[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?
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-03-25 02:06:52
EDT ---
Review:
+ package builds in mock (rawhide i586).
koji build = http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1257587
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPM.
+ source files match upstream.
e426c362f97ddc0647dc732f684e86d9 ibus-sayura-1.0.0.20090324.tar.gz
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ Spec file is legible.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
+ license is open source-compatible.
+ License text is included in package.
+ %doc files present.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code.
+ no static libraries.
+ no .pc file present.
+ no -devel subpackage exists.
+ no .la files.
+ translations are available.
+ Does owns the directories it creates.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ no scriptlets are used.
Suggestions:
1) remove following line from SPEC
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python_sitearch}/_sayura.la
2) change following line to keep timestamps
make DESTDIR=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} install
to
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL=install -p
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 456190] Review Request: dosemu - dos 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=456190 --- Comment #52 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-03-25 02:28:18 EDT --- (In reply to comment #50) (In reply to comment #49) Bad news :( Seems like FreeDOS can be built with Watcom C and Borland C Compiler only, both of which are non-free. Building with dev86's bcc is most likely not possible now. Do you think DOSEmu package would actually be usable without the FreeDOS image shipped? Is it? I have followed up on this, it seems building with free tools is possible, but not now, and maybe not ever. Its a dam shame, does this mean its finished here? http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=op.ura4quaez9dfrf%40isorforum_name=freedos-devel http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=ef6ac8350903231451p2e1e7091n3eebd87a34c456d5%40mail.gmail.comforum_name=freedos-devel That's pretty bad. On packaging list it was suggested [2] that you join forces with Debian, which also ships pre-built binary, and try to convince them to switch to dev86's bcc. It brings an advantage of being distributed with quite popular Linux distribution. [2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-March/msg00065.html (In reply to comment #51) Just because we cannot build freedos shouldn't imply we cannot distribute it. We /DO/ have the source code, and we can certainly distribute the source code (along with the pre-built binary). That's certainly legal as far as the GPL is concerned, even if we can't reliably reproduce the binary using our compiler of choice. Derek we're not saying it's illegal. It just doesn't grant the user the freedom to modify the program to suit his needs. See the thread on packaging list for discussion on this [1]: [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-March/msg00056.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456190] Review Request: dosemu - dos 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=456190 --- Comment #53 from Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu 2009-03-25 02:40:39 EDT --- Lubomir, I read the thread. My take on it was exactly what you said, it just doesn't grant the user the freedom to modify the program to suit his needs. My take as a user of the program is that I'd much rather see the package in the distribution. I just don't care about the freedos portion, as honestly that's not the part that I would feel I need to modify to suit my needs. And even so, the code is there if I want to see it, even if I can't compile it. If debian is willing to ship it as-is Fedora should most certainly be willing to. While I agree that long-term it would be BETTER to get the code compiling using the Fedora build tools, I think it would behoove users to have access to the program as-is sooner, rather that block distribution waiting on this. To quote many people from the IETF: The Perfect is the enemy of The Good. Just my $0.02. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454959] Review Request: eclipse-cusp - Eclipse Common Lisp Development Tools (Cusp) plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454959 --- Comment #12 from Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 02:46:04 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) Was someone going to post a buildable package? Not me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #15 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-03-25 02:49:22 EDT --- Thank you all. Imported and built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492039] Review Request: perl-Jemplate - JavaScript Templating with Template 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=492039 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 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 492039] Review Request: perl-Jemplate - JavaScript Templating with Template 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=492039 --- Comment #2 from Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2009-03-25 02:58:49 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Jemplate Short Description: JavaScript Templating with Template Toolkit Owners: cweyl Branches: F-9 F-10 devel InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490723] Review Request: R-IRanges - Low-level containers for storing sets of integer ranges
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490723 --- Comment #8 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr 2009-03-25 03:04:54 EDT --- Answer concerning the license: We will add a new field to the DESCRIPTION file, like ExtraLicenses or something that will indicate the C files that are under freely licensed for all uses by Jim Kent, in a way that is compatible with the Artistic license. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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] 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 #6 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-03-25 03:15:48
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #3)
- optflags are not used. Use
gcc %{optflags} -o unzoo -DSYS_IS_UNIX -O unzoo.c
in the build phase.
One comment:
-O overwrites -O2 optimization level used in %optflags,
so when using %optflags -O argument should be removed.
Right you are: only the value of the last argument is used. Thanks.
