[Bug 512500] Review Request: multimedia-menus - Categorization for the GNOME/KDE AudioVideo/Multimedia menu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512500 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|473303(F12Blocker) |473302(F12Target) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473184] Review Request: clamz - Amazon Downloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473184
--- Comment #13 from Jim Radford radf...@blackbean.org 2009-07-18 02:52:11
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #12)
My recommendation exactly would be to set:
OutputDir $HOME/Music/${album-artist}/${album}/
in /usr/bin/clamz
While I don't this this should be true in general for the command line app, I
do think it should be true when invoked by the desktop file. I added a command
line option --sane-defaults and used it in the .desktop file.
This should do what you are asking for while leaving the normal command line to
default to the current directory while still allowing the config file to
override things.
I also print out the download directory now so that you can tell where it is
downloading to when invoked by say a browser without context.
Spec URL: http://blackbean.org/review/clamz.spec
SRPM URL: http://blackbean.org/review/clamz-0.2-9.fc11.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 501251] Review Request: perl-Tk-Stderr - Capture standard error output, display in separate window for Perl::Tk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501251 Jan Klepek jan.kle...@hp.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||501960 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 501960] Review Request: webinject - Web/HTTP Test Tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501960
Jan Klepek jan.kle...@hp.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||501251
Flag||needinfo?(david.hanneq...@g
||mail.com)
--- Comment #10 from Jan Klepek jan.kle...@hp.com 2009-07-18 03:51:50 EDT ---
1]
sed -i 's|./webinject.pl|/usr/share/webinject.pl|g'
%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name}/webinjectgui.pl
- why? both (webinject and webinject-gui) will be in same directory.
2]
useless comments
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507943] Review Request: moblin-gtk-engine - GTK engine for Moblin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507943 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #13 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2009-07-18 03:59:53 EDT --- Built and in rawhide. 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 469470] Review Request: mz - A fast versatile packet generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469470 --- Comment #26 from Vivek Shah boni.vi...@gmail.com 2009-07-18 04:21:38 EDT --- Updated the package as per comment 23 Please find it here: Spec URL: http://bonii.fedorapeople.org/spec/mausezahn.spec SRPM URL: http://bonii.fedorapeople.org/srpms/mausezahn-0.34.6-1.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512505] New: Review Request: php-ezc-AuthenticationDatabaseTiein - eZ Components AuthenticationDatabaseTiein
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: php-ezc-AuthenticationDatabaseTiein - eZ Components AuthenticationDatabaseTiein https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512505 Summary: Review Request: php-ezc-AuthenticationDatabaseTiein - eZ Components AuthenticationDatabaseTiein Product: Fedora Version: 11 Platform: noarch OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: llaum...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Guillaume Kulakowski llaum...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? AuthenticationDatabaseTiein is a part of eZ Components : https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/php-channel-ezc --- The purpose of the Authentication component is to provide support for different means of identification and authentication of users using different providers and protocols. AuthenticationDatabaseTiein provides a Database filter for the Authentication component by using the Database component, and an implementation of a database store (backend) for OpenID authentication. --- SPEC: http://llaumgui.fedorapeople.org/review/ez_components/php-ezc-AuthenticationDatabaseTiein.spec SRPM: http://llaumgui.fedorapeople.org/review/ez_components/php-ezc-AuthenticationDatabaseTiein-1.1-1.fc11.src.rpm RPM: http://llaumgui.fedorapeople.org/review/ez_components/php-ezc-AuthenticationDatabaseTiein-1.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm rpmlint: buil...@enterprise ~ rpmlint rpmbuild/**/php-ezc-AuthenticationDatabaseTiein 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Pear CompatInfo: +-+-+---+++ | Files | Version | C | Extensions | Constants/Tokens | +-+-+---+++ | ./* | 5.0.0 | 0 || implements | | | | || instanceof | | | | || private| | | | || protected | | | | || public | | | | || throw | +-+-+---+++ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512497] Review Request: Bleachbit - Remove unnecessary files, free space, and maintain privacy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512497
Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fab...@bernewireless.net
--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-07-18
04:53:52 EDT ---
Just some comments after a quick look at your spec file:
- Isn't 'gettext' missing as a BR?
- 'make' is not needed as a BR
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2
- '-n %{name}-%{version}' in the %setup section is not needed, this is the
default
- What tell rpmlint about the line length in the %description?
