0b5265cdc99f127ddb95c8db I'm working on getting them backported for rawhide and F-10. I'll provide you a pointer to my koji builds as soon as I have them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490438] Review Request: rhn-client-tools - Support programs and libraries for Red Hat Network or Spacewalk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490438
--- Comment #3 from Nigel Jones nigjo...@redhat.com 2009-03-24 08:02:09 EDT
---
Okay, sorry about taking so long for the first glance...
At the moment I see two issues against the current guidelines:
1. Missing .desktop files
I know for a fact that Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3-5 has a GUI for
'rhn_register' and based on what I'm seeing I'm fairly sure you haven't taken
it away, so per
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files it really
needs a .desktop file so users can find it in the menus.
2. Python module locations
I'm not sure how set in stone this is, but w/ our Python Guidelines, python
modules are prefered to be in %{python_sitelib}/modulename/foo.*
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#System_Architecture) would
moving these libraries cause any issues with rhn_register etc?
As per our discussion on IRC, I also mentioned about the ownership of a couple
of directories...
/etc/sysconfig/rhn/allowed-actions/
/etc/sysconfig/rhn/allowed-actions/script/
Should these be owned by rhn-client-tools or is there going to be another
package that provides the rhncfg packages that check for files under these
directories?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491694] Review Request: Anyterm - Web based terminal emulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491694 Alexander Boström a...@kth.se changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a...@kth.se --- Comment #9 from Alexander Boström a...@kth.se 2009-03-24 08:10:25 EDT --- Thanks for submitting this! I packaged anyterm locally a while back, but I've been too lazy to submit it. Feel free to copy anything you like from it: http://ayo.sys.kth.se/kth/linux/5/extras/SRPMS/anyterm-1.1.29-0.kth.5.src.rpm Some notes about it: Installs the static content in /var/www for httpd to pick up. Listens on localhost, installs a suitable httpd conf file to proxy via SSL. Starts anytermd at port 81 where regular users can't bind(). Asks for a username and runs s...@localhost. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486977] Review Request: gnu-free-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=486977 Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #20 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-03-24 08:27:59 EDT --- Awesome, thanks for you review and font education. Orion, I'll take over the new package. You want co-maintainership? New Package CVS Request === Package Name: gnu-free-fonts Short Description: Free UCS Outline Fonts Owners: limb 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 454888] Review Request: libgdither - Library for applying dithering to PCM audio 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=454888 Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-03-24 08:29:23 EDT --- Ok, then APPROVED. I'll move on down the chain. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454888] Review Request: libgdither - Library for applying dithering to PCM audio 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=454888 --- Comment #13 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com 2009-03-24 08:41:36 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: libgdither Short Description: Library for applying dithering to PCM audio sources Owners: kwizart Branches: F-10 F-9 EL-5 Cvsextras Commits: yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454888] Review Request: libgdither - Library for applying dithering to PCM audio 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=454888 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 426387] Merge reviews to be completed for F9
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426387 Bug 426387 depends on bug 226412, which changed state. Bug 226412 Summary: Merge Review: setup https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226412 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||ERRATA -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226412] Merge Review: setup
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226412 Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||ERRATA Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-03-24 08:46:23 EDT --- Great! APPROVED. Thanks for your work. -- 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 454410] Review Request: mingw32-gcc - MinGW Windows cross-compiler (GCC) for C and C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454410 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||485915(mingw32-wpcap) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456242] Review Request: gavl - A library for handling uncompressed audio and video data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456242 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-03-24 09:00:27 EDT --- rpmlint still silent. Code says GPLv2+, COPYING is GPLv3+, tag is GPLv3+. OK. Still awaiting libgdither in rawhide for mock build. What about ldconfig in %post and %postun for -devel? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485915] Review Request: mingw32-wpcap - winpcap library (user level packet capture) for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485915 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Depends on||454410(mingw32-gcc) AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rjo...@redhat.com Alias||mingw32-wpcap Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-03-24 09:00:43 EDT --- Taking for review ... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491240] Review Request: dropwatch - monitor for dropped network packets in the kernel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491240 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-03-24 09:00:46 EDT --- Thanks for above information. 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 491317] Review Request: mingw32-gstreamer - MinGW Windows gstreamer 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=491317 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rjo...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-03-24 09:02:02 EDT --- Taking for review ... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456256] Review Request: frei0r-plugins - Frei0r - a minimalistic plugin API for video effects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456256 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-03-24 09:25:31 EDT --- Checked new version, comments from #1 stand. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486977] Review Request: gnu-free-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=486977 --- Comment #21 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com 2009-03-24 09:31:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #20) Awesome, thanks for you review and font education. Orion, I'll take over the new package. You want co-maintainership? Works for me. New Package CVS Request == Package Name: gnu-free-fonts Short Description: Free UCS Outline Fonts Owners: limb orion 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 491767] Review Request: nss-ldapd - An nsswitch module which uses directory servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491767 --- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-03-24 09:33:34 EDT --- Some quick notes: - ldconfig does not need to be required since it's part of glibc. - Change requirement of /sbin/chkconfig to chkconfig (package). - .so files should be in devel 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 491862] New: Review Request: kde-style-skulpture - Classical three-dimensional style for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: kde-style-skulpture - Classical three-dimensional style for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491862 Summary: Review Request: kde-style-skulpture - Classical three-dimensional style for KDE Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jrez...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://rezza.hofyland.cz/fedora/packages/kde-style-skulpture/kde-style-skulpture.spec SRPM URL: http://rezza.hofyland.cz/fedora/packages/kde-style-skulpture/kde-style-skulpture-0.2.2-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Skulpture is a GUI style addon for KDE 4. It features a classical three-dimensional artwork with shadows and smooth gradients to enhance the visual experience. Skulpture has been designed to be light and easy on eyes; many distracting borders or graphical elements have been removed or replaced by simpler artwork. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481009] Review request: pothana2000-fonts - Unicode compliant OpenType font for Telugu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481009 sandeep shedmake sshed...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(sshed...@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #3 from sandeep shedmake sshed...@redhat.com 2009-03-24 09:35:23 EDT --- From Comment #2 1) Upstream has published each font in a separate versioned archive, with no .exe inside, and with the font exception added to its licensing. 2) The revised SPEC and RPMS is available at http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/pothana2000-fonts.spec http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/pothana2000-fonts-1.3.1-1.fc11.src.rpm 3) Please suggest the correct fontconfig priority level [I have kept it 69]. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491647] Review Request: taglib-extras - Taglib support for other formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491647 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|fed...@berkenpies.nl|nob...@fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review?, | |needinfo?(rdie...@math.unl. | |edu)| --- Comment #9 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2009-03-24 09:40:07 EDT --- Eelko, you can't do an official review yet, since you're not sponsored. (resetting bz assignment and review flags). For full disclosure, I agreed to sponsor and comaintain in exchange for help reviewing this (and a good review it was, thanks). %changelog * Tue Mar 24 2009 Rex Dieter rdie...@fedoraproject.org - 0.1-4 - (re)fetch upstream tarball c6d32e4f203768a2e4b5a83c5285f0a7 taglib-extras-0.1.tar.gz Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/taglib-extras/taglib-extras.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/taglib-extras/taglib-extras-0.1-4.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470830] Review Request: open64 - The Open64 compiler suite (C, C++, Fortran)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470830 --- Comment #21 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski r...@greysector.net 2009-03-24 09:53:13 EDT --- I'm told by the developers that it can be bootstrapped using gcc 4.3. gcc-4.3 support is planned in the next release. I will try to make it buildable using compat-gcc-34 in the meantime. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491240] Review Request: dropwatch - monitor for dropped network packets in the kernel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491240 Neil Horman nhor...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from Neil Horman nhor...@redhat.com 2009-03-24 09:55:36 EDT --- Thanks! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: dropwatch Short Description: dropwatch is a monitor used to detect dropped packets in the linux networking stack Owners: nhorman Branches: devel F-10 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485403] Review Request: ytnef - Yerase's TNEF Stream Reader.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485403 --- Comment #3 from Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br 2009-03-24 09:56:54 EDT --- I am not clear about the license, I belive the correct license should be the same as already included libytnef-devel, GPL+ please l@@k new spec. http://ispbrasil.com.br/ytnef/ytnef.spec http://ispbrasil.com.br/ytnef/ytnef-2.6-3.fc11.src.rpm koji scratch build (dist-f11) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1256395 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470830] Review Request: open64 - The Open64 compiler suite (C, C++, Fortran)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470830 --- Comment #22 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-03-24 10:02:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21) I'm told by the developers that it can be bootstrapped using gcc 4.3. gcc-4.3 support is planned in the next release. I will try to make it buildable using compat-gcc-34 in the meantime. OK, if you get it working using gcc 3.4 then it will also run on RHEL 4, which would be nice. gcc 4.3 support is not enough, since rawhide is already using gcc 4.4. I believe bootstrapping open64 with itself is the best solution (although the binary release doesn't work on RHEL 4). Things would be easier if there were more versions of gcc usable in Fedora.. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489550] Review Request: qtscriptgenerator - Qt bindings for Qt Script
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489550
--- Comment #7 from Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com 2009-03-24 10:13:36
EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: builds in Koji
[x] Rpmlint output:
- W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
these are only symlinks, so I think it's OK
[-] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPLv2
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[?] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in koji.
- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1254267
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1254267
[x] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
=== SUMMARY ===
- package name:
qtscriptgenerator? these are already generated bindings - so maybe better
name
is qtscriptbindings or similar?
- documentation and examples should be packaged
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491875] New: Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491875 Summary: Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: linvi...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://linville.fedorapeople.org/unzoo.spec SRPM URL: http://linville.fedorapeople.org/unzoo-4.4-1.src.rpm Description: 'unzoo' is a zoo archive extractor. A zoo archive is a file that contains several files, called its members, usually in compressed form to save space. 'unzoo' can list all or selected members or extract all or selected members, i.e., uncompress them and write them to files. It cannot add new members or delete members. For this you need the zoo archiver, called 'zoo', written by Rahul Dhesi. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225890] Merge Review: htmlview
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225890 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi --- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-03-24 10:17:19 EDT --- Ping, any progress? -- 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 491875] Review Request: unzoo - ZOO archive extractor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491875
--- Comment #1 from John W. Linville linvi...@redhat.com 2009-03-24 10:19:09
EDT ---
I chose package unzoo because the zoo archiver mentioned above is released
under a restrictive license...
Should I be using %{?dist} as part of the Release line in the .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 225677] Merge Review: dbus-python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225677 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jussi.leht...@iki.fi Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-03-24 10:18:54 EDT --- Taking on 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 456256] Review Request: frei0r-plugins - Frei0r - a minimalistic plugin API for video effects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456256 --- Comment #6 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com 2009-03-24 10:18:22 EDT --- Sorry for not having answeared earlier. (In reply to comment #1) on RPMS: frei0r-devel.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. This is optional there is no documentation (this is a warning only) Mightn't we want to call frei0r-devel frei0r-plugins-devel, since the base pacakge is frei0r-plugins? It is just a matter of choice, it was keept this way for historical reasons, When the package was named frei0r-header, but naming it -devel will elect it for multilibs capability. License is good, but I hope gavl turns out to be GPLv2. gavl is licensed under GPLv3+, as freir-plugins is GPLv2+, this is right. Do you see a problem with this ? What's the status of the patches WRT upstream? According to the freir current specification, the library path is /usr/lib/frei0r-1/vendor, either the main library directoy is /usr/lib64 or not. On our side, we cannot accept 64bit shared object to be located in /usr/lib instead of /usr/lib64. If I remember well, that will need to be fixed in any application that will use frei0r-plugins. With the change we will introduce, 64bit application compiled on distribution where the main is /usr/lib will not be capable of using 64bit native frei0r-plugin on Fedora. (Thus will be binary incompatible). A permanent solution will be to add another possible directory to look into within the frei0r plugin specification. Do we not need ldconfig in the post/postun for the main package? No, we are not in the usual system library case, where shared object are meant to be linked. We are in the plugin world where unversioned shared object will be dlopened. So they are not meant to be registered from any system linker using ldconfig. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225677] Merge Review: dbus-python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225677 --- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-03-24 10:23:01 EDT --- Some notes: - Any reason why SMP make isn't enabled? - Devel package must Requires: pkgconfig. - Maybe remove the commented lines? -- 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 491884] New: Review Request: atasm - 6502 cross-assembler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: atasm - 6502 cross-assembler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491884 Summary: Review Request: atasm - 6502 cross-assembler Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: d...@danny.cz QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/atasm.spec SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/atasm-1.06-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: ATasm is a 6502 command-line cross-assembler that is compatible with the original Mac/65 macroassembler released by OSS software. Code development can now be performed using modern editors and compiles with lightning speed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491886] New: Review Request: xa - 6502/65816 cross assembler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: xa - 6502/65816 cross assembler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491886 Summary: Review Request: xa - 6502/65816 cross assembler Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: d...@danny.cz QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/xa.spec SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/xa-2.3.5-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: xa is a high-speed, two-pass portable cross-assembler. It understands mnemonics and generates code for NMOS 6502s (such as 6502A, 6504, 6507, 6510, 7501, 8500, 8501, 8502 ...), CMOS 6502s (65C02 and Rockwell R65C02) and the 65816. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225699] Merge Review: dmraid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225699
Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jussi.leht...@iki.fi
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-03-24 10:34:59
EDT ---
Taking on review.