John: Please remove the -O flag, since %{optflags} already contain the
necessary optimizations.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456190] Review Request: dosemu - dos 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=456190 --- Comment #54 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-03-25 03:21:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #53) If debian is willing to ship it as-is Fedora should most certainly be willing to. Debian does not set Fedora policy. The relevant Fedora policy is, I believe, clearly indicated here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries Note that there are exceptions listed to that policy. I don't believe that an argument towards having this accepted as firmware would succeed, honestly. I also don't believe this falls under the exceptions relating to cross-compilation environments. If you believe this package deserves an additional exception, you are welcome to bring the matter before the Packaging Committee. The next meeting is Tuesday, March 31 at 17:00UTC. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 03:19:14 EDT --- Thanks Parag for review I will update as per suggestions at the time of cvs commit -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456190] Review Request: dosemu - dos 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=456190 --- Comment #55 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-03-25 03:26:56 EDT --- (In reply to comment #53) Daniel, this is not just about Perfect vs. Good, this is a matter of Free vs. Non-free. See, if the only precondition for including the software in Fedora would be usability, we'd almost certainly ship non-free nvidia drivers and the such. Being strict about freedom to modify the software is among the important things that makes Fedora special, compared to, say, Ubuntu (which coincidentally goes as far, as shipping binary-only drivers). Now, to be constructive, the effort to get this packaged is definitely not lost. It can be included in RPMFusion repository [1]. I'm willing to review it there, and provide any kind of help that's needed. [1] http://rpmfusion.org/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491530] Review Request: letterslaughing-fonts - Decorative/LED sans-serif 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=491530 --- Comment #6 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2009-03-25 03:59:52 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #3) You may verify this with the following command: grep -a -B 6 -A 84 'SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE' *.ttf Check this and you'll see this is missing in the ttf in your package. Maybe you didn't package the same version upstream uses (and anyway a detached txt file is much better) hi, I had used the link on the wishlist page for the package.. He directed me to another link which has updated packages, I'll upload the packages with this new source today. (In reply to comment #5) okay, so i use the simple spec to or a multi spec with his styles? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472150] Review Request: coot - crystallographic macromolecular building 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=472150 --- Comment #16 from Tim Fenn f...@stanford.edu 2009-03-25 04:02:31 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) coot.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary Coot Please don't include the name of the package in the summary. done. coot.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libcoot-tw.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 coot.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libcoot-skeleton.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libcoot-mini-mol.so.0 snip /usr/lib64/libcoot-ideal.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libgslcblas.so.0 coot.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libcoot-coords.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libclipper.so.2 Did you consider cleaning these up at all? Yes - the problem with this group was that sublibrary A calls sublibrary B which calls sublibrary C - B is properly linked to C, but A is not linked to C. This led to a kind of cascade of additional linkages that needed to be made to sort this out - I'm hoping to get this solved upstream rather than figure out the dependency web. coot.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libcoot-skeleton.so.0.0.0 _ZN15graphics_info_t9moleculesE coot.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libcoot-skeleton.so.0.0.0 _ZN21molecule_class_info_t9makebondsEff coot.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol snip /usr/lib64/libcoot-coord-extras.so.0.0.0 _ZNK4coot16protein_geometry22get_monomer_restraintsERKSs coot.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libcoot-coord-extras.so.0.0.0 _ZN4coot16protein_geometry32have_dictionary_for_residue_typeERKSsi Did you consider cleaning these up at all, by properly linking the libraries together? I did try, and realized that in this set of cases, A links to B *and vice versa*. But we can't build A before B *and* B before A, so some group of links are broken. Again, an issue I'm hoping to resolve upstream. coot-debuginfo.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/coot-0.5.2/ccp4mg-utils/cartesian.cc coot-debuginfo.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/coot-0.5.2/src/coot_pythonmodule.cc snip /usr/src/debug/coot-0.5.2/surface/CXXFFTSolventMap.cpp coot-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/coot-0.5.2/surface/CXXTorusElement.cpp coot-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/coot-0.5.2/surface/CXXSurfaceVertex.h These all stem from the fact that bits of the source are executable. I can't imagine why the source code would need to be executable; can you run a find/chmod over it in %prep to clean this up? done. Some other comments: I'm unsure of the license of this package. You indicate that it's GPLv2 only. COPYING contains GPLv3 (which doesn't generally mean that the source is actually under version 3). The source seems to be a mix of GPLv3+ and GPLv2+, LGPLv2+. For example, run grep -r 'version.*of the' * and see what you get. There's too much code for me to do a full license review here; you'll need to see what source files are compiled into which binaries and object files and compute the results of those license combinations for each binary and each standalone file. If they aren't all the same, you'll need to provide a breakdown. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines for more information. two of the library files are LGPLv2+, the rest of the code is a mix of GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ (all the guile extras are GPLv2+), so I've done my best to make note of the LGPL stuff in the spec file, before the %source definitions and at the list of %files. Is this reasonable? Also, I'm not sure it's OK to just pull the contents of coot-guile-extras.tar.gz from other upstream packages; they each have their own attributions and, I believe, different licensing terms. For example, goosh.scm is GPL but no version is given, which means we can choose any version, so its license is GPL+. Is there any reason not to just use the pristine original tarballs for those files? If you don't need the included buildsystems you can just pick the files you need, but you may also need to include documentation and license files. Done - I'm using the original tarballs and including just the required files and relevant docs (AUTHORS, READMEs). Thanks for all the help on this one, I realize its a bit daunting. Spec URL: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/coot.spec SRPM URL: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/coot-0.5.2-3.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
[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 --- Comment #3 from Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 04:06:41 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ibus-sayura Short Description: The Sinhala IME engine for IBus platform Owners: pravins Branches: devel InitialCC: 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 491530] Review Request: letterslaughing-fonts - Decorative/LED sans-serif 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=491530 --- Comment #7 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-03-25 04:19:03 EDT --- If the font files do not declare different family names, only different styles, you should use the simple spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488100] Review Request: firebird - Firebird SQL database management system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488100 Philippe Makowski makowski.fireb...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #336173|new pec file|new spec file description|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Caolan McNamara caol...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Caolan McNamara caol...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 05:23:26 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: hyphen-hsb Short Description: Upper Sorbian hyphenation rules Owners: caolanm Branches: devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 #20 from Gerd Pokorra g...@zimt.uni-siegen.de 2009-03-25 05:29:27 EDT --- The latest spec is: Spec URL: ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/parrot.rpms/fedora/specs/parrot.spec Build URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1257732 - change the Group of the subpackage -docs to Documentation - put the main-documentation from the docs-package to the main package - add some newer source revision -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491617] Review Request: mingw32-libxml++ - MinGW Windows C++ wrapper for libxml2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491617 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch 2009-03-25 05:32:24 EDT --- You are right, mingw32-glibmm24 should go in first, I unfortunately noticed this only after submitting the review request. Thank you for your intial review comments, I updated the package according to your comments: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-libxml++.spec http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-libxml++-2.24.2-4.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 491952] Review Request: astronomy-menus - Astronomy menu for the Desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491952 Marek Mahut mma...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Marek Mahut mma...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 05:36:16 EDT --- 1) Add tidy to BuildRequires. 2) Specify %post and %postun for subpackage too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491952] Review Request: astronomy-menus - Astronomy menu for the Desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491952 --- Comment #2 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-03-25 05:51:12 EDT --- Thanks! Should be fixed now: SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/astronomy-menus.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/astronomy-menus-1.0-2.fc11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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
--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-03-25
05:52:37 EDT ---
Results of a brief look at the spec:
Source0:%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Full URL is missing here.
Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig
Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig
These two are automatic/implicit already because -p is used with %post/%postun.
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc AUTHORS COPYING ChangeLog INSTALL NEWS README
In case this is the standard 'INSTALL' file, it is irrelevant to RPM package
users.
%packagedevel
License:LGPLv2+
Requires: pkgconfig
%packagepython
License:LGPLv2+
Requires: pkgconfig
Neither of these two subpackages need pkg-config. The License tag need not be
defined for subpackages as it is copied from the main package. You only need to
redefine it if the licence of a subpackage differs from the main pkg actually.
Anyone who will review this, %doc docs may need a close look.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC 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
--- Comment #6 from sandeep shedmake sshed...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 06:02:32
EDT ---
From Comment #4
Fixed the download URL, dropped the %dir %{_fontdir} line
fixed the rpmlint W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs.
New SPEC and SRPMS available at:
http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/pothana2000-fonts.spec
http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/pothana2000-fonts-1.3.1-2.fc11.src.rpm
respectively.
Since, this is my first package, I don't have Fedora Packager CVS Commit
Group access. Can you sponsor me?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489686] Review Request: Armadillo - fast C++ matrix library with interfaces to LAPACK and ATLAS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489686 --- Comment #7 from Conrad Sanderson conrads...@ieee.org 2009-03-25 06:07:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) Updated spec and source RPM for 0.6.1 release: Spec URL: http://arma.sourceforge.net/fedora/armadillo.spec SRPM URL: http://arma.sourceforge.net/fedora/armadillo-0.6.1-1.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 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 --- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 06:10:53 EDT --- Please note that we have mingw32-gtkmm24 and mingw32-libglade2 packaged already here: http://hg.et.redhat.com/cgi-bin/hg-misc.cgi/fedora-mingw--devel/file/tip/gtkmm24 http://hg.et.redhat.com/cgi-bin/hg-misc.cgi/fedora-mingw--devel/file/tip/libglade2 Please submit them as separate Review Requests for 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 491617] Review Request: mingw32-libxml++ - MinGW Windows C++ wrapper for libxml2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491617 --- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 06:13:00 EDT --- Please note that we have packaged mingw32-glibmm24: http://hg.et.redhat.com/cgi-bin/hg-misc.cgi/fedora-mingw--devel/file/tip/glibmm24 It needs to be turned into a Review Request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #7 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-03-25 06:29:39 EDT --- Ah, I didn't see you needed sponsoring. Since font packages are rather simple we ask new packagers to submit 2-3 packages that pass review before they get sponsored. So you need to find two other fonts you like and package them too, to show you understand packaging. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491952] Review Request: astronomy-menus - Astronomy menu for the Desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491952 Marek Mahut mma...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Marek Mahut mma...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 06:41:17 EDT --- Looks sane - thank you. 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 491530] Review Request: letterslaughing-fonts - Decorative/LED sans-serif 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=491530 --- Comment #8 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2009-03-25 06:40:49 EDT --- hi, submissions: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/letterslaughing_fonts/chisholm-letterslaughing-fonts-20030323-1.fc10.src.rpm http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/letterslaughing_fonts/chisholm-letterslaughing-fonts.spec Ankur -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Flag||needinfo?(t.sai...@alumni.e ||thz.ch) --- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 06:41:30 EDT --- Koji scratch build FAILED: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1257804 This is because the BR should be dos2unix, not unix2dos. Koji scratch build with updated BR: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1257809 Auto-buildrequires OK. rpmlint says: mingw32-wpcap.noarch: W: no-documentation The license file should be included in %doc. mingw32-wpcap.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libwpcap.a mingw32-wpcap.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libpacket.a These are implibs, so they should be renamed / installed as libfoo.dll.a Please fix the above and I'll get round to a formal 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 491952] Review Request: astronomy-menus - Astronomy menu for the Desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491952 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-03-25 06:45:34 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: astronomy-menus Short Description: Astronomy menu for the Desktop Owners: lkundrak, mmahut Branches: EL-5 F-10 InitialCC: astronomy-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490462] Review Request: rpmorphan - List the orphaned rpm packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490462
--- Comment #8 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 06:51:00
EDT ---
Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/rpmorphan.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/rpmorphan-1.4-3.fc11.src.rpm
* Wed Mar 25 2009 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com - 1.4-3
- Missing Requires perl-Tk (Leigh Scott).