- You should use only 'desktop-file-install' or 'desktop-file-validate' not
both
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 493246] Review Request: Shutter -- a feature-rich screenshot program.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493246 Jan Klepek jan.kle...@hp.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(liangsuil...@gmai ||l.com) --- Comment #21 from Jan Klepek jan.kle...@hp.com 2009-07-18 05:04:57 EDT --- 1] why is shutter.spec with 0777 rights in src.rpm 2] spec file mentioned https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493246#c20 doesn't match one in src.rpm 3] dependency issues: in shutter-0.80/share/shutter/resources/modules/Shutter/Screenshot/Window.pm you have require X11::Protocol; but it is not listed in requires (and is not picked up automatically by 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 512506] New: Review Request: php-ezc-Feed - eZ Components Feed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: php-ezc-Feed - eZ Components Feed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512506 Summary: Review Request: php-ezc-Feed - eZ Components Feed Product: Fedora Version: 11 Platform: noarch OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: llaum...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Guillaume Kulakowski llaum...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? Feed is a part of eZ Components : https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/php-channel-ezc --- This component handles parsing and creating RSS1, RSS2 and ATOM feeds, with support for different feed modules (dc, content, creativeCommons, geo, iTunes). --- SPEC: http://llaumgui.fedorapeople.org/review/ez_components/php-ezc-Feed.spec SRPM: http://llaumgui.fedorapeople.org/review/ez_components/php-ezc-Feed-1.2.1-1.fc11.src.rpm RPM: http://llaumgui.fedorapeople.org/review/ez_components/php-ezc-Feed-1.2.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm rpmlint: buil...@enterprise ~ rpmlint rpmbuild/**/php-ezc-Feed 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Pear CompatInfo: +-+-+---+++ | Files | Version | C | Extensions | Constants/Tokens | +-+-+---+++ | ./* | 5.1.0 | 0 | date | abstract | | | | | libxml | catch | | | | | pcre | implements | | | | || instanceof | | | | || interface | | | | || private| | | | || protected | | | | || public | | | | || throw | | | | || try| +-+-+---+++ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453422] Review Request: songbird - Mozilla based multimedia player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422 --- Comment #80 from Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com 2009-07-18 05:43:14 EDT --- (In reply to comment #79) One thing I would like to recommend, in the interest of keeping Fedora F/OSS, while providing functionality to those who want it. Could we package songbird without the proprietary plugins, but package those in a separate package and submit that to RPMFusion-nonfree? Read comment 68, codecs themselves (proprietary or free) should not be part of this package. It just uses GStreamer as rhythmbox or totem do. Just apparently upstream wanted to deliver some codecs later and wanted to have approved agreement for its users (read comment 67 for longer tract on the legalese). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476435] Review Request: sugar-record - Recording tool for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476435 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard||NotReady -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480855] Review Request: bournal - Write personal, password-protected journal entries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480855 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard||NotReady -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499959] Review Request: redmine - redmine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499959 Jan Klepek jan.kle...@hp.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(david.hanneq...@g ||mail.com) --- Comment #17 from Jan Klepek jan.kle...@hp.com 2009-07-18 05:43:45 EDT --- Hi David, 1] You should go ahead and become maintainer of rubygem-actionwebservice as you need it by redmine package and current maintainer of rubygem-actionwebservice retired it. 2] still you have plugins which are not part of redmine and you have to create packages for them (of find somebody who will do it) : classic_pagination coderay-0.7.6.227 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507761 engines gloc-1.1.0 gravatar - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507762 rfpdf ruby-net-ldap-0.0.4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453422] Review Request: songbird - Mozilla based multimedia player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422 --- Comment #81 from Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com 2009-07-18 05:51:38 EDT --- (In reply to comment #76) Building in mock for F-11... http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1458403 Unfortuantely, it seems that RPMs got already garbage collected. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 509533] Review Request: sap - A small CLI audio player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509533 --- Comment #18 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-07-18 05:49:21 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17) I'm still here, I'm waiting for upstreams next release of eViacam, and if it doesn't help I'll pick another piece of software. You can have a look at the Fedora wishlist for ideas. Should I do some Reviews in the meantime? Yeah, you should do another one. I also updated the sap package again: SPEC file: http://julian.fedorapeople.org/sap/sap.spec SRPM: http://julian.fedorapeople.org/sap/sap-0.4.4-7.fc11.src.rpm You don't have to be so fussy about BuildRequires, since they're only installed in the temporary build root when you build the package; it's Requires: you really have to care about. But this is fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476435] Review Request: sugar-record - Recording tool for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476435
--- Comment #13 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2009-07-18 05:54:49
EDT ---
An initial review. Mostly looks good. Just some rpmlint bits to cleanup as you
previously mentioned.
+ rpmlint output
rpmlint sugar-record-64-1.fc11.src.rpm sugar-record-64-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm
sugar-record.spec
sugar-record.src: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities
sugar-record.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities
sugar-record.x86_64: E: no-binary
sugar-record.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/gstvideorate.h
sugar-record.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/gstvalve.c
sugar-record.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/gstvalve.h
sugar-record.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/ChangeLog
sugar-record.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/NEWS
sugar-record.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/README
sugar-record.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/AUTHORS
sugar-record.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/gstvideorate.c
sugar-record.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/camerac/camera.c
sugar-record.spec:6: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 8 warnings.
For the zero length doc files just remove them.
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
920060cf3238d457691de659c12c25b2edc5fca2 Record-64.tar.bz2
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
tested using koji scratch build
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
+ %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
? header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a devel must require the fully versioned base
+ packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8
Optional:
+ if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock/koji
n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
