[Bug 492816] Review Request: show - A SQL-like interface for the command line
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492816 --- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-03-30 02:47:56 EDT --- I very much like the project itself, but can I persuade you to change its name to something less generic ? The current name does not really express what it does (it made me think of yet another video player..) and most important, contradicts the recommendation expressed at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Use_of_common_namespace -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492712] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Server-Simple-Static - Serve static files with HTTP::Server::Simple
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492712 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-03-30 03:00:38 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i586). koji Build = http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1264875 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 79463e02883f6d66018b371eea59c137 HTTP-Server-Simple-Static-0.07.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 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. + make test gave All tests successful. Files=3, Tests=5, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.00 sys + 0.26 cusr 0.03 csys = 0.31 CPU) + Package perl-HTTP-Server-Simple-Static-0.07-1.fc11.noarch = Provides: perl(HTTP::Server::Simple::Static) = 0.07 Requires: /usr/bin/perl perl(File::MMagic) perl(File::Spec::Functions) perl(HTTP::Server::Simple::Static) perl(IO::File) perl(MIME::Types) perl(URI::Escape) perl(base) perl(bytes) perl(lib) perl(strict) perl(warnings) Suggestions: 1) I think example.pl should be installed as %doc file. 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 491805] Review Request: django-sct - A collection of Django applications for building community websites
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491805 --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-03-30 03:14:08 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i586). koji build = http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1264873 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url e5980b3a9d6653adbe42107d1810c638 sct-0.5.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. + BuildRequires are proper. + defattr usage is correct. + %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. + Not a GUI App. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 #5 from Daniel Kopeček dkope...@redhat.com 2009-03-30 03:56:44
EDT ---
rpmlint output:
openscap.i386: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/openscap-0.1.3/NEWS
openscap-python.i386: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
# The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
+ Ok
# The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ Ok
# The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
- NOT Ok
- %doc in the -python subpackage is missing
- %doc in the -devel subpackage installs the documentation files in docs/
directory (/usr/share/doc/openscap.../docs/) which is redundant.
- %doc in the -devel subpackage installs unneeded files: Doxyfile
# The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
# The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license
+ Ok
# If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
+ Ok
# The spec file must be written in American English.
+ Probably ok :]
# The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
+ Ok
# The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
+ Ok
+ MD5(UPSTREAM/openscap-0.1.3.tar.gz)= 99afff85b6884fd422013db99cf61f62
+ MD5( SOURCES/openscap-0.1.3.tar.gz)= 99afff85b6884fd422013db99cf61f62
# The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least
one primary architecture.
+ Ok
+ dist-f10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1264946
+ dist-f11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1264952
# All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
+ Ok
# Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ Ok
# A package must own all directories that it creates.
+ Ok
# A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
+ Ok
# Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
+ Ok
# Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ Ok
# Each package must consistently use macros.
+ Ok
# The package must contain code, or permissable content.
+ Ok
# If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
+ Ok
# Header files must be in a -devel package.
+ Ok
# If a package contains library files with a suffix, then library files that
end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
+ Ok
# In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ Ok
# Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in
the spec if they are built.
+ Ok
# Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
+ Ok
# At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
+ 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 454980] Review Request: axel - Download accelerator, wget replacement
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454980 --- Comment #34 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-03-30 03:57:14 EDT --- Comment 14 starts with comments on the the buffer overflow/security issues. Hmmm. It is generated by standard %find_lang macros. It isn't. The %find_lang macro only finds message/translation object files. configure patched to use those flags. I assume there all right. Not true. Wrong assumption. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se 2009-03-30 04:17:01 EDT --- Package 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 Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch 2009-03-30 04:31:39 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mingw32-libsigc++20 Short Description: MinGW Windows port of the typesafe signal framework for C++ 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 488168] Package Review: ibus-table-wubi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488168
Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||panem...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|peter...@redhat.com |panem...@gmail.com
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-03-30 04:32:01
EDT ---
Review:
+ package builds in mock (rawhide i586).
koji build = http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1264871
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM.
+ source files match upstream url
8aa15f5b6d1b12068b22ff5e9639a277 ibus-table-wubi-1.1.0.20090327.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.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ defattr usage is correct.
+ %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.
+ ibus-table-createdb scriptlet used.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ Not a GUI App.