- Added %%{?dist} to Release.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475852] Review Request: gnustep-base - GNUstep Base library package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475852 --- Comment #20 from Charles Lopes tja...@gmail.com 2009-03-25 06:53:41 EDT --- Sorry, I omitted to mention that I used gnustep-make 2.0.6-15 downloaded from koji and that I compiled for fedora 10 because of the lib64 issue. I had a look at 2.0.8-2 from koji and noticed that the domain LOCAL has been changed to /usr. IMHO it should have been kept to /usr/local as the safe default while SYSTEM should be used for installations under /usr as in upstream gnustep-make. This new change to gnustep-make, means that end-users compiling from tar balls are likely to run make install and overwrite the distribution's files. This sort of installation convention with a local default location and a separate system location is found on other systems like perl-Make for example. I would suggest using GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN=SYSTEM for gnustep-base and reverting the gnustep-make change. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Flag||needinfo?(lfar...@lfarkas.o ||rg) --- Comment #7 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 07:00:41 EDT --- Unfortunately this package cannot be installed, because the -tools subpackage on which the main package depends isn't built (by RPM in Rawhide anyway). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491712] Review Request: ocaml-mlgmpidl - OCaml interface to GMP and MPFR libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491712 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||fedora-ocaml-l...@redhat.co ||m AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rjo...@redhat.com Alias||ocaml-mlgmpidl 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 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 Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(t.sai...@alumni.e | |thz.ch) | --- Comment #4 from Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch 2009-03-25 07:04:27 EDT --- Thanks a lot for taking the review and the initial comments! The fixed spec/srpm is here: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-wpcap.spec http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-wpcap-4.1.beta5-2.fc11.src.rpm Scratch build still ongoing, but local compile is ok. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491712] Review Request: ocaml-mlgmpidl - OCaml interface to GMP and MPFR libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491712 --- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 07:07:06 EDT --- Koji scratch-build in Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1257820 /usr/bin/gmptop is an OCaml toplevel, but is protected from being damaged by prelink .. Good. $ hexdump -C /usr/bin/gmptop | tail -3 00239d20 00 0e 23 44 42 55 47 00 0d 2c 9f 00 00 00 06 43 |..#DBUG..,.C| 00239d30 61 6d 6c 31 39 39 39 58 30 30 38 |aml1999X008| 00239d3b I would also appreciate comments on whether I should be going back and modifying the package's makefile to attempt to build libgmp_caml.a as a shared object - I believe this would be necessary to allow gmp.cma to be loaded dynamically. I have no idea about this, but it shouldn't affect the 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 492087] New: Review Request: pidgin-latex - A Pidgin plugin that displays LaTeX equations as images in your conversations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: pidgin-latex - A Pidgin plugin that displays LaTeX equations as images in your conversations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492087 Summary: Review Request: pidgin-latex - A Pidgin plugin that displays LaTeX equations as images in your conversations Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jussi.leht...@iki.fi QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/pidgin-latex.spec SRPM URL: http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/pidgin-latex-1.3-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Use LaTeX formulas in your pidgin conversations! The plugin looks for $$latex math$$ patterns, and replaces them by the rendered latex output by way of latex and imagemagick. The graphics is only displayed locally, so your conversation partner will have to use the plugin, too (With MSN, this constraint might not hold). This plugin is compatible with the similar kopete latex plugin, as it uses the $$ as delimiters, too. rpmlint output clean. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491712] Review Request: ocaml-mlgmpidl - OCaml interface to GMP and MPFR libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491712
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||needinfo?(amd...@gmail.com)
--- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 07:20:02
EDT ---
+ rpmlint output
rpmlint output all looks fine, and the things it notices
can be ignored.
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license
LGPLv2 (not +)
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
63ec244511e58bd1cbf5513dc7aaad8e 169186
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
+ binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
+ does not use Prefix: /usr
- package owns all directories it creates
Package should own %{my_ocaml_lib_dir}.
Then %files should add %exclude lines for everything in -devel.
See the example:
http://fedoraproject.org/w/uploads/5/5c/Packaging_OCaml_ocaml-foolib.spec
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
+ large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
+ -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8
Optional:
n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock
+ the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
- review should test the package functions as described
n/a scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
Please fix the directory ownership issue.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490462] Review Request: rpmorphan - List the orphaned rpm packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490462
--- Comment #9 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com 2009-03-25
07:29:36 EDT ---
Does the Makefile need to be included as a doc? and the files section is
truncated.
%files
%defattr(-,root,root)
%{_bindir}/rpmorphan
%{_bindir}/rpmusage.pl
%{_bindir}/rpmusage
%{_bindir}/rpmdep.pl
%{_bindir}/rpmdep
%{_bindir}/rpmduplicates.pl
%{_bindir}/rpmduplicates
%ghost %config(noreplace) %{_localstatedir}/log/rpmorphan.log
%dir %{_localstatedir}/lib/rpmorphan
%attr(644, root, root)%{_localstatedir}/lib/rpmorphan/keep
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/logrotate.d/rpmorphan
%{_mandir}/man1/rpmorphan.1*
%{_mandir}/man1/rpmusage.1*
%{_mandir}/man1/rpmdep.1*
%{_mandir}/man1/rpmduplicates.1*
%doc rpmorphan.lsm
%doc Authors
%doc COPYING
%doc Changelog
%doc NEWS
%doc Todo
%doc Makefile
%doc Readme
%doc rpmorphanrc.sample
i.e
%files
%defattr(-,root,root)
%doc rpmorphan.lsm Authors COPYING Changelog NEWS Todo Readme
rpmorphanrc.sample
%{_bindir}/*
%ghost %config(noreplace) %{_localstatedir}/log/rpmorphan.log
%dir %{_localstatedir}/lib/rpmorphan
%attr(644, root, root)%{_localstatedir}/lib/rpmorphan/keep
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/logrotate.d/rpmorphan
%{_mandir}/man1/rpm*.1*
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC 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
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 07:31:26
EDT ---
+ rpmlint output
rpmlint is silent on the revised package.