n/a review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226358] Merge Review: rdesktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226358 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are 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 226358] Merge Review: rdesktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226358 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|sandm...@redhat.com |tyler.l.o...@gmail.com --- Comment #12 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-07-18 05:58:48 EDT --- Sorry, reassign to tyler.l.owen gmail.com since this is not a bug report but a 'Merge review' -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226358] Merge Review: rdesktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226358 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|tyler.l.o...@gmail.com |sandm...@redhat.com --- Comment #11 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-07-18 05:56:05 EDT --- The last build: rdesktop-1.6.0-5.fc12 ssp 2009-05-01 20:17:58 Assignee changed. -- 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 512482] Review Request: lxrandr - Simple monitor config tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512482 Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |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 512497] Review Request: Bleachbit - Remove unnecessary files, free space, and maintain privacy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512497 --- Comment #2 from Rahul Sundaram sunda...@redhat.com 2009-07-18 07:06:47 EDT --- Fixed http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/bleachbit.spec http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/bleachbit-0.5.4-2.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 469470] Review Request: mz - A fast versatile packet generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469470 --- Comment #27 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-07-18 07:15:03 EDT --- Small ( mostly cosmetic - there are several double spaces and a missing long infinitive ) suggested modification for the description: Mausezahn is a free fast traffic generator written in C which allows you to send nearly every possible and impossible packet. Mausezahn can also be used for example as didactical tool in network labs or for security audits including penetration and DoS testing. As traffic generator Mausezahn is for example used to test IP multicast or VoIP networks. Speeds close to the Ethernet limit are reachable (depending on the HW platform). Successful scratch builds: - F-10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1483696 - rawhide/i386: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1483679 I suggest to consolidate the content of /usr/share/doc/mausezahn and /usr/share/doc/mausezahn-0.34.6 in a single directory. It's a bit unusual to have two different doc dirs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512270] Review Request: quitcount - A tool for people who quit smoking
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512270 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||fed...@christoph-wickert.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@christoph-wickert.de Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-07-18 07:15:02 EDT --- I'm going to review this. However, I cannot do functional testing as I quitted smoking more than 10 years ago. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512270] Review Request: quitcount - A tool for people who quit smoking
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512270 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-07-18 07:32:44 EDT --- The license should be GPLv3+, sorry. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 505356] Review Request: php-PHPMailer - PHP email transport class with a lot of features
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505356 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com --- Comment #4 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2009-07-18 07:49:25 EDT --- PHP CompatInfo report (not fully reliable info, but give some usefull ones): $ pci -d /usr/share/php/PHPMailer/ -p -S +-+-+---+++ | Files | Version | C | Extensions | Constants/Tokens | +-+-+---+++ | /usr/share/php/PHPMailer//* | 5.1.0 | 1 | date | catch | | | | | filter | private| | | | | hash | protected | | | | | mbstring | public | | | | | openssl| throw | | | | | pcre | try| +-+-+---+++ mbstring seems not mandatory (ready quickly the code), but really usefull. Requiring php brings a lot of dependencies (mainly httpd) which are not need (could use this without apache: with another web server, in cgi, or from command line) So Requires seems to be : Requires: php-mbstring = 5.1.0 This is only a quick note, I will do the full review ASAP. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512270] Review Request: quitcount - A tool for people who quit smoking
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512270
--- Comment #3 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-07-18
07:55:26 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
The license should be GPLv3+, sorry.
Yeah, I already noticed that during review.
REVIEW for 415304ba78f2eb27404808854509c185 quitcount-1.4.1-1.fc11.src.rpm
OK - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review:
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/quitcount-*
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
OK - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines: GPLv3+
FAIL - MUST: The License field in the package spec file does not match the
actual license: Sources and COPYING are GPLv3+, but license tag is BDS.
OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc.
OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English.
OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible.
OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package match the upstream source by
MD5 6b49eab7f34155d740e7404a09ba6d0d
OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on
x86_64
N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
OK - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro.
N/A - MUST: 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.
N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates.
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. Every %files section includes
a %defattr(...) line.
OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content.
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application.
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig'.
N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
OK - MUST: The package contains a GUI application and includes a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section.
OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by
other packages.
OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items:
N/A - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: The the package builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described, however it has some functional
some limitations: You cannot smoke more than 100 cigaretts a day. :)
N/A - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase,
and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel
pkg.
N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
/sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the
file instead of the file itself.
Other items:
OK - Timestamps
[Bug 469470] Review Request: mz - A fast versatile packet generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469470 --- Comment #28 from Vivek Shah boni.vi...@gmail.com 2009-07-18 08:24:37 EDT --- Thanks for the review. Updated the spec and srpm as per comment 27 Please find it here: Spec URL: http://bonii.fedorapeople.org/spec/mausezahn.spec SRPM URL: http://bonii.fedorapeople.org/srpms/mausezahn-0.34.6-2.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 510376] Review Request: bluemodem - A bluetooth modem configuration 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=510376 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||fed...@christoph-wickert.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@christoph-wickert.de 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 505356] Review Request: php-PHPMailer - PHP email transport class with a lot of features
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505356 --- Comment #5 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2009-07-18 08:43:07 EDT --- URL seems to have change http://phpmailer.worxware.com/ + -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 510376] Review Request: bluemodem - A bluetooth modem configuration 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=510376
--- Comment #1 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-07-18
08:49:51 EDT ---
REVIEW FOR d9415e7233fa9f31309ca6e81a671ee8 bluemodem-0.7-1.fc11.src.rpm
- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
OK - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines: GPLv2+
OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license.
OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc.
OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English.
OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible.
OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package match the upstream source by
MD5 6fe242a0dce8d5166d0d9ceba8be82d3
OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on
x86_64
N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
N/A - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro.
N/A - MUST: 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.
N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates (none).
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. Every %files section includes
a %defattr(...) line.
OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content.
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application.
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig'.
N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by
other packages.
OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items:
N/A - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: The the package builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described.
N/A - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase,
and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel
pkg.
N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
/sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the
file instead of the file itself.
Other items:
OK - Timestamps are preserved
OK - Latest stable version packaged
OK - ${RPM_OPT_FLAGS} are honored
Issues: There are a couple of missing (Build)Requires.