Suggestions:
1) Change license to GPLv3+
2) Good if you preserve timestamp of svg file also. Use
make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install 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 492831] New: Review Request: libmkv - An alternative to the official libmatroska 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: libmkv - An alternative to the official libmatroska library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492831 Summary: Review Request: libmkv - An alternative to the official libmatroska library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: bjohn...@symetrix.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~bjohnson/libmkv.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~bjohnson/libmkv-0.6.3.1-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: This library is meant to be an alternative to the official libmatroska library. It is writen in plain C, and is intended to be very portable. $ rpmlint mock-results/*rpm libmkv-devel.i386: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. There is no developer documentation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492834] New: Review Request: spawn-fcgi - Simple program for spawning FastCGI processes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: spawn-fcgi - Simple program for spawning FastCGI processes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492834 Summary: Review Request: spawn-fcgi - Simple program for spawning FastCGI processes Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: matth...@rpmforge.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://thias.fedorapeople.org/review/spawn-fcgi/spawn-fcgi.spec SRPM URL: http://thias.fedorapeople.org/review/spawn-fcgi/spawn-fcgi-1.6.1-1.src.rpm Description: This package contains the spawn-fcgi program used for spawning FastCGI processes, which can be local or remote. Note: The spawn-fcgi program is currently included in a sub-package from the lighttpd source package, but upstream will remove it from lighttpd shortly, so this separate source package will be required. More details : http://www.lighttpd.net/2009/2/28/spawn-fcgi-1-6-0 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 #6 from Peter Vrabec pvra...@redhat.com 2009-03-30 06:25:27 EDT --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/pvrabec/scap/openscap.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/pvrabec/scap/openscap-0.1.4-1.fc9.src.rpm + upgrade + doc fixes for -devel subpackage ! python subpackage is without documentation files yet, because it's in very early stage. Documentation files will be provided as soon as possible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Daniel Kopeček dkope...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |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 489014] Review Request: gnome-do-plugins - Plugins for Gnome Do
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489014 --- Comment #2 from David Nielsen gnomeu...@gmail.com 2009-03-30 07:19:15 EDT --- Paul, are you still interested in 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 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 --- Comment #6 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se 2009-03-30 07:59:57 EDT --- As I said the only two possibly relevant comment were the two warnings about bad permissions. I said in my review that this should be fixed if it doesn't break anything. My review comments were stated in such a way that if you could give a good argument for it, I would be happy to leave the executable permissions there if they are needed. The page you quote in comment 5 says in the section about spurious-executable-perm that things might break if the .a file does not have executable permissions, and that the executable permissions are the default output of the tools and that you want to keep it that way. That is fine with me. The page also gives a comment about the script-without-shebang for the .la files. The text under this heading seems to be off topic. The text says that the .la files should not be removed - which is already stated clearly in the main MinGW Packaging Guidelines page. And totally fails to address the reason for the rpmlint warning, which is that the .la file has executable permission. If also the .la file needs to have executable permissions, it would be better to repeat the comment from the section about spurious-executable-perm in this section, than to state the redundant and irrelevant information it currently contains. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 --- Comment #8 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-03-30 08:13:14 EDT --- s/like/link/ ... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 --- Comment #7 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-03-30 08:12:51 EDT --- No problem, I just added like FYI :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 gerbier eric.gerb...@free.fr changed: What|Removed |Added CC||eric.gerb...@free.fr --- Comment #23 from gerbier eric.gerb...@free.fr 2009-03-30 08:14:16 EDT --- I will answer as rpmorphan developper : - for the orphan terminology, I began to work on this project when no other tools exists for rpm packages. The idea comes from debian tools : deborphan, so I adopt the debian terminology. Please note that the spec description already tries to give a definition :It determines which packages have no other packages depending on their installation - for the perl-tk dependency : rpmorphan can work without Tk, this is not a required dependency, just optional. Another Gui is provided, based on ncurses (perl module Curses::UI), so if Tk is added, you should add Curses too. - for the licence info : it is already included in all perl scripts. In which files should I add it ? I will merge my own spec file with the fedora ones. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478749] Review Request: dinotrace - X11 waveform viewer for electronics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478749 --- Comment #18 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-03-30 08:16:56 EDT --- I have just tried to use dinotrace-9.3f-4.fc10.x86_64 and dinotrace-9.3f-5.fc10.x86_64. Both try to load a GUI and both segfault immediately after that. Runnin strace -f dinotrace gives the attached log -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478749] Review Request: dinotrace - X11 waveform viewer for electronics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478749 --- Comment #19 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-03-30 08:18:15 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=337209) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=337209) output from strace -f dinotrace [wo...@wolfy tmp]$ rpm -q dinotrace dinotrace-9.3f-5.fc10.x86_64 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478749] Review Request: dinotrace - X11 waveform viewer for electronics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478749 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #337209|application/octet-stream|text/plain mime type|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226111] Merge Review: lvm2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226111 --- Comment #8 from Alasdair Kergon a...@redhat.com 2009-03-30 08:25:30 EDT --- That licensecheck script is not very helpful! It should be more like rpmlint and say *why* it doesn't like the licence statements! Typos or obsolete versions perhaps? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490438] Review Request: rhn-client-tools - Support programs and libraries for Red Hat Network or Spacewalk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490438 --- Comment #4 from Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com 2009-03-30 08:27:03 EDT --- Updated SPEC: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rhn-client-tools/rhn-client-tools.spec SRPM: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rhn-client-tools/rhn-client-tools-0.4.23-1.src.rpm I added .desktop file (it is my first .desktop, hope I done it correctly). I added allowed-actions ownership. And about the python location... I asked and got these response: Well as the guidelines say, we have our python *modules* (eg: rhnlib) in python_sitelib. I don't really consider our server/client code to be a utility module that belongs to sitelib and as far as I see its placed right in /usr/share/. Of course its before my time this decision was made, but I think its the right one. We should not have code in sitelib unless its a module that could be used generically. Anyway, thats my take. All they have to do is add that path to their PYTHONPATH. I don't think python guidelines enforce all the code to be in python-sitelibs anywhere. -- Prad -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226111] Merge Review: lvm2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226111 --- Comment #9 from Alasdair Kergon a...@redhat.com 2009-03-30 08:30:03 EDT --- Source0 with full URL: How does that work? How does rpmbuild use the URL? What if the person running it has no internet connectivity at the time? Does 'make newbuild' use this instead of the 'mirrors' file now? If not, is there an enhancement bugzilla filed to integrate the two so the same info is not stored in two places? -- 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 226111] Merge Review: lvm2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226111 --- Comment #10 from Alasdair Kergon a...@redhat.com 2009-03-30 08:34:07 EDT --- We do not 'provide' lvm. lvm is the old obsolete package which does not form part of Fedora 10, but might be present on a system if someone is installing the rpm on an old system and which has to be removed. 'lvm2' version numbers are independent of 'lvm' version numbers. -- 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 226111] Merge Review: lvm2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226111
--- Comment #11 from Alasdair Kergon a...@redhat.com 2009-03-30 08:35:32 EDT
---
What does '%{?_smp_mflags}' expand to? Then yes, someone needs to tackle
fixing the build to work with it.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #9 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se 2009-03-30 08:34:52 EDT --- There doesn't seem to be a link from the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW page to the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW/Rpmlint page. Which is probably why I didn't see it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491862] Review Request: kde-style-skulpture - Classical three-dimensional style for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491862 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-30 08:42:42 EDT --- kde-style-skulpture-0.2.2-4.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kde-style-skulpture-0.2.2-4.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491862] Review Request: kde-style-skulpture - Classical three-dimensional style for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491862 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-30 08:43:39 EDT --- kde-style-skulpture-0.2.2-4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kde-style-skulpture-0.2.2-4.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488175] Package Review: ibus-table-extraphrase
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488175
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?
--- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-03-30 04:50:30
EDT ---
Suggestions:
1) Change license to GPLv3+
2) Good if you preserve timestamp of svg file also. Use
make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install INSTALL=install -p
3) use macros.
replace /usr/share/ with %{_datadir}
why not .db files created and installed in this package?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492810] Review Request: RabbIT - proxy for a faster web
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492810 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||RabbIT -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 --- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-03-30 07:04:02 EDT --- WRT comment 1, see also: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW/Rpmlint -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491892] Review Request: openscap - Set of open source libraries enabling integration of the SCAP line of standards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491892 Peter Vrabec pvra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Peter Vrabec pvra...@redhat.com 2009-03-30 09:38:48 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: openscap Short Description: Set of open source libraries enabling integration of the SCAP line of standards Owners: pvrabec 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 492600] Review Request: oxygen-icon-theme - Oxygen Icon Theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492600 Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jrez...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jrez...@redhat.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 492266] Review Request: photoprint-borders Collection of frames for PhotoPrint utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492266 --- Comment #3 from Zarko zarko.pin...@gmail.com 2009-03-30 10:03:11 EDT --- Spec URL: http://wiki.open.hr/~zpintar/fedora10/SPECS/photoprint-borders.spec SRPM URL: http://wiki.open.hr/~zpintar/fedora10/SRPMS/photoprint-borders-0.0.2-3.fc10.src.rpm License changed to Creative Commons (CC-BY) zarko -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226111] Merge Review: lvm2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226111
--- Comment #12 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-03-30 10:03:02
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Source0 with full URL: How does that work? How does rpmbuild use the URL?
What if the person running it has no internet connectivity at the time? Does
'make newbase' use this instead of the 'mirrors' file now? If not, is there
an
enhancement bugzilla filed to integrate the two so the same info is not stored
in two places?
IIUC rpmbuild doesn't use the URL per se, but you can get the sources with
spectool -g specfile.spec
This way you don't have to download the sources by hand whenever a new version
is released.
(In reply to comment #10)
We do not 'provide' lvm.
lvm is the old obsolete package which does not form part of Fedora 10, but
might be present on a system if someone is installing the rpm on an old system
and which has to be removed. 'lvm2' version numbers are independent of 'lvm'
version numbers.
Okay, it seems I have misunderstood the need for Provides. If lvm2 is not
compatible with lvm, then the provides line must not be there.
(In reply to comment #11)
What does '%{?_smp_mflags}' expand to? Then yes, someone needs to tackle
fixing the build to work with it.