A few quick notes:
- Is Requires: ldconfig really necessary, as this is part of glibc?
- Source should be Source0.
- Why do you have
--prefix=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/usr --sbindir=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/sbin
--libdir=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_libdir} --mandir=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_mandir}
--includedir=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_includedir}
as an argument to %configure? Isn't plain %configure with the other extra flags
enough?
- Also, why do you
install -m 755 -d
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT{%{_libdir},/sbin,%{_sbindir},%{_bindir},%{_libdir},%{_includedir}/dmraid/,/var/lock/dmraid}
isn't this automatically done by make install?
- Wouldn't using --enable-shared_lib prevent the need to remove the static
library?
--
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 491128] Review Request: photoprint - Utility for printing digital photographs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491128 --- Comment #6 from Zarko zarko.pin...@gmail.com 2009-03-24 10:52:31 EDT --- I can not open a new project until I get a sponsor for the first one, isn't it? Zarko -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491892] New: Review Request: openscap - Set of open source libraries enabling integration of the SCAP line of standards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: openscap - Set of open source libraries enabling integration of the SCAP line of standards https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491892 Summary: Review Request: openscap - Set of open source libraries enabling integration of the SCAP line of standards Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: pvra...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/pvrabec/scap/openscap.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/pvrabec/scap/openscap-0.1.3-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: OpenSCAP is a set of open source libraries providing an easier path for integration of the SCAP line of standards. SCAP is a line of standards managed by NIST with the goal of providing a standard language for the expression of Computer Network Defense related information. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456256] Review Request: frei0r-plugins - Frei0r - a minimalistic plugin API for video effects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456256 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-03-24 11:03:41 EDT --- Ok on the docs, names and ldconfig. Re: the license, I thought if using a GPLed library, the GPL version of the code must be = the GPL version of the library? Or so I have that wrong? Or do the +s moot the whole thing? Re: the patches, so essentially these allow us to work around an upstream limitation that upstream will be fixing in another manner? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489233] Review Request: rmol - C++ Revenue Management Optimisation Library (RMOL)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489233
--- Comment #9 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-03-24
11:02:11 EDT ---
* Be careful:
-%configure --enable-static --with-docdir=%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}
+#%configure --with-docdir=%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}
+%configure
Some macros cannot be disabled/commented like this. Here the %configure macro
is still executed twice. Safe is to replace '%' with '#'. [In %changelog, use
double '%%' when referring to macro names.]
* The conflict between %doc and the installed html documentation tree still
exists. make install copies the html tree to
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/share/doc/rmol-0.19.0/ where it is deleted/overwritten with
your %doc statements. To get the html tree into your -doc subpackage, you add
it from the local build directory. What may seem to work here, breaks with
other packages. You would lose some installed doc files silently. It's not a
blocker, but one way to shoot yourself into the feet.
A common work-around [even when --with-docdir= cannot be redefined to point it
to a temporary directory] is to actually use the installed documentation files
rather the the local ones from the build dir. E.g.
%define mydocs __tmp_docdir
%install
...
make install ...
...
rm -rf %{mydocs} mkdir %{mydocs}
mv $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/* %{mydocs}
%files doc
...