When building locally:
Determining rfcomm command /usr/bin/rfcomm
Determining pppd command /usr/sbin/pppd
Determining
[Bug 505356] Review Request: php-PHPMailer - PHP email transport class with a lot of features
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505356 Gianluca Sforna gia...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gia...@gmail.com --- Comment #6 from Gianluca Sforna gia...@gmail.com 2009-07-18 09:07:26 EDT --- I'll let mantis Require this when it lands in the repo, drop me a note if I can do anything to help here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 508525] Review Request: gjs - Javascript Bindings for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508525 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|walt...@redhat.com --- Comment #10 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2009-07-18 09:11:17 EDT --- Colin has said he'll review this one so assigning it to him :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 502477] Review Request: arista - Easy to use multimedia transcoder for the GNOME Desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502477 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@christoph-wickert.de --- Comment #7 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-07-18 09:11:33 EDT --- BTW: 0.9.3 is out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457547] Review Request: mediascrapper - A script to scrap media files from different sites
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457547 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@christoph-wickert.de --- Comment #11 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-07-18 09:19:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) Include a copy of the license under a file called COPYING. The license of the source should match the tag in the spec file. Although this package is already in the repo for a while, the License tag is wrong. Should be GLPv2+ instead of GPLv2. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457547] Review Request: mediascrapper - A script to scrap media files from different sites
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457547 --- Comment #12 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-07-18 09:21:48 EDT --- Kushal, please update the Source0 on your fedorapeople account to really match the one included in the package. TIA. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454329] Review Request: PolicyKit-olpc - OLPC-specific PolicyKit overrides
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454329 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@christoph-wickert.de --- Comment #10 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-07-18 09:35:15 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) I can't verify functionality but it seems better to add a package dependency instead of the file dependency on /var/lib/PolicyKit-public. IMO this was a really bad idea, because yum runs out of memory on the XO when resolving file based deps. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 508318] Review Request: mutter - A window manager based on metacity and clutter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508318 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #16 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2009-07-18 09:48:17 EDT --- I think the following is the last bits that needed to be addressed Should be using desktop-file-install (the metacity package has desktop-file-install usage commented out, with a comment that the .desktop file is invalid, but mutter.desktop seems fine) As there's already a .desktop file for mutter we just need to run desktop-file-validate on it - FIXED. - Although it makes the specfile more complex, I think the check in metacity.spec: SHOULD_HAVE_DEFINED=HAVE_SM HAVE_XINERAMA HAVE_XFREE_XINERAMA HAVE_SHAPE HAVE_RANDR HAVE_STARTUP_NOTIFICATION for I in $SHOULD_HAVE_DEFINED; do if ! grep -q define $I config.h; then echo $I was not defined in config.h grep $I config.h exit 1 else echo $I was defined as it should have been grep $I config.h fi done Is probably worthwhile moving over. (And add HAVE_COMPOSITE_EXTENSION) FIXED. SPEC: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/mutter.spec SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/mutter-2.27.1-2.fc11.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1483821 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454329] Review Request: PolicyKit-olpc - OLPC-specific PolicyKit overrides
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454329 --- Comment #11 from Rahul Sundaram sunda...@redhat.com 2009-07-18 09:53:35 EDT --- Does it make sense to add comments to a review done more than six months back? You seem to actually agree with what I said. Don't quite see the point. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 493246] Review Request: Shutter -- a feature-rich screenshot program.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493246 Liang Suilong liangsuil...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(liangsuil...@gmai | |l.com) | --- Comment #22 from Liang Suilong liangsuil...@gmail.com 2009-07-18 09:56:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21) 1] why is shutter.spec with 0777 rights in src.rpm It seems not to be important, I think. But later I will recreate a new spec file with default right. 2] spec file mentioned https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493246#c20 doesn't match one in src.rpm Oh, I know I uploaded a wrong spec file. 3] dependency issues: in shutter-0.80/share/shutter/resources/modules/Shutter/Screenshot/Window.pm you have require X11::Protocol; but it is not listed in requires (and is not picked up automatically by rpm) When I installed shutter-0.80 in Fedora 11, it seems that yum would automatically install all the requires that shutter needs. I could make sure I did not set up X11::Protocol before installing shutter. Even that, I will list X11::Protocol in requires. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 502477] Review Request: arista - Easy to use multimedia transcoder for the GNOME Desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502477 --- Comment #8 from Rahul Sundaram sunda...@redhat.com 2009-07-18 09:55:43 EDT --- Yes, I am aware since it was done to address some of the problems I reported to the upstream developer. Requires more testing to confirm whether it has been fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 508318] Review Request: mutter - A window manager based on metacity and clutter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508318 --- Comment #17 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2009-07-18 10:02:33 EDT --- [??]* SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. Got a white screen in a quick test of 'mutter --replace', but it's a slightly old version of Mutter, so didn't investigate further. When testing this on my eeePC 901 I get a grey box in the top right of a white box which is in the top left of the screen. I'm not sure if this isn't just rawhide as it stands on my eeePC though as it has other rendering issues with the standard gnome desktop. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507660] Review Request: xylib - Library for reading x-y data from several file formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507660 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #21 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-07-18 10:24:17 EDT --- Okay, now I am sponsoring you. Please follow Join wiki again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469470] Review Request: mz - A fast versatile packet generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469470 --- Comment #29 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com 2009-07-18 10:48:01 EDT --- On this namespace conflict issue, I was think that you had packaged [re-] mezzanine, Michael Jennings [also the Enlightenment WM environment's author] Linux based RPM package management and building system, developed as far back as in the 'LinuxCare' days. Certainly there is a known Linux space namespace ambiguity. -- Russ herrold -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 509936] Review Request: tortoisehg - Mercurial gui tools and nautilus plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509936
Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fab...@bernewireless.net
--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-07-18
11:05:38 EDT ---
Just some comments after a quick look at your spec file:
- There are translations, gettext is missing
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files
- You can drop '-n tortoisehg-%{version}' from the %setup, this is the default
The licensing situation is a bit wired. PKG-INFO says GPLv2,
hggtk/logview/colormap.py says GPLv2+, and contrib/nautilus-thg.py says GPL.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512523] New: Review Request: graphem - Mouse Gesture based Authentication Program and Screen Locker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: graphem - Mouse Gesture based Authentication Program and Screen Locker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512523 Summary: Review Request: graphem - Mouse Gesture based Authentication Program and Screen Locker Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dma...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://dmaphy.fedorapeople.org/graphem/graphem.spec SRPM URL: http://dmaphy.fedorapeople.org/graphem/graphem-0.2-1.fc11.src.rpm 488dec198225b456be8be0f49b73aeb3 graphem.spec b745310586d239a50c7f23679c3694be graphem-0.2-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Graphem is a small mouse gesture based authentication program and screen locker program. It stores key patterns in hashed form; can lock the display until the correct pattern is entered; can control login via scripting, e.g. with GDM using auto-login and a PostLogin script; it supports a Touchpad mode for notebook users which allows graphem to accept input without clicking; it keeps track of recognition rate -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 510651] Review Request: trafshow - A tool for real-time network traffic visualization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510651
Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fab...@bernewireless.net
--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-07-18
11:21:19 EDT ---
Just some other comments
- 'Source: ftp://ftp.nsk.su/pub/RinetSoftware/%name-%version.tgz' should be
'Source: ftp://ftp.nsk.su/pub/RinetSoftware/%{name}-%{version}.tgz'
- Isn't 'ncurses' automatically picked up during the build process?