It's expanded as -j (number of cores on system), as specified in
/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/macros:
%_smp_mflags %([ -z $RPM_BUILD_NCPUS ] \\\
RPM_BUILD_NCPUS=`/usr/bin/getconf _NPROCESSORS_ONLN`; \\\
[ $RPM_BUILD_NCPUS -gt 1 ] echo -j$RPM_BUILD_NCPUS)
--
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 489929] Review request: libHBAAPI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489929 --- Comment #1 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-03-30 10:13:18 EDT --- formal review is here, see the notes below: BAD source files match upstream: BAD package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK* rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK correct scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK headers in -devel OK pkgconfig files in -devel OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. - full URLs for Sources are missing - the %name tag should be all in lowercase to be consistent with archive name (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines) - it's preferred to have the Requires for the devel sub-package on separate lines - rpmlint complains a bit: libHBAAPI-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license SNIA libHBAAPI-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license SNIA libHBAAPI.src: W: invalid-license SNIA libHBAAPI.x86_64: W: invalid-license SNIA = SNIA license was recently added to the list of good licenses and is not yet known to rpmlint libHBAAPI.src: E: invalid-spec-name = package name and spec filename are not in sync libHBAAPI-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation = can be ignored - you can apply the includes patch supplied by the hbaapi_build archive instead of using an own copy -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 489014] Review Request: gnome-do-plugins - Plugins for Gnome Do
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489014 --- Comment #3 from Paul Lange pala...@gmx.de 2009-03-30 10:58:45 EDT --- Yes I am. But currently I don't have time to work further on this - so if anybody is interested to work on this feel free to take it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492600] Review Request: oxygen-icon-theme - Oxygen Icon Theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492600 --- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com 2009-03-30 11:12:37 EDT --- package name: OK SPEC name matches package name: OK rpmlint: NOT OK - oxygen-icon-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation - there are docs in pics/oxygen/, at least COPYING has to be distributed with this package buildroot: OK license: NOT OK - oxygen theme is licensed under LGPLv3+ not GPLv2 source md5 matches upstream: OK buildrequires: OK - remove bogus BRs after oxygen standalone release package owns created dirs: NOT OK? - main package: OK - scalable: ? as rpmls doesn't list created directories permissions: OK clean section: OK no dupes: OK package builds on: F10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492600] Review Request: oxygen-icon-theme - Oxygen Icon Theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492600 --- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2009-03-30 11:29:24 EDT --- * Mon Mar 30 2009 Rex Dieter rdie...@fedoraproject.org - 4.2.1-11 - License: LGPLv3+ - %%doc: AUTHORS CONTRIBUTING COPYING TODO* Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/oxygen-icon-theme/oxygen-icon-theme.spec (didn't re-up the biggish srpm) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492895] New: Review Request: xml-security-c - C++ Implementation of W3C security standards for XML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: xml-security-c - C++ Implementation of W3C security standards for XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492895 Summary: Review Request: xml-security-c - C++ Implementation of W3C security standards for XML Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: antti.andreim...@mail.ee QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://anttix.org/fedora/pkg/xml-security-c.spec SRPM URL: http://anttix.org/fedora/pkg/xml-security-c-1.4.0-1.src.rpm Description: The xml-security-c library is a C++ implementation of the XML Digital Signature specification. The library makes use of the Apache XML project's Xerces-C XML Parser and Xalan-C XSLT processor. The latter is used for processing XPath and XSLT transforms. Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1265924 This be mer first package in fedora mate, and me seeking aie sponsor. Will buy a pint on request. Cheers! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492895] Review Request: xml-security-c - C++ Implementation of W3C security standards for XML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492895 Antti Andreimann antti.andreim...@mail.ee changed: What|Removed |Added 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 492600] Review Request: oxygen-icon-theme - Oxygen Icon Theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492600 --- Comment #3 from Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com 2009-03-30 11:47:38 EDT --- Ok, thanks. I'm not sure about owner of all scalable directories. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490438] Review Request: rhn-client-tools - Support programs and libraries for Red Hat Network or Spacewalk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490438 --- Comment #5 from Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com 2009-03-30 11:54:04 EDT --- Ops, the previous one did not build Updated SPEC: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rhn-client-tools/rhn-client-tools.spec SRPM: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rhn-client-tools/rhn-client-tools-0.4.24-1.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 492898] New: Review Request: griffith - Media collection manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: griffith - Media collection manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492898 Summary: Review Request: griffith - Media collection manager Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cassmod...@fedoraproject.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/griffith-0.9.9/griffith.spec SRPM URL: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/griffith-0.9.9/griffith-0.9.9-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Griffith is a media collection manager application. Adding items to the collection is as quick and easy as typing the film title and selecting a supported source. Griffith will then try to fetch all the related information from the Web. This Version comes with SQLite support. You need to install * the package MySQL-python for MySQL-support * the package python-psycopg2 for PostgreSQL-support -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492900] New: Review Request: epigrafica-fonts - Extended and improved version of MgOpen Cosmetica font family
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: epigrafica-fonts - Extended and improved version of MgOpen Cosmetica font family https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492900 Summary: Review Request: epigrafica-fonts - Extended and improved version of MgOpen Cosmetica font family Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: tcall...@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://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/epigrafica-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/epigrafica-fonts-1.01-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: The Epigrafica family of fonts is an extended and improved version of the MgOpen Cosmetica font family. It is based on the Optima designs by Hermann Zapf. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247482] Review Request: pwsafe - A unix command line utility that manages encrypted password databases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=247482 Jonathan Steffan jonathanstef...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |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 247482] Review Request: pwsafe - A unix command line utility that manages encrypted password databases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=247482 Jonathan Steffan jonathanstef...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED CC||jonathanstef...@gmail.com Resolution|NEXTRELEASE | --- Comment #13 from Jonathan Steffan jonathanstef...@gmail.com 2009-03-30 12:37:21 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: pwsafe New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476346] Review Request: python-polybori - Framework for Boolean Rings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476346 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #21 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-03-30 12:43:22 EDT --- Okay, now it seems okay with replacing like below: --- sed -i -e 's|^LDFLAGS_LINUX.*-s|LDFLAGS_LINUX = -lcudd -lcuddobj|' \ polybori/Makefile.in sed -i -e s|\['-s'\]|['-lcudd -lcuddobj']| SConstruct --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1265939 --- This package (python-polybori) is APPROVED by mtasaka --- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226111] Merge Review: lvm2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226111 --- Comment #14 from Alasdair Kergon a...@redhat.com 2009-03-30 13:05:48 EDT --- If rpmbuild ignores all except the last path component then that should be OK for us. -- 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 226111] Merge Review: lvm2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226111 --- Comment #13 from Alasdair Kergon a...@redhat.com 2009-03-30 13:04:33 EDT --- We used to use -j2 by default upstream, then removed it to leave it to the discretion of the build utility, so something must have got broken... -- 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 488175] Package Review: ibus-table-extraphrase
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488175 Caius kaio Chance dejie...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dejie...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Caius kaio Chance dejie...@gmail.com 2009-03-30 13:22:07 EDT --- HI Parag, Thanks, I will fix 1 - 3 asap. As in pre 1.1 version, extra_phrase.txt existed without creation. I keep this because of completeness of ibus-table. This will be investigated after all packages have entered rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 251805] Review Request: postgresql-orafce - Implementation of some Oracle functions into PostgreSQL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251805 --- Comment #15 from Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com 2009-03-30 13:29:50 EDT --- Would you mind posting updated spec and srpm. That one I can download from your scratch build do not work for me: $ rpm -Uvh orafce-2.1.4-1.fc11.src.rpm 1:orafce warning: user mockbuild does not exist - using root warning: group mockbuild does not exist - using root ### [100%] error: unpacking of archive failed on file /home/msuchy/rpmbuild/SOURCES/orafce-2.1.4.tar.gz;49d0fee4: cpio: MD5 sum mismatch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 491430] Review Request: sslogger - A keystroke logging utility for privileged user escalation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491430
Gratien D'haese gratien.dha...@it3.be changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gratien.dha...@it3.be
--- Comment #10 from Gratien D'haese gratien.dha...@it3.be 2009-03-30
13:55:57 EDT ---
Please start with reading:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CreatingPackageHowTo or
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines for further details.