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
408a8cee8df478f5901f94a4294288a8 1691010
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun
+ does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
+ large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8
Optional:
n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock
+ the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
- review should test the package functions as described
n/a scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
n/a shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
-
This package is APPROVED by rjones
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492091] New: Review Request: zikula-Content - Content module for Zikula
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: zikula-Content - Content module for Zikula https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492091 Summary: Review Request: zikula-Content - Content module for Zikula Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: l...@gmx.at QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://lukashetzi.lu.funpic.de/zikula-rpms/zikula-Content.spec SRPM URL: http://lukashetzi.lu.funpic.de/zikula-rpms/zikula-Content-3.0.3.1.20091002svn-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: zikula-Content is a page editing module for Zikula. With it you can insert and edit various content items, such as HTML texts, YouTube videos, Google maps and much more. This is my first package and I'm seeking a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492091] Review Request: zikula-Content - Content module for Zikula
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492091 LukasHetzi l...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added CC||l...@gmx.at Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490462] Review Request: rpmorphan - List the orphaned rpm packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490462
--- Comment #10 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com 2009-03-25
07:46:55 EDT ---
I have just noticed another bit.
%build
make
does it build OK using %{?_smp_mflags} ?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492094] Review Request: darksnow - GTK Interface for darkice
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492094 Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cassmod...@fedoraproject.or ||g Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492094] New: Review Request: darksnow - GTK Interface for darkice
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: darksnow - GTK Interface for darkice https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492094 Summary: Review Request: darksnow - GTK Interface for darkice Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: yansta...@googlemail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://freeki.de/fedora/darksnow.spec SRPM URL: http://freeki.de/fedora/darksnow-0.6.1-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: DarkSnow is a graphical interface written in GTK+2 for the darkice live streamer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490462] Review Request: rpmorphan - List the orphaned rpm packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490462
--- Comment #11 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-03-25
07:54:26 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Does the Makefile need to be included as a doc?
No, that's a mistake that I copied from the upstream spec
file. Fix below.
and the files section is truncated.
Not sure what you mean by this, but I tend to want to list
files explicitly, so that I will get feedback from RPM if
the list changes in the future (ie. if upstream adds more
binaries, or if for some reason the build fails partially
and some binaries are omitted). We learned this lesson
hard with mingw32 packages and wrote it into the guidelines
for that project:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW#Do_not_use_.25.7B_mingw32_bindir.7D.2F.2A_or_.25.7B_mingw32_libdir.7D.2F.2A_in_.25files_section
(In reply to comment #10)
I have just noticed another bit.
%build
make
does it build OK using %{?_smp_mflags} ?
Yes it does - added.
Updated package:
Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/rpmorphan.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/rpmorphan-1.4-4.fc11.src.rpm
* Wed Mar 25 2009 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com - 1.4-4
- Combine all %%doc lines into one.
- Remove Makefile from %%doc section.
- Use %%{?_smp_mflags}.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491712] Review Request: ocaml-mlgmpidl - OCaml interface to GMP and MPFR libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491712
Alan Dunn amd...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|needinfo?(amd...@gmail.com) |
--- Comment #3 from Alan Dunn amd...@gmail.com 2009-03-25 08:00:56 EDT ---
Should be fixed now in files at the same location (though in this case, unlike
in the example, %{my_ocaml_lib_dir}/*.a should be excluded from main and put
into devel in not just opt build due to libgmp_caml.a)
(In reply to comment #2)
+ rpmlint output
rpmlint output all looks fine, and the things it notices
can be ignored.
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license
LGPLv2 (not +)
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
63ec244511e58bd1cbf5513dc7aaad8e 169186
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
+ binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
+ does not use Prefix: /usr
- package owns all directories it creates
Package should own %{my_ocaml_lib_dir}.
Then %files should add %exclude lines for everything in -devel.
See the example:
http://fedoraproject.org/w/uploads/5/5c/Packaging_OCaml_ocaml-foolib.spec
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
+ large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
+ -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8
Optional:
n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock
+ the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
- review should test the package functions as described
n/a scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
Please fix the directory ownership issue.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492091] Review Request: zikula-module-Content - Page editing module for Zikula
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492091 --- Comment #1 from LukasHetzi l...@gmx.at 2009-03-25 08:08:05 EDT --- Spec URL: http://lukashetzi.lu.funpic.de/zikula-rpms/zikula-module-Content.spec SRPM URL: http://lukashetzi.lu.funpic.de/zikula-rpms/zikula-module-Content-3.0.3.1.20091002svn-2.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492091] Review Request: zikula-module-Content - Page editing module for Zikula
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492091 LukasHetzi l...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |zikula-Content - Content|zikula-module-Content - |module for Zikula |Page editing module for ||Zikula -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458826] Review Request: s390utils - Linux/390 specific utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458826 --- Comment #9 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-03-25 08:08:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) A few additional comments: Is there really no download location for the three tarballs? If there's any way to get them, you need to either use full URLs on the Source: lines or, if the URLs are weird and RPM can't handle them, include them as comments. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL. Direct URLs for the sources are added with user-clickable URLs in comments. In a multiple license scenario, there needs to be some documentation of which parts of the package are under which license. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines Each subpackage should have proper license tag and I will work with the IBM developers on a licensing overview for the individual utilities. I'm not really sure there's any point in having Linux - in those summary entries. Isn't it a bit obvious? The compiler ends up being called with -O3. I'm not sure this is a big deal, really, but generally we like to see the default set of compiler flags applied. Thanks for catching this, parts other than the s390-tools were even built without our CFLAGS. I'm pretty sure that everything else about this package is OK, but there's a lot there. yes, it is ... Updated Spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/s390/s390utils.spec Updated SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/s390/s390utils-1.8.0-5.el5.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23348 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch 2009-03-25 08:13:53 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mingw32-wpcap Short Description: MinGW Windows pcap library. Owners: sailer rjones Branches: F-10 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485417] Review Request: bochs-bios - bios implementation from the bochs project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485417 --- Comment #28 from Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 08:17:12 EDT --- glauber: any progress on EOL-ing 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 492019] Review Request: cfourcc - Change the FOURCC of an MPEG4 or DivX video.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492019 Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tim.laurid...@googlemail.co ||m --- Comment #1 from Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com 2009-03-25 08:18:35 EDT --- i think you shall use 'GPVv2+' as license based on the the header in the source file. snip This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. /snip -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491712] Review Request: ocaml-mlgmpidl - OCaml interface to GMP and MPFR libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491712 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 08:22:04 EDT --- OK that fixes the problem. -- This package is APPROVED by rjones -- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490380] Review Request: qt-creator - Lightweight and cross-platform IDE for Qt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490380 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2009-03-25 08:26:17 EDT --- I'll take a look, but packaging-wise this is pretty simple. Offhand, some of the patches could be reworked to be more upstream'able, but that the can be addressed post-review. sources match upstream: 5478124035d80a90e66a3db67ab4477a qt-creator-1.0.0-src.zip rpmlint output: $ rpmlint *.rpm qt-creator.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/qtcreator/templates/qt4project/mywidget.cpp qt-creator.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/qtcreator/templates/qt4project/mywidget.h qt-creator.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/qtcreator/templates/qt4project/main.cpp qt-creator.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/qtcreator/templates/qt4project/mywidget_form.cpp qt-creator.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/qtcreator/libCPlusPlus.so qt-creator.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/qtcreator/libUtils.so qt-creator.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/qtcreator/libAggregation.so qt-creator.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/qtcreator/libQtConcurrent.so qt-creator.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/qtcreator/libExtensionSystem.so qt-creator.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/qtcreator/templates/qt4project/mywidget_form.h qt-creator.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/qtcreator/gdbmacros/gdbmacros.cpp qt-creator.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/qtcreator ['$ORIGIN/../lib64/qtcreator'] qt-creator.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/qtcreator/libQtConcurrent.so.1.0.0 ['$ORIGIN/../lib64/qtcreator'] qt-creator.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/qtcreator/libExtensionSystem.so.1.0.0 ['$ORIGIN/../lib64/qtcreator'] qt-creator.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/qtcreator/libCPlusPlus.so.1.0.0 ['$ORIGIN/../lib64/qtcreator'] qt-creator.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/qtcreator/libAggregation.so.1.0.0 ['$ORIGIN/../lib64/qtcreator'] qt-creator.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/qtcreator/plugins/Nokia/libQuickOpen.so ['$ORIGIN', '$ORIGIN/..', '$ORIGIN/../..'] qt-creator.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/qtcreator/plugins/Nokia/libDebugger.so ['$ORIGIN', '$ORIGIN/..', '$ORIGIN/../..'] qt-creator.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/qtcreator/plugins/Nokia/libCppTools.so ['$ORIGIN', '$ORIGIN/..', '$ORIGIN/../..'] qt-creator.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/qtcreator/plugins/Nokia/libProjectExplorer.so ['$ORIGIN', '$ORIGIN/..', '$ORIGIN/../..'] qt-creator.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/qtcreator/plugins/Nokia/libQt4ProjectManager.so ['$ORIGIN', '$ORIGIN/..', '$ORIGIN/../..'] qt-creator.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/qtcreator/plugins/Nokia/libDesigner.so ['$ORIGIN', '$ORIGIN/..', '$ORIGIN/../..'] qt-creator.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/qtcreator/plugins/Nokia/libTextEditor.so ['$ORIGIN', '$ORIGIN/..', '$ORIGIN/../..'] qt-creator.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/qtcreator/plugins/Nokia/libCore.so ['$ORIGIN', '$ORIGIN/..', '$ORIGIN/../..'] qt-creator.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/qtcreator/plugins/Nokia/libCMakeProjectManager.so ['$ORIGIN', '$ORIGIN/..', '$ORIGIN/../..'] qt-creator.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/qtcreator/plugins/Nokia/libQtScriptEditor.so ['$ORIGIN', '$ORIGIN/..', '$ORIGIN/../..'] qt-creator.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/qtcreator/plugins/Nokia/libBinEditor.so
[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 --- Comment #10 from Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 08:31:11 EDT --- Two comments: - qsexec could/should be in qtscriptgenerator package - the same with README and README.qsexec (maybe LICENSE.GPL too as it applies for generator, not bindings?) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492107] New: Review Request: mythes-nl - Dutch thesaurus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mythes-nl - Dutch thesaurus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492107 Summary: Review Request: mythes-nl - Dutch thesaurus 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/mythes-nl.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/mythes-nl-0.20090325-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Dutch thesaurus -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491712] Review Request: ocaml-mlgmpidl - OCaml interface to GMP and MPFR libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491712 Alan Dunn amd...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Alan Dunn amd...@gmail.com 2009-03-25 08:30:02 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ocaml-mlgmpidl Short Description: OCaml interface to GMP and MPFR libraries Owners: amdunn 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 225945] Merge Review: jfsutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225945 --- Comment #16 from Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com 2009-03-25 08:49:09 EDT --- Changes in CVS -- 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 492107] Review Request: mythes-nl - Dutch thesaurus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492107 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492110] New: Review Request: mingw32-libsigc++20 - MinGW Windows port of the typesafe signal framework for C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mingw32-libsigc++20 - MinGW Windows port of the typesafe signal framework for C++ Alias: mingw32-libsigc++20 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492110 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-libsigc++20 - MinGW Windows port of the typesafe signal framework for C++ Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com, fedora-mi...@lists.fedoraproject.org Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-libsigc++20.spec SRPM URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-libsigc++20-2.2.2-5.fc11.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows port of the typesafe signal framework for C++ This is just Richard M. W. Jones unmodified Spec file. Approved MinGW packaging guidelines are here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470703] Review Request: links 2 - text mode browser with graphics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470703 --- Comment #19 from Ondrej Vasik ova...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 09:02:21 EDT --- Just FYI ... I modified elinks to use alternatives for links . Elinks priority chosen as 90, I'm ok with anything lower for links2 and even something higher for possible links1 in future. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 --- Comment #11 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2009-03-25 09:02:33 EDT --- I thought about keeping qsexec along with the bindings, but I'm ok either way. Licensing... I attached it to the pkg lowest in the stack (qtscriptgenerator currently Requires: qtscriptbindings). Again, I'm ok either way. Any remaining review blockers? (that other stuff can be modified post-review, no?) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492107] Review Request: mythes-nl - Dutch thesaurus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492107 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-03-25 09:06:09 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i586). koji build = http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1258129 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url a3e8bb6f70957a6e35b11d59e0ad4716 thes_nl_v2.zip + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. Suggestions: 1) License tag should be LGPLv2+ 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 492110] Review Request: mingw32-libsigc++20 - MinGW Windows port of the typesafe signal framework for 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=492110 Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||492113(mingw32-glibmm24) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492113] New: Review Request: mingw32-glibmm24 - MinGW Windows C++ interface for GTK2 (a GUI library for X)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mingw32-glibmm24 - MinGW Windows C++ interface for GTK2 (a GUI library for X) Alias: mingw32-glibmm24 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492113 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-glibmm24 - MinGW Windows C++ interface for GTK2 (a GUI library for X) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com, fedora-mi...@lists.fedoraproject.org Depends on: 492110 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-glibmm24.spec SRPM URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-glibmm24-2.19.2-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows C++ interface for GTK2 (a GUI library for X) Approved MinGW packaging guidelines are here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490462] Review Request: rpmorphan - List the orphaned rpm packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490462
leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com 2009-03-25
09:13:58 EDT ---
The package builds OK at Koji
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1257868
rpmlint returns
rpmlint -vi rpmorphan-1.4-4.fc11.src.rpm rpmorphan.src: I: checking
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint -vi rpmorphan-1.4-4.fc11.noarch.rpmrpmorphan.noarch: I: checking
rpmorphan.noarch: E: zero-length /var/lib/rpmorphan/keep
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
This error can be ignored.
-keep-file
define the keep file to be used. If not set, the /var/lib/rpmorphan/keep
will be used
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: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:rpmorphan.noarch: E: zero-length /var/lib/rpmorphan/keep
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type per spec: 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 match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: 28b66dda335721de09337983f42c8c38b5e417b2
rpmorphan-1.4.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
=see preamble
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Final provides and requires are sane.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1257868
[-] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: F10/x86_64
[x] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check is present and the test passes.
Is it possible to contact the author and asked him to
include license info in all the source files.
Package approved
P.S this is my first 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
[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||492110(mingw32-libsigc++20) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454410] Review Request: mingw32-gcc - MinGW Windows cross-compiler (GCC) for C and C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454410 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||492113(mingw32-glibmm24) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492110] Review Request: mingw32-libsigc++20 - MinGW Windows port of the typesafe signal framework for 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=492110 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rjo...@redhat.com Depends on||454410(mingw32-gcc) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492113] Review Request: mingw32-glibmm24 - MinGW Windows C++ interface for GTK2 (a GUI library for X)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492113 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rjo...@redhat.com Depends on||454410(mingw32-gcc) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490462] Review Request: rpmorphan - List the orphaned rpm packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490462 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 09:39:26 EDT --- No problems with that review, welcome to Fedora! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: rpmorphan Short Description: List the orphaned rpm packages Owners: rjones Branches: F-10 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492110] Review Request: mingw32-libsigc++20 - MinGW Windows port of the typesafe signal framework for 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=492110 Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||492122(mingw32-cairomm) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492122] New: Review Request: mingw32-cairomm - MinGW Windows C++ API for the cairo graphics library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mingw32-cairomm - MinGW Windows C++ API for the cairo graphics library Alias: mingw32-cairomm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492122 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-cairomm - MinGW Windows C++ API for the cairo graphics library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com, fedora-mi...@lists.fedoraproject.org Depends on: 492110 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-cairomm.spec SRPM URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-cairomm-1.8.0-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows C++ API for the cairo graphics library Approved MinGW packaging guidelines are here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492107] Review Request: mythes-nl - Dutch thesaurus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492107 Caolan McNamara caol...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Caolan McNamara caol...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 09:54:06 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mythes-nl Short Description: Dutch thesaurus Owners: caolanm Branches: devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492122] Review Request: mingw32-cairomm - MinGW Windows C++ API for the cairo graphics 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=492122 Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||492125(mingw32-pangomm) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492125] New: Review Request: mingw32-pangomm - MinGW Windows C++ interface for Pango
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mingw32-pangomm - MinGW Windows C++ interface for Pango Alias: mingw32-pangomm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492125 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-pangomm - MinGW Windows C++ interface for Pango Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com, fedora-mi...@lists.fedoraproject.org Depends on: 492122 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-pangomm.spec SRPM URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-pangomm-2.14.1-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows C++ interface for Pango Approved MinGW packaging guidelines are here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Levente Farkas lfar...@lfarkas.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(lfar...@lfarkas.o | |rg) | --- Comment #8 from Levente Farkas lfar...@lfarkas.org 2009-03-25 10:08:51 EDT --- i updated the spec to build tools and not to requires it (since imho it has no reason even in the native packages): http://www.lfarkas.org/linux/packages/centos/5/SPECS/mingw32-gstreamer.spec http://www.lfarkas.org/linux/packages/centos/5/SRPMS/mingw32-gstreamer-0.10.22-2.src.rpm koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1258243 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485417] Review Request: bochs-bios - bios implementation from the bochs project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485417 --- Comment #29 from Glauber de Oliveira Costa gco...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 10:11:00 EDT --- To the best of my knowledge, this is EOLd already. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 10:14:33 EDT --- It's OK for me now, so 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 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 Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2009-03-25 10:24:05 EDT --- Thanks. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: qtscriptgenerator Short Description: A tool to generate Qt bindings for Qt Script 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 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 #7 from John W. Linville linvi...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 10:25:17