- Why aren't you using parallel build for make?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Parallel_make
- Often it's possible to change the installation target with PREFIX=%{_prefix}
- The man pages are automatically compressed during the build process.
(In reply to comment #1)
It seems like the spec comes from altlinux? It would be nice to state the
explicit and give them credit. Perhaps we don't want to keep their old
changelog.
I agree with Mads. Just give them some credits and drop the old changelog
entries. For the Fedora spec file they have no value.
(In reply to comment #1)
I suggest that URL should point to the english version at
http://soft.risp.ru/trafshow/index_en.shtml . It is just the man page with a
link to a site (in russian) where it can be downloaded. I could however not
connect to the ftp download site and verify. But it seems like they only have
trafshow-4.0.tgz available for download? Where do trafshow-5.2.3.tgz come
from?
I not able to connect too.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512523] Review Request: graphem - Mouse Gesture based Authentication Program and Screen Locker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512523 Sven Lankes s...@lank.es changed: What|Removed |Added CC||s...@lank.es AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|s...@lank.es -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512217] Review Request: geany-plugins - A bundle of plugins for Geany
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512217 --- Comment #14 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com 2009-07-18 12:01:00 EDT --- The guidelines mandate removal of *.la files for normal library files, but that doesn't apply for plugins, which often need the la files in order to function - do the plugins still work in the absence of the .la files? If so, great, but just thought I'd mention 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 512217] Review Request: geany-plugins - A bundle of plugins for Geany
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512217 --- Comment #15 from Dominic Hopf dma...@gmail.com 2009-07-18 12:07:57 EDT --- The Plugins work fine without those *.la-files, yes. The neccessary files are the *.so-files which get loaded at the startup of Geany. (And some plugins need other files their self, of course.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454329] Review Request: PolicyKit-olpc - OLPC-specific PolicyKit overrides
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454329 --- Comment #12 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-07-18 12:32:14 EDT --- I think it does, because I'm referring to a problem you already raised in the review. IMO you should have insisted on following the guidelines here, because they clearly state: Whenever possible you should avoid file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FileDeps -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454329] Review Request: PolicyKit-olpc - OLPC-specific PolicyKit overrides
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454329 --- Comment #13 from Rahul Sundaram sunda...@redhat.com 2009-07-18 12:47:26 EDT --- Read what I have written very carefully one more time. I am advocating against file based dependencies. What exactly is your beef? Drop the witch hunt digging up old reviews. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512217] Review Request: geany-plugins - A bundle of plugins for Geany
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512217 --- Comment #16 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com 2009-07-18 12:58:56 EDT --- Excellent - great work in splitting the sub-packages out. Rebuilding in mock right now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 511895] Review Request: clutter-imcontext - IMContext Framework Library for Clutter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511895 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||oget.fed...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|oget.fed...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-07-18 13:23:08 EDT --- I'll take this one. Could you review bug #512500? It should be very simple. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454329] Review Request: PolicyKit-olpc - OLPC-specific PolicyKit overrides
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454329 --- Comment #14 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-07-18 13:24:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) Read what I have written very carefully one more time. I am advocating against file based dependencies. I *did* read what you wrote and I fully understand we both agree on the topic. However I don't understand why you approved the package with the file based dep. What exactly is your beef? Drop the witch hunt digging up old reviews. I want to enhance the review quality in Fedora and IMHO these three word reviews (Looks good, approved) should be forbidden. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512217] Review Request: geany-plugins - A bundle of plugins for Geany
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512217
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com
2009-07-18 13:43:58 EDT ---
rpmlint *.rpm
geany-plugins.x86_64: E: no-binary
-- That's fine, metapackage.
geany-plugins.x86_64: W: no-documentation
-- Fine, metapackage.
geany-plugins-common.x86_64: W: no-documentation
13 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
I would recommend calling the subpackages %{name}-foo (i.e. geany-plugins-foo)
rather than geany-plugin-foo for consistency with other plugin bundles (eg.
claws-mail-plugins-*).