It will help you to improve the spec file.
Please use the rpmlint program to validate the spec/rpm/srpm package.
Once you show the output of rpmlint without errors I'll digg into your package
for further assistance.
# rpmlint -vi sslogger.spec
sslogger.spec:7: W: hardcoded-path-in-buildroot-tag /%{_tmppath}/%{name}-root
A path is hardcoded in your Buildroot tag. It should be replaced by something
like %{_tmppath}/%name-root.
sslogger.spec:10: W: hardcoded-packager-tag Ed
The Packager tag is hardcoded in your spec file. It should be removed, so as
to use rebuilder's own defaults.
sslogger.spec:27: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep if [ -n %{buildroot} ]; then
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it will
break short circuiting.
sslogger.spec:28: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep if [ %{buildroot} != / ];
then
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it will
break short circuiting.
sslogger.spec:29: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep echo removing %{buildroot}
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it will
break short circuiting.
sslogger.spec:30: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf %{buildroot}
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it will
break short circuiting.
sslogger.spec: E: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
You should clean $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in the %clean section and just after the
beginning of %install section. Use rm -Rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
sslogger.spec: E: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
You should clean $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in the %clean section and just after the
beginning of %install section. Use rm -Rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 251805] Review Request: postgresql-orafce - Implementation of some Oracle functions into PostgreSQL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251805 --- Comment #16 from Devrim GUNDUZ dev...@commandprompt.com 2009-03-30 14:02:55 EDT --- Sure. Spec file: http://www.gunduz.org/temp/orafce.spec SRPM:http://www.gunduz.org/temp/orafce-2.1.4-1.f9.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 490849] Review Request: php-ezc-Archive- eZ Components Archive
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490849 --- Comment #2 from Guillaume Kulakowski llaum...@gmail.com 2009-03-30 14:17:54 EDT --- Update to 1.3.3 : http://ezcomponents.org/resources/news/news-2009-03-30 SPEC: http://llaumgui.fedorapeople.org/review/ez_components/php-ezc-Archive.spec SRPM: http://llaumgui.fedorapeople.org/review/ez_components/php-ezc-Archive-1.3.3-1.fc10.noarch.rpm RPM: http://llaumgui.fedorapeople.org/review/ez_components/php-ezc-Archive-1.3.3-1.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488542] Review Request: php-ezc-Database - eZ Components Database
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488542 --- Comment #1 from Guillaume Kulakowski llaum...@gmail.com 2009-03-30 14:23:36 EDT --- Update to 1.4.4 : http://ezcomponents.org/resources/news/news-2009-03-30 SPEC: http://llaumgui.fedorapeople.org/review/ez_components/php-ezc-Database.spec SRPM: http://llaumgui.fedorapeople.org/review/ez_components/php-ezc-Database-1.4.4-1.fc10.src.rpm RPM: http://llaumgui.fedorapeople.org/review/ez_components/php-ezc-Database-1.4.4-1.fc10.noarch.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490592] Review Request: php-ezc-PersistentObject - eZ Components PersistentObject
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490592 --- Comment #1 from Guillaume Kulakowski llaum...@gmail.com 2009-03-30 14:29:06 EDT --- Update to 1.5.1 : http://ezcomponents.org/resources/news/news-2009-03-30 SPEC: http://llaumgui.fedorapeople.org/review/ez_components/php-ezc-PersistentObject.spec SRPM: http://llaumgui.fedorapeople.org/review/ez_components/php-ezc-PersistentObject-1.5.1-1.fc10.noarch.rpm RPM: http://llaumgui.fedorapeople.org/review/ez_components/php-ezc-PersistentObject-1.5.1-1.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468189] Review Request: rear - Relax and Recovery (disaster recovery framework)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468189 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #38 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-03-30 14:50:18 EDT --- Well, I checked your commitment very quickly and they seem acceptable. This package (rear) is APPROVED by mtasaka Please follow the procedure written on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from Get a Fedora Account. I found a account on FAS (Fedora Account System) which is perhaps yours, however the mail account used on FAS differs from what you are using on RH bugzilla, they must coincide. Please fix either of the e-mail address, then I will sponsor you. If you want to import this package into Fedora 9/10, you also have to look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT (after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system). If you have questions, please ask 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 454980] Review Request: axel - Download accelerator, wget replacement
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454980
--- Comment #35 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info
2009-03-30 14:49:28 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #34)
Comment 14 starts with comments on the the buffer overflow/security issues.
I file bug to upstream https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454980#c14
Hmmm. It is generated by standard %find_lang macros.
It isn't. The %find_lang macro only finds message/translation object files.
And generate file of list it. Aftre that it used also in standard way:
%files -f %{name}.lang
What there wrong?
configure patched to use those flags. I assume there all right.
Not true. Wrong assumption.
I had to disagree there.
In standard configure script it place this flags 'CFLAGS=-D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE
-D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -g -Os' into Makefile.settings.
But as you can see in build.log it compiled with standard Fedora flags, where
only few upstrem defined flagw was reseeded:
CFLAGS='-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
-fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=athlon
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables'
...
gcc -c axel.c -o axel.o -Wall -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=athlon
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -g -Os
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468189] Review Request: rear - Relax and Recovery (disaster recovery framework)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468189 --- Comment #39 from Gratien D'haese gratien.dha...@it3.be 2009-03-30 15:07:47 EDT --- Great - thanks. I'll fix my mail account with fedora to become the same as FAS. Keep you informed when that is done. I'll read the docs first and if I'm stuck somewhere I'll let you know. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454980] Review Request: axel - Download accelerator, wget replacement
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454980 --- Comment #36 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-03-30 15:13:38 EDT --- Just for this: (In reply to comment #33) (In reply to comment #32) axel.i386: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/zh_cn/LC_MESSAGES/axel.mo 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Hmmm. It is generated by standard %find_lang macros. Where I wrong with it? Message catalogue .mo file for Chinese Simplified should be installed under zh_CN, not zh_cn. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492797] Review Request: ofl-goudy-bookletter-1911-fonts - Clean serif font based on Kennerly Old Style
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492797 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nicolas.mail...@laposte.net Flag||fedora-review?, ||needinfo?(tcall...@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-03-30 15:15:41 EDT --- Initial review: 1. please use oflb not ofl as prefix, since OFL is already commonly used to identify a license the Open Font Library folks use OFLB to designate themselves 2. you have the wrong font name in your fontconfig file 3. you have some stray %defines, we're supposed to use %globals nowadays 4. %common_desc is not really useful for anything in a mono-font spec file, though I suppose it's harmless 5. your metadata declaration order is unusual, though it'll probably only annoy people diffing spec files Nothing too difficult to fix for an experienced packager, and only 1 and 2 dangerous. Thank you for continuing to add fonts to 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 492252] Review Request: libdwarf - Library to access the DWARF Debugging file format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492252 --- Comment #3 from Suravee Suthikulpanit suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com 2009-03-30 15:26:05 EDT --- SPEC: http://suravee.fedorapeople.org/libdwarf-0.20090324-2/libdwarf.spec SRPM: http://suravee.fedorapeople.org/libdwarf-0.20090324-2/libdwarf-0.20090324-2.fc10.src.rpm Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1266188 NOTE: - rpmlint -iv is quiet on all packages. Concerns: - AutoreqProv: no in libdwarf-tools package helps the installation issue below. [r...@localhost rpmbuild]# rpm -Uvh /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libdwarf-0.20090324-2.fc10.x86_64.rpm Preparing... ### [100%] 1:libdwarf ### [100%] [r...@localhost rpmbuild]# rpm -Uvh /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libdwarf-tools-0.20090324-2.fc10.x86_64.rpm error: Failed dependencies: libdwarf.so()(64bit) is needed by libdwarf-tools-0.20090324-2.fc10.x86_64 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492924] New: Review Request: python-unipath - Alternative to Python modules os, os.path and shutil
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-unipath - Alternative to Python modules os, os.path and shutil https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492924 Summary: Review Request: python-unipath - Alternative to Python modules os, os.path and shutil Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: terje...@phys.ntnu.no QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/python-unipath/python-unipath.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/python-unipath/python-unipath-0.2.1-1.fc10.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1266298 description: Unipath is a package for doing pathname calculations and filesystem access in an object-oriented manner, an alternative to functions in os.path, shutilm glob, and even some functions in os.* It's based on Jason Orendorff's path.py but does not adhere as strictly to the underlying functions' syntax, in order to provide more user convenience and higher-level functionality. For example: o p.mkdir() succeeds silently if the directory already exists, and o p.mkdir(True) creates intermediate directories a la os.makedirs. o p.rmtree(parents=True) combines shutil.rmtree, os.path.isdir, os.remove, and os.removedirs, to recursively remove whatever it is if it exists. o p.read_file(rb) returns the file's contents in binary mode. o p.needs_update([other_path1, ...]) returns True if p doesn't exist or has an older timestamp than any of the others. o extra convenience functions in the unipath.tools module. dict2dir creates a directory hierarchy described by a dict. dump_path displays an ASCII tree of a directory hierarchy. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(johnhf...@gmail.c ||om) --- Comment #20 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-03-30 15:31:38 EDT --- John: Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C 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=473037 --- Comment #23 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-03-30 15:30:42 EDT --- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479008] Review Request: libQGLViewer - Qt based OpenGL generic 3D viewer 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=479008 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(laurent.rineau__f ||ed...@normalesup.org) --- Comment #5 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-03-30 15:30:23 EDT --- Laurent: ping. Please request CVS for 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 454980] Review Request: axel - Download accelerator, wget replacement
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454980 --- Comment #37 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-03-30 15:37:09 EDT --- But as you can see in build.log it compiled with standard Fedora flags, where only few upstrem defined flagw was reseeded: Quoting the guidelines: | Adding to and overriding or filtering parts of these | flags is permitted if there's a good reason to do so; | the rationale for doing so should be reviewed and | documented in the specfile especially in the override | and filter cases. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492927] New: Review Request: xcowsay - xcowsay displays a cute cow and message
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: xcowsay - xcowsay displays a cute cow and message https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492927 Summary: Review Request: xcowsay - xcowsay displays a cute cow and message Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fabien.geor...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.bde.espci.fr/~george27/xcowsay.spec SRPM URL: http://www.bde.espci.fr/~george27/xcowsay-1.1-0.1.fc10.src.rpm Description: xcowsay displays a cute cow and message on your desktop. Inspired by the original cowsay. *** This is my first package so I need a sponsor. Thanks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492927] Review Request: xcowsay - xcowsay displays a cute cow and message
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492927 Fabien Georget fabien.geor...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added 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 492900] Review Request: epigrafica-fonts - Extended and improved version of MgOpen Cosmetica font family
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492900 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nicolas.mail...@laposte.net Flag||fedora-review?, ||needinfo?(tcall...@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-03-30 15:43:19 EDT --- Initial review: 1. you have some stray %defines, we're supposed to use %globals nowadays 2. I'd use the same priority as cosmetica, unless you want this font to always come first 3. I'd use the substitution template /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/substitution-font-template.conf and add two substitution blocks, one to tell this font can be used in stead of Optima if Optima is not present, and the other to do the same for MgOpen Cosmetica (and you can probably open a bug on the mgopen package to make its packager return the courtesy and add a rule that says Cosmetica can be used in stead of Epigrafica) 4. %common_desc is not really useful for anything in a mono-font spec file, though I suppose it's harmless 5. your metadata declaration order is unusual, though it'll probably only annoy people diffing spec files 6. rpmlint warns of epigrafica-fonts.src: W: invalid-license MgOpen epigrafica-fonts.src: W: strange-permission convert-to-ttf.pe 0755 At least the second one can probably be dealt with easily -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479008] Review Request: libQGLViewer - Qt based OpenGL generic 3D viewer 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=479008
Laurent Rineau laurent.rineau__fed...@normalesup.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|needinfo?(laurent.rineau__f |
|ed...@normalesup.org) |
--- Comment #6 from Laurent Rineau laurent.rineau__fed...@normalesup.org
2009-03-30 16:01:13 EDT ---
I have never received the email corresponding to comment #4. Thank you for the
ping, Lubomir (and for the review).
(In reply to comment #4)
1.) No useless comments please
#Obsoletes: %{name}-designer-plugin %{version}-%{release}
Right.
2.) This is useless, even gcc itself grabs this in:
BuildRequires: glibc-common
:-)
That is silly, actually. I have added `rpm -qf /usr/bin/iconv` without
remarking that it was a quite common package!
I will remove those two lines just after the cvs import.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479008] Review Request: libQGLViewer - Qt based OpenGL generic 3D viewer 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=479008 Laurent Rineau laurent.rineau__fed...@normalesup.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Laurent Rineau laurent.rineau__fed...@normalesup.org 2009-03-30 16:09:53 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: libQGLViewer Short Description: Qt based OpenGL generic 3D viewer library Owners: rineau 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 484323] Review Request: perl-KinoSearch - Search engine 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=484323 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Flag|needinfo?(ianburr...@gmail. | |com)| --- Comment #15 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-03-30 16:17:02 EDT --- Confirmed with upstream, clarified in the package. Fixed on PowerPC. I'm a bit worried about the package, since Ian doesn't respond (hope he's doing well), but let's assume perl-sig in watchbugzilla is enough to ensure the package is being cared about. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 #58 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-03-30 16:19:53 EDT --- Sooo... what's happening here? Justin: are you willing to import this into RPMFusion? I'll happily continue the review there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492600] Review Request: oxygen-icon-theme - Oxygen Icon Theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492600 Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com 2009-03-30 16:19:23 EDT --- Well, 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 492600] Review Request: oxygen-icon-theme - Oxygen Icon Theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492600 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2009-03-30 16:47:26 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: oxygen-icon-theme Short Description: Oxygen Icon Theme Owners: rdieter,than,jreznik,ltinkl,kkofler 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 426753] Review Request: xmonad - A tiling window manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426753 --- Comment #28 from Till Maas opensou...@till.name 2009-03-30 16:48:15 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=337244) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=337244) add desktop file, package manpage, sample config and other docs The xmonad.desktop works for me with gdm, but xmonad needs a config file in ~/.xmonad/xmonad.hs to even run. Maybe a wrapper should be added that creates such a config file if there is none. This config file could make xmonad display its manpage per default when it is started to help users new to xmonad. This was what wmii did iirc and I found it pretty helpful back then. I will write such a wrapper if it will be packaged. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492945] New: Review Request: lv2-swh-plugins - LV2 ports of LADSPA swh plugins
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: lv2-swh-plugins - LV2 ports of LADSPA swh plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492945 Summary: Review Request: lv2-swh-plugins - LV2 ports of LADSPA swh plugins Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: oget.fed...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/lv2-swh-plugins.spec SRPM URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/lv2-swh-plugins-1.0.15-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: This is an early experimental port of my LADSPA plugins to the LV2 specification, c.f. http://lv2plug.in/ . It's still quite early days, but most things should work as well or not as they did in LADSPA. rpmlint is silent. The package is named as lv2-swh-plugins for consistency with other plugins we have (ladspa-xxx-plugins). koji rawhide build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1266472 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492946] New: Review Request: eclipse-dltk - Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) Eclipse plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: eclipse-dltk - Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) Eclipse plugin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492946 Summary: Review Request: eclipse-dltk - Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) Eclipse plugin Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fed...