%doc mydocs/*
%doc other files here
That way you can modify/fix the %{mydocs} tree after make install instead of
modifying the extracted source tarball prior to make install. Very convenient
if you ever want to use --short-circuit builds during trouble-shooting.
[With that method, one pitfall remains, and that is related to applications
which expect the documentation files in the installed %docdir. One must be
careful not to move the files to a different location that doesn't match with
the paths compiled into the application/program executables.]
* The following change creates an unowned directory:
-%{_includedir}/%{name}
+%{_includedir}/%{name}/RMOL_Service.hpp
+%{_includedir}/%{name}/RMOL_Types.hpp
%dir %{_includedir}/%{name} is necessary to fix that.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UnownedDirectories
/usr/share/aclocal/rmol.m4
I think it is acceptable not to Requires: automake just for this directory --
as long as the guidelines don't force packagers to do it:
| 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
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
* spectool rmol.spec
Source0: http://download.sourceforge.net/rmol/rmol-0.19.0.tar.gz
- ERROR 404: Not Found.
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/rmol/rmol-0.19.0.tar.gz
- would work
Tarball in the src.rpm doesn't match your upstream release!
* Scratch-build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1256538
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456256] Review Request: frei0r-plugins - Frei0r - a minimalistic plugin API for video effects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456256 --- Comment #8 from Zarko zarko.pin...@gmail.com 2009-03-24 11:12:25 EDT --- Re: the patches, so essentially these allow us to work around an upstream limitation that upstream will be fixing in another manner? Sorry on my non-sponsored interrupting, but - yes! Without patch .so files on x86_64 system will be installed into /usr/lib directory (what is forbidden) instead in /usr/lib64... Zarko -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491892] Review Request: openscap - Set of open source libraries enabling integration of the SCAP line of standards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491892 Peter Vrabec pvra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added 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 486302] Review Request: parrot - Parrot is a virtual machine.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486302 Allison Randal alli...@parrot.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||alli...@parrot.org --- Comment #18 from Allison Randal alli...@parrot.org 2009-03-24 11:18:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16) I think this is only a problem with pynie because the necessary changes are not make since pynie has it own's svn repository. Pynie compiles and runs just fine from an installed Parrot and from the Ubuntu packages. Your packages are missing a number of development libraries necessary for building a language from source. You could include them in the 'parrot' package, but a better solution is to add a parrot-devel package for the developer tools. Let me know if you need a list of files to install (it will be the same list as the Ubuntu packages). Allison -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491767] Review Request: nss-ldapd - An nsswitch module which uses directory servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491767 --- Comment #3 from Nalin Dahyabhai na...@redhat.com 2009-03-24 11:30:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) Some quick notes: - ldconfig does not need to be required since it's part of glibc. You're sure that won't get us into a situation where the package gets installed before the binary's there? - Change requirement of /sbin/chkconfig to chkconfig (package). Ok, will do. - .so files should be in devel package? There aren't any header files, and right now it would create a conflict with nss_ldap to include it, so it's disabled. Does it make sense to package a symlink by itself in a subpackage? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491767] Review Request: nss-ldapd - An nsswitch module which uses directory servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491767 --- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-03-24 11:56:20 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) (In reply to comment #2) Some quick notes: - ldconfig does not need to be required since it's part of glibc. You're sure that won't get us into a situation where the package gets installed before the binary's there? Unless there is dependency loop between glibc and this package, this must not happen (and if there is such dependency loop, perhaps it is a bug on this package) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491647] Review Request: taglib-extras - Taglib support for other formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491647 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||taglib-extras -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491767] Review Request: nss-ldapd - An nsswitch module which uses directory servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491767 --- Comment #5 from Nalin Dahyabhai na...@redhat.com 2009-03-24 12:01:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #3) (In reply to comment #2) Some quick notes: - ldconfig does not need to be required since it's part of glibc. You're sure that won't get us into a situation where the package gets installed before the binary's there? Unless there is dependency loop between glibc and this package, this must not happen (and if there is such dependency loop, perhaps it is a bug on this package) I'm afraid I don't follow. Can you elaborate? I was under the impression that without any explicit ordering information, RPM would be free to install them in any order. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491268] Review Request: perl-autodie - Replace functions with equivalents which succeed or die
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491268 Stepan Kasal ska...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||ska...@redhat.com Resolution||WONTFIX Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- --- Comment #12 from Stepan Kasal ska...@redhat.com 2009-03-24 11:56:39 EDT --- autodie is a core perl package (perl-5.10 branch currently contains autodie-1.998) Consequently, it should be maintained inside the main perl package. perl-5.10.0-64, to appear soon in rawhide and F-9 and F-10 testing updates, contains autodie-1.999. FAIL, OTHER -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491767] Review Request: nss-ldapd - An nsswitch module which uses directory servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491767 --- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-03-24 12:12:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #3) (In reply to comment #2) Some quick notes: - ldconfig does not need to be required since it's part of glibc. You're sure that won't get us into a situation where the package gets installed before the binary's there? Unless there is dependency loop between glibc and this package, this must not happen (and if there is such dependency loop, perhaps it is a bug on this package) I'm afraid I don't follow. Can you elaborate? I was under the impression that without any explicit ordering information, RPM would be free to install them in any order. No, If so reviewers would already file a bug against rpm. see (for now I cannot find more proper URL) http://markmail.org/message/hwihrwnis5ikd34f and Requires are automatically added by libraries' dependencies detected by rpmbuild itself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477683] Review Request: fltk2 - C++ user interface toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477683 --- Comment #16 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-03-24 12:13:28 EDT --- The SONAMEs you set are bad. Example: SONAMELibrary soname: [../lib/libfltk2.so.2.0] Must not contain any path and not the trailing minor version either: libfltk2.so.2 [...] Please delete .SILENT from the top-level makeincludes file fragment, so the build output becomes verbose. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487973] Review Request: lxmenu-data - Data files for the LXDE menu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487973 Sebastian Vahl fed...@deadbabylon.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Sebastian Vahl fed...@deadbabylon.de 2009-03-24 12:30:07 EDT --- Looks good now. *** 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 225978] Merge Review: kudzu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225978
--- Comment #6 from Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com 2009-03-24 12:46:51
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
It's translated as part of the specspo package.
Okay, then it has to wait until F11 is released. You can add a comment to the
spec file about the need to fix the summaries, however!
Review for 1.2.86-1 as follows:
You know, you could have mentioned more of these items in the initial review.
:)
- Is it really necessary to have the documentation in the devel package too?
I'd prune these.
There's no dependnecies between the subpackages, and given the recent
discussions on where license files need to be, it seems more prudent to put
them in both.
X specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
- dist tag is present.
MUST: Add this.
It's not listed in Packaging/Guidelines as a must, so I don't think it's really
needed.
X BuildRequires are proper.
* Please clean the conflicts, requires and buildrequires. ideally they should
be given one per line in alphabetical order
Also seems a bit nitpicky, but sure.
- static libraries are in static package
* The devel package needs to Provides: kudzu-static=%{version}-%{release}
Added.
--
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 225978] Merge Review: kudzu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225978 --- Comment #7 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de 2009-03-24 12:57:24 EDT --- X specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. - dist tag is present. MUST: Add this. It's not listed in Packaging/Guidelines as a must, so I don't think it's really needed. Notting is right, it's a SHOULD, but no MUST. X BuildRequires are proper. * Please clean the conflicts, requires and buildrequires. ideally they should be given one per line in alphabetical order Also seems a bit nitpicky, but sure. Requiring a line for each conflicts, requires and buildrequires seems a waste of lines. Using space or colon as separator seems much more better to me. -- 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 491647] Review Request: taglib-extras - Taglib support for other formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491647
Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org
--- Comment #10 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org 2009-03-24 13:00:18
EDT ---
taglib-extras-devel.i386: W: no-documentation
This one is harmless.
taglib-extras-devel.i386: W: no-dependency-on
taglib-extras/taglib-extras-libs/libtaglib-extras
This is because rpmlint doesn't understand %{?_isa} yet.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491647] Review Request: taglib-extras - Taglib support for other formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491647 Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org 2009-03-24 13:09:50 EDT --- Well, Eelko has already checked everything. :-) I've also read through the specfile and found no remaining issues. 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 455226] Review Request: php-pecl-runkit - PHP Opcode Analyser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455226 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #20 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-24 13:15:31 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 487973] Review Request: lxmenu-data - Data files for the LXDE menu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487973 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487973] Review Request: lxmenu-data - Data files for the LXDE menu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487973 --- Comment #5 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-03-24 13:13:49 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: lxmenu-data Short Description: Data files for the LXDE menu Owners: cwickert svahl Branches: F-10 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491614] Review Request: mingw32-libglademm24 - C++ wrapper for libglade
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491614 Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ka...@smartlink.ee --- Comment #1 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2009-03-24 13:15:16 EDT --- This package needs mingw32-gtkmm24 and mingw32-libglade2, neither of which are currently in Fedora. Because of that I am not sure if it is possible to do an official review right 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 487737] Review Request: slock - Simple X display locker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487737 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #13 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-24 13:16:30 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 454888] Review Request: libgdither - Library for applying dithering to PCM audio 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=454888 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #14 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-24 13:21:35 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 491647] Review Request: taglib-extras - Taglib support for other formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491647 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2009-03-24 13:16:53 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: taglib-extras Short Description: Taglib support for other formats Owners: rdieter Branches: F-9 F-10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225978] Merge Review: kudzu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225978
--- Comment #8 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-03-24 13:19:57
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
- dist tag is present.
MUST: Add this.
It's not listed in Packaging/Guidelines as a must, so I don't think it's
really needed.
Notting is right, it's a SHOULD, but no MUST.
True; it isn't even in the packaging or the review guidelines; it's buried in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag, also it appears in the spec
file example. My apologies.
Still, I think it should be in, since when you upgrade from an older
distribution the old distro's rpm may not be replaced if its EVR is otherwise
the same as in the older distro release.
X BuildRequires are proper.
* Please clean the conflicts, requires and buildrequires. ideally they
should be given one per line in alphabetical order
Also seems a bit nitpicky, but sure.
Requiring a line for each conflicts, requires and buildrequires seems a waste
of lines. Using space or colon as separator seems much more better to me.
It's okay, as long as the separators are the same throughout the spec file. Now
there's both commas and spaces.
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
- Is it really necessary to have the documentation in the devel package too?
I'd prune these.
There's no dependnecies between the subpackages, and given the recent
discussions on where license files need to be, it seems more prudent to put
them in both.
Okay, I guess this is an exception to the rule that devel packages require
%{name} = %{version}-%{release} and thus the doc files should be replicated in
the devel package.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478570] Review Request: oflb-riordonfancy-fonts - A stylized font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478570 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-24 13:20:21 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 490867] Review Request: perl-Date-ICal - Perl extension for ICalendar date objects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490867 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-24 13:23:54 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 487973] Review Request: lxmenu-data - Data files for the LXDE menu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487973 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-24 13:26:09 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 491647] Review Request: taglib-extras - Taglib support for other formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491647 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #13 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-24 13:27:03 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 491240] Review Request: dropwatch - monitor for dropped network packets in the kernel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491240 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #16 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-24 13:28:13 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 491550] Review Request: libass - Portable library for SSA/ASS subtitles rendering
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491550 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-24 13:30:00 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 462311] Review Request: raidutils - Utilities to manage Adaptec I2O compliant RAID controllers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462311 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-24 13:32:54 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 486977] Review Request: gnu-free-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=486977 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #22 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-24 13:34:21 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 465858] Package Review: afpfs-ng - Apple Filing Protocol 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=465858 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #14 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-24 13:31:51 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 489550] Review Request: qtscriptgenerator - Qt bindings for Qt Script
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489550 --- Comment #8 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2009-03-24 13:40:51 EDT --- %changelog * Tue Mar 24 2009 Rex Dieter rdie...@fedoraproject.org 0.1.0-5 - qtscriptgenerator/qtscriptbindings pkgs - qtscriptbindings: include docs, examples Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/qtscriptgenerator/qtscriptgenerator.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/qtscriptgenerator/qtscriptgenerator-0.1.0-5.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489550] Review Request: qtscriptgenerator - A tool to generate Qt bindings for Qt Script
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489550 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |qtscriptgenerator - Qt |qtscriptgenerator - A tool |bindings for Qt Script |to generate Qt bindings for ||Qt Script --- Comment #9 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2009-03-24 13:49:01 EDT --- Adjusting summary to match new spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