For the geany-plugins metapackage to serve any purpose you need to add
Requires: %{name}-geanyvc %{name}-geanygdb %{name}-addons %{name}-geanylatex
%{name}-geanylipsum %{name}-geanylua %{name}-geanysendmail %{name}-shiftcolumn
%{name}-spellcheck
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512068] Review Request: rancid - Really Awesome New Cisco confIg Differ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512068 Christopher McCrory chris...@pricegrabber.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chris...@pricegrabber.com --- Comment #10 from Christopher McCrory chris...@pricegrabber.com 2009-07-18 13:58:53 EDT --- FWIW a couple notes: recommend not requiring telnet, rsh, ( and maybe openssh). One or more are needed, but not necessarily all. e.g. I don't even want rsh installed. If an admin knows enough to want this package, they know what clients are needed also. using /var/lib/rancid instead of /var/rancid might resolve some rpmlint 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 226568] Merge Review: xmlto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226568 Ondrej Vasik ova...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(opensou...@till.n ||ame) --- Comment #17 from Ondrej Vasik ova...@redhat.com 2009-07-18 14:15:31 EDT --- ping... shouldn't we finish that review? I guess all objections are solved now... -- 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 507660] Review Request: xylib - Library for reading x-y data from several file formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507660 Marcin Wojdyr woj...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #22 from Marcin Wojdyr woj...@gmail.com 2009-07-18 14:20:56 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: xylib Short Description: Library for reading x-y data from several file formats Owners: wojdyr Branches: F-10 F-11 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 225725] Merge Review: elinks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225725 Ondrej Vasik ova...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(tyler.l.o...@gmai ||l.com) --- Comment #15 from Ondrej Vasik ova...@redhat.com 2009-07-18 14:18:34 EDT --- Obsoletes should be fine now and links is now handled via alternatives. Maybe we should close that review again. What do you think? -- 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 512068] Review Request: rancid - Really Awesome New Cisco confIg Differ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512068 --- Comment #11 from Gary T. Giesen gie...@snickers.org 2009-07-18 14:30:51 EDT --- I'm also considering not actually requiring CVS, since rancid can work with svn, and possibly git in the future. There really needs to be an RPM Suggests flag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454329] Review Request: PolicyKit-olpc - OLPC-specific PolicyKit overrides
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454329 --- Comment #15 from Rahul Sundaram sunda...@redhat.com 2009-07-18 15:00:58 EDT --- The idea of looking into six month old reviews of only mine because of your desire to improve quality does not sound very convincing. You might not know this but Daniel Drake works for OLPC. If there are any performance issues with the choice of a file based dependency, he would fixed it by now. There are no need force a common sense recommendation in the guidelines into a mandatory check point and file based dependencies are NOT forbidden at all. All the guidelines have been followed and the review quality is fine. If you disagree and want to dig up old reviews, go ahead and take it up to FESCo. Until that point, I have nothing further to say on this topic. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512217] Review Request: geany-plugins - A bundle of plugins for Geany
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512217
--- Comment #18 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de
2009-07-18 15:01:45 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #6)
The guidelines only demand that macro usage is consistent. This means not
to mix e. g. %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. The rest is up to the
maintainer.
Because at present there is an *inconsistent* mixture of %{name} and
geany-plugins used in the specfile. Consistency is the key here, I agree.
Let me repeat what I said before: The *macro* usage needs to be consistent,
this means not mixing different macro styles. There is no need to replace every
appearance of geany-plugins with a macro, this is up to the maintainer, e. g.
many people consider using %{name} in the URL or Source0 tag, since it makes
copy paste harder.
(In reply to comment #17)
I would recommend calling the subpackages %{name}-foo (i.e. geany-plugins-foo)
rather than geany-plugin-foo for consistency with other plugin bundles (eg.
claws-mail-plugins-*).
Blame me, this was my suggestion. IMO it should be plugin, because each
package only contains a single plugin. We had this in other packages as well in
the past (e. g. audaciuos-plugin-*), but obviously this has be changed in the
meantime, so I agree with you.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512217] Review Request: geany-plugins - A bundle of plugins for Geany
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512217
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com
2009-07-18 15:09:43 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #18)
(In reply to comment #17)
I would recommend calling the subpackages %{name}-foo (i.e.
geany-plugins-foo)
rather than geany-plugin-foo for consistency with other plugin bundles (eg.
claws-mail-plugins-*).
Blame me, this was my suggestion. IMO it should be plugin, because each
package only contains a single plugin. We had this in other packages as well
in
the past (e. g. audaciuos-plugin-*), but obviously this has be changed in the
meantime, so I agree with you.
Hm. Spurred on by that comment, I just did a yum list \*plugin\* and there is a
usage of both foo-plugin-bar and foo-plugins-bar. So, I am no longer sure which
is correct! I can certainly see that your rationale for -plugin- makes sense.
Perhaps this is a case of leave it up to the packager. It's probably
something that the FPC should standardize, as well.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512217] Review Request: geany-plugins - A bundle of plugins for Geany
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512217 --- Comment #20 from Dominic Hopf dma...@gmail.com 2009-07-18 15:22:45 EDT --- Updated files: Spec URL: http://dmaphy.fedorapeople.org/geany-plugins/geany-plugins.spec SRPM URL: http://dmaphy.fedorapeople.org/geany-plugins/geany-plugins-0.17-5.fc11.src.rpm 8c9a9c0ab5f26113a49a11e81e7bc66c geany-plugins.spec 27cb75749e46e4dfbdfd9ec0c49dd639 geany-plugins-0.17-5.fc11.src.rpm I fixed the Requires in this release as Jonathan suggested and renamed the sub-packages back to geany-plugins-* from geany-plugin-*. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 510982] Review Request: psimedia - Audio and video RTP services for Psi-like IM clients
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510982 --- Comment #12 from nucleo alekc...@googlemail.com 2009-07-18 15:27:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) CVS done. Thank you. Psimedia was built for rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=114873 Psimedia for F-11 will be built when psi 0.13 release will be built for F-11. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512217] Review Request: geany-plugins - A bundle of plugins for Geany
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512217
--- Comment #21 from Dominic Hopf dma...@gmail.com 2009-07-18 15:29:02 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #19)
(In reply to comment #18)
(In reply to comment #17)
I would recommend calling the subpackages %{name}-foo (i.e.
geany-plugins-foo)
rather than geany-plugin-foo for consistency with other plugin bundles
(eg.
claws-mail-plugins-*).
Blame me, this was my suggestion. IMO it should be plugin, because each
package only contains a single plugin. We had this in other packages as
well in
the past (e. g. audaciuos-plugin-*), but obviously this has be changed in
the
meantime, so I agree with you.
Hm. Spurred on by that comment, I just did a yum list \*plugin\* and there is
a
usage of both foo-plugin-bar and foo-plugins-bar. So, I am no longer sure
which
is correct! I can certainly see that your rationale for -plugin- makes
sense.