EDT ---
Spec URL: http://linville.fedorapeople.org/unzoo.spec
SRPM URL: http://linville.fedorapeople.org/unzoo-4.4-2.fc10.src.rpm
- Use 'gcc %{optflags}' for compile
- Remove '-O' from compile command
- Compile %{SOURCE0} to avoid unnecessary copy operation during prep phase
- Move rm -rf %{buildroot} to the top of the install phase
- Generate unzoo.txt from unzoo.c during prep phase and change %doc line to
match
- Use install -Dpm 755 unzoo %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/unzoo
- Add %{?dist} to the Release line
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485417] Review Request: bochs-bios - bios implementation from the bochs project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485417 Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #30 from Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com 2009-03-25 10:32:48 EDT --- Yeah, you're right: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/bochs-bios/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491946] Review Request: odfpy07 - compat package for odfpy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491946
Michel Alexandre Salim michel.syl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michel.syl...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel.syl...@gmail.com
2009-03-25 10:40:45 EDT ---
The naming convention (I've not seen a guideline for this) appears to be to
have compatibility packages be named compat-%{name} (or, more rarely,
%{name}-compat). e.g. compat-db*, compat-gcc-*, compat-python24*.
How about compat-odfpy07?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491946] Review Request: odfpy07 - compat package for odfpy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491946 --- Comment #2 from Matthew Daniels daniel...@gmail.com 2009-03-25 10:53:30 EDT --- The only guideline I was really going off of there was from the Naming Guidelines' example [1] about openssl and openssl096b. I'd be happy to change it to compat-odfpy07 if that's the convention. I'll upload a new SPEC/SRPM file as soon as I get the chance to make the edit. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492130] New: Review Request: mingw32-gtkmm24 - MinGW Windows C++ interface for GTK2 (a GUI library for X)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mingw32-gtkmm24 - MinGW Windows C++ interface for GTK2 (a GUI library for X) Alias: mingw32-gtkmm24 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492130 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-gtkmm24 - MinGW Windows C++ interface for GTK2 (a GUI library for X) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com, fedora-mi...@lists.fedoraproject.org Depends on: 492125 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-gtkmm24.spec SRPM URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-gtkmm24-2.15.0-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows C++ interface for GTK2 (a GUI library for X) Approved MinGW packaging guidelines are here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492125] Review Request: mingw32-pangomm - MinGW Windows C++ interface for Pango
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492125 Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||492130(mingw32-gtkmm24) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||492130(mingw32-gtkmm24) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492130] Review Request: mingw32-gtkmm24 - MinGW Windows C++ interface for GTK2 (a GUI library for X)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492130 Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||491614(mingw32-libglademm24 ||) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492113] Review Request: mingw32-glibmm24 - MinGW Windows C++ interface for GTK2 (a GUI library for X)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492113 Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||491617(mingw32-libxml++) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491617] Review Request: mingw32-libxml++ - MinGW Windows C++ wrapper for libxml2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491617 Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||492113(mingw32-glibmm24) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492133] New: Review Request: mingw32-libglade2 - MinGW Windows Libglade2 library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mingw32-libglade2 - MinGW Windows Libglade2 library Alias: mingw-libglade2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492133 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-libglade2 - MinGW Windows Libglade2 library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com, fedora-mi...@lists.fedoraproject.org Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-libglade2.spec SRPM URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-libglade2-2.6.3-5.fc11.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows Libglade2 library This is Richard M.W. Jones unmodified spec file. Approved MinGW packaging guidelines are here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492091] Review Request: zikula-module-Content - Page editing module for Zikula
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492091 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a.bad...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com 2009-03-25 11:08:58 EDT --- Hi! I'll sponsor you after you do some reviewing to show your understanding of the Packaging Guidelines ( http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ) (or that you're learning them ;-). I understand that ke4qq is going to be adding a few more zikula modules soon which should be good fodder 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 475852] Review Request: gnustep-base - GNUstep Base library package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475852 --- Comment #21 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-03-25 11:24:50 EDT --- OK, sounds good for mee. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455500] Review Request: OpenGTL -- graphics transformation languages (used by krita2)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455500 --- Comment #18 from Matthew Woehlke mw_tr...@users.sourceforge.net 2009-03-25 11:24:33 EDT --- So should I open another bug that the package is missing, or what? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455500] Review Request: OpenGTL -- graphics transformation languages (used by krita2)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455500 --- Comment #19 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2009-03-25 11:47:38 EDT --- Yeah, when if we have someone willing/able to maintain this, I'd suggest opening a new and proper review. Matthew, if you've got anything newer than what's posted here already, please send it my way... I'll get round-tuit before f12 (when koffice2 is estimated to land in fedora), unless someone else beats me to the punch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467703] Review Request: lekhonee - A blog 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=467703 Kushal Das kushal...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #16 from Kushal Das kushal...@gmail.com 2009-03-25 11:54:33 EDT --- Package imported -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487938] Review Request: scheme2js - Scheme to JavaScript compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487938 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||20081219-2.fc10 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