@matbooth.co.uk QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-dltk.spec SRPM URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-dltk-1.0.0-0.1.M5.fc10.src.rpm Description: Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) is a tool for vendors, researchers, and users who rely on dynamic languages. DLTK is comprised of a set of extensible frameworks designed to reduce the complexity of building full featured development environments for dynamic languages such as PHP and Perl. Packaging Notes: Ruby and TCL IDEs for Eclipse! Woohoo! This is the milestone 5 release of version 1.0.0, which is the last stable version that will work with Eclipse 3.4, AFAIK. (Website says newer versions require 3.5.) The libdir-macro-in-noarch-package warnings from rpmlint are benign and can be ignored I think. (Silly rpmlint, of course the src package is noarch...) Three sub-packages are not included: DSDP TM Integration (requires RSE, which I don't believe is in Fedora yet), Python IDE (we have PyDev, but I can package this if requested), Javascript IDE (will probably get a javascript editor as part of the WTP work, but as with the Python, I could look at this). Thanks for your time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225746] Merge Review: fedora-release
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225746 Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com 2009-03-30 17:00:15 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: fedora-release New Branches: F-11 -- 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 225746] Merge Review: fedora-release
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225746 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #16 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-30 17:21:41 EDT --- cvs done. -- 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 479008] Review Request: libQGLViewer - Qt based OpenGL generic 3D viewer 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=479008 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-30 17:29:18 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492950] New: Review Request: lv2-vocoder-plugins - Add a robotic effect to vocals
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: lv2-vocoder-plugins - Add a robotic effect to vocals https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492950 Summary: Review Request: lv2-vocoder-plugins - Add a robotic effect to vocals Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: oget.fed...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/lv2-vocoder-plugins.spec SRPM URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/lv2-vocoder-plugins-1-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Perhaps you don't know what a vocoder is, but you have heard one before for sure. Vocoders are often used to add a robotic effect to vocals in music. rpmlint is silent. The package is named lv2-vocoder-plugins for consistency with other plugins we have in Fedora, ladspa-xxx-plugins in particular. Koji rawhide build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1266498 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492398] Review Request: slv2 - LV2 host library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492398 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-30 17:32:04 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-30 17:33:45 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-30 17:31:04 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492600] Review Request: oxygen-icon-theme - Oxygen Icon Theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492600 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-30 17:37:14 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492708] Review Request: xml2 - XML/Unix Processing Tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492708 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-30 17:40:06 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492171] Review Request: rubygem-locale - Pure ruby library which provides basic APIs for localization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492171 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-30 17:42:21 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475971] Review Request: gadget - MPP server component for tracking presence
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475971 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #16 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-30 17:43:20 EDT --- Sorry for the delay. cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490039] Review Request: pyftpdlib - Python FTP server 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=490039 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-30 17:51:31 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490028] Review Request: pytc - Python bindings for Tokyo Cabinet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490028 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-30 17:50:03 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 490031] Review Request: pytyrant - A pure python client implementation of Tokyo Tyrant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490031 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-30 17:50:48 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-30 17:59:48 EDT --- mingw32-libsigc++20-2.2.2-6.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-libsigc++20-2.2.2-6.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492712] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Server-Simple-Static - Serve static files with HTTP::Server::Simple
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492712 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #2 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-03-30 18:09:39 EDT --- Thanks for the quick review! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-HTTP-Server-Simple-Static Short Description: Serve static files with HTTP::Server::Simple Owners: spot Branches: F-9 F-10 devel InitialCC: perl-sig ... and it's done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226111] Merge Review: lvm2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226111 --- Comment #15 from Alasdair Kergon a...@redhat.com 2009-03-30 18:21:39 EDT --- Source0 change applied and replacement 'make' line noted in a comment. lvm2-2.02.45-3.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479008] Review Request: libQGLViewer - Qt based OpenGL generic 3D viewer 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=479008 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-30 18:25:38 EDT --- libQGLViewer-2.3.1-7.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libQGLViewer-2.3.1-7.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492708] Review Request: xml2 - XML/Unix Processing Tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492708 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-30 18:38:21 EDT --- xml2-0.4-2.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xml2-0.4-2.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225969] Merge Review: kernel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225969 Kyle McMartin kmcmar...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kmcmar...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Kyle McMartin kmcmar...@redhat.com 2009-03-30 18:36:09 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: kernel New Branches: F-11 Owners: k...@redhat.com, da...@redhat.com, cebb...@redhat.com Branch for F-11, plz. -- 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