Perhaps this is a case of leave it up to the packager. It's probably
something that the FPC should standardize, as well.
Jonathan was a bit faster with answering than me, so in the release 5 which I
just posted the sub-packages got renamed to geany-plugins-*. I totally agree
with Christophs point of view. It definitely does make sense to name the
subpackages geany-plugin-* since they include just one plugin at a time (except
geany-plugins-addons, in fact). Anyway I tend to leave the naming
geany-plugins-* since the upstream project is named geany-plugins.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492224] Review Request: gnome-mud - MUD client for GNOME desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492224 Sean Middleditch s...@middleditch.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(s...@middleditch. | |us) | --- Comment #19 from Sean Middleditch s...@middleditch.us 2009-07-18 15:45:40 EDT --- I'm sorry. I am probably just going to package up libtelnet and clc instead of reviewing another package. This isn't going to happen for another week or two because of my crappy summer schedule. Again, sorry for the delay. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512228] Review Request: (Previously Orphaned) dumpasn1 - ASN.1 object dump 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=512228 --- Comment #3 from Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi 2009-07-18 16:10:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) Is there any reason why sed is a buildreq? It's not really about sed, but the = 3.95 part. 3.95 was the version where the -i flag was added. But the version is no longer relevant nowadays, even RHEL 3 comes with sed newer than that. How do I proceed from here? I can just import the new srpm in the existing dumpasn1 cvs dir and close this bug when the new dumpasn1 hits rawhide/f11/f10? I suggest just doing a checkout of the dumpasn1 module from CVS and do the upgrade there just as if you'd be doing a regular package update. And when Rawhide has been updated, close this bug and work on other branches as you see fit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 509160] Review Request: mine_detector – a mine-finding game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509160 --- Comment #2 from Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se 2009-07-18 16:32:59 EDT --- About the underscore, the naming guidelines also say that packages where the upstream name naturally contains an underscore are excluded from this. I figured that mine_detector would fall in this category, although I'm not sure how to tell a natural underscore from an unnatural one. The underscore is there in the names of both the source package and the final executable file, so I chose this name to comply with the rule that the name should match the upstream tarball or project name from which this software came. The underscore isn't important to me though. I can replace it with a hyphen if an experienced reviewer thinks I should. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512068] Review Request: rancid - Really Awesome New Cisco confIg Differ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512068
--- Comment #12 from Christopher McCrory chris...@pricegrabber.com
2009-07-18 16:55:15 EDT ---
also crontab hardcodes /usr/lib/rancid/rancid-run which breaks on 64bit arch
/usr/lib64/rancid/rancid-run . recommend symlink in /usr/bin or generate at
buildtime from within spec file.
in crontab: find .. exec rm {}
recommend exec rm '{}' in case a space shows up somewhere. or use --delete (
maybe with --print)
maybe also add MAILTO=root in crontab so errors have a better chance of being
read.
rancid.conf file has a . in PATH something:.:more . recommend no '.' in
PATH.
I could live with not requiring cvs as I use svn.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512500] Review Request: multimedia-menus - Categorization for the GNOME/KDE AudioVideo/Multimedia menu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512500 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||pbrobin...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pbrobin...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2009-07-18 18:00:22 EDT --- I'll review this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 511107] Review Request: rhythmbox-equalizer - An Equalizer plugin for Rhythmbox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511107 --- Comment #3 from Hicham HAOUARI hicham.haou...@gmail.com 2009-07-18 19:40:14 EDT --- I am gonna update the spec and srpm soon -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 446990] Review Request: python-axiom - An in-process object-relational 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=446990 Mauricio Teixeira mauricio.teixe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(mauricio.teixeira | |@gmail.com) | --- Comment #4 from Mauricio Teixeira mauricio.teixe...@gmail.com 2009-07-18 20:17:25 EDT --- python-epsilon is on bz#446989. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 502130] Review Request: openocd - Open On-Chip Debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502130 --- Comment #7 from Dean Glazeski dngl...@gmail.com 2009-07-18 21:23:11 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) No actually, source0 should have the full URL for downloading the sources. URL is the url for the upstream website. Alright, I've finally made these updates to the spec file. Here are the new files. This includes a spec bump. Thanks. http://files.dinoprojects.com/openocd/openocd-0.1.0-3.fc11.src.rpm http://files.dinoprojects.com/openocd/openocd.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 446989] Review Request: python-epsilon - A small utility package that depends on tools too recent for Twisted
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446989 Mauricio Teixeira mauricio.teixe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(mauricio.teixeira | |@gmail.com) | --- Comment #8 from Mauricio Teixeira mauricio.teixe...@gmail.com 2009-07-18 20:13:20 EDT --- The egg-info file was being generated with rUnknown in F10, but in F11 it gets generated with r17222, so I fixed it in the new spec file. The %python at the top was there because of some internal black magic, which is not needed anymore, so I removed. You will still see python not found errors in mock because of the python_sitelib macro (as specified by the packaging guidelines). The new files are here: http://mteixeira.webset.net/mock/python-epsilon.spec http://mteixeira.webset.net/mock/python-epsilon-0.5.12-2.fc11.src.rpm $ rpmlint mock/python-epsilon-0.5.12-2.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint mock/python-epsilon-0.5.12-2.fc11.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Thanks for your time to review 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 511107] Review Request: rhythmbox-equalizer - An Equalizer plugin for Rhythmbox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511107 --- Comment #2 from Hicham HAOUARI hicham.haou...@gmail.com 2009-07-18 19:38:43 EDT --- The macro up_name stands for upstream name. You are right, upstream don't indicate any license yet, probably he will release it under GPLv2+. The url is not precise, you are right. Changelog and todo are taken from upstream website, I added them to suppress an rpmlint warning. You are right, requiring python is not necessary. You are right, pyc files should be removed. Thanks for taking the time to review my 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 512217] Review Request: geany-plugins - A bundle of plugins for Geany
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512217 --- Comment #22 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-07-18 20:27:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19) I just did a yum list \*plugin\* and there is a usage of both foo-plugin-bar and foo-plugins-bar. So, I am no longer sure which is correct! I think we should stick with plugins (plural) now because - it follows the source package name - it's what most other packages do if they are built from a source that includes several plugins. The *-plugin-* packages you see are usually built from standalone sources. Perhaps this is a case of leave it up to the packager. It's probably something that the FPC should standardize, as well. IMO yes, just like the naming guidelines for panel applets/plugins. From my POV everything is fine now. What do you think, Jochen? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454329] Review Request: PolicyKit-olpc - OLPC-specific PolicyKit overrides
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454329 --- Comment #16 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-07-18 20:20:10 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) The idea of looking into six month old reviews of only mine because of your desire to improve quality does not sound very convincing. Please don't take this personally, I'm not picking on you. I'm definitely not only doing this with your reviews, but also with others whenever I stumble upon something that IMO should have been fixed in the review (e. g. bug 502920). You might not know this but Daniel Drake works for OLPC. Rahul, I *can* read and I do know Daniel from various OLPC-related IRC conversations. All the guidelines have been followed and the review quality is fine. It should be obvious for others what you have checked and what not. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer 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=506339 --- Comment #31 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-07-18 19:13:38 EDT --- Will F-10/F-11 users (for instance: package reviewers) be able to open SRPMs made in rawhide? IMHO, at the least, xz could be held at the testing repos for some 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 511895] Review Request: clutter-imcontext - IMContext Framework Library for Clutter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511895
--- Comment #2 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-07-18
20:11:19 EDT ---
Here is my review for this package. Most are minor things but there is a
license issue.
- Package builds in koji rawhide:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1484535
- rpmlint is silent
* Package fails to build on F-11:
checking for CLUTTER... configure: error: Package requirements (glib-2.0
clutter-0.9 = 0.9.3) were not met:
No package 'clutter-0.9' found
I think this BR on clutter-devel should contain the explicit version
requirement.
Is this package for rawhide only?
! All relevant doc files should be packaged. It would be good to include the
AUTHORS and ChangeLog files in %doc
* The files clutter-imtext.{c,h} are LGPLv3. The rest is LGPLv2. AFAIK These
are incompatible. This needs to be clarified by upstream.
! BR's automake, autoconf are unnecessary since these will always be dragged in
by libtool. Similarly, BR's glib2-devel, pkgconfig will be dragged in by
clutter-devel. However, it is not a blocker to keep them.
* It looks like the devel package should require clutter-devel. There are other
dependencies as well such as glib2-devel, pango-devel. But these will be
dragged in by clutter-devel.
! The %{name} macro could be used more consistently.
? Do we need to package the Makefile* stuff in %doc? One last suggestion: You
could use %doc doc/* instead of just %doc doc/ to avoid an extra
subdirectory.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512263] Review Request: audtty - A ncurses based terminal client for the Audacious
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512263 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||fed...@christoph-wickert.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@christoph-wickert.de Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-07-18 22:22:55 EDT --- I'm going to review this. This is the third review I'm doing for you this weekend. I think you owe me a beer! ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512500] Review Request: multimedia-menus - Categorization for the GNOME/KDE AudioVideo/Multimedia menu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512500 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@christoph-wickert.de --- Comment #2 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-07-18 22:22:06 EDT --- IMO the menu structure should follow http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html so there are some categories missing: - Tuner - TV - Player - Recorder Instead, you are dividing between Capture and Import, Creation and Output Generation, which IMHO is very questionable, because their subcategories cannot strictly be distinguished into one or the other. On the other hand a category like Recorder is missing, although it could clearly be assigned to Capture and Import. To me this menu layout does not make much sense and I suggest to follow freedesktop. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484386 --- Comment #19 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-07-18 22:41:21 EDT --- Dan Kelley released a new gri with GPLv3+ licence: SPEC URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/gri-2.12.19-1.spec SRPM URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/gri-2.12.19-1.fc10.src.rpm Changelog: * Sun Jul 19 2009 D Haley mycae(a!t)yahoo.com 2.12.19-1 - Update to gri-2.12.19 Koji: F10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1484728 F11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1484723 Rpmlint: $ rpmlint -i gri.spec ../SRPMS/gri-2.12.19-1.fc10.src.rpm ../RPMS/i386/gri-*19-1.fc10* ../RPMS/i386/*-gri-*19-1.fc10* sudo rpm -e gri sudo rpm -i ../RPMS/i386/gri-2.12.19-1.fc10.i386.rpm rpmlint gri emacs-gri.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. emacs-gri-el.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. xemacs-gri.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. xemacs-gri-el.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. 7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. [sudo] password for makerpm: 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472793] Review Request: jgraph - Java graph visualization and layout
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472793 --- Comment #5 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-07-18 23:55:35 EDT --- The package looks pretty good. I will do a full review next update: RPMLint was clean, mock was OK. Comments: Description is weasel-wordy: Most powerful? and more? First free diagram editor for java -- I think jfig might beat it here (does jfig have drag'n drop?) 100% pure Java (What does that mean?) Fully standards-compliant (What standard? ISO 9001? Why do I (user) care?) etc. Please make it a bit more descriptive of what the software actually does, and what the package provides. I can't really tell from the description -- is it graphing software, can I make x-y plots? Or does it do network graph analysis? Or just display them? The README file is a little clearer A component to display and edit graphs (networks) with Java With the JGraph zoomable component, you can display objects and relations (networks) in any Swing UI. Some ideas: *Provides automatic 2D layout and routing for diagrams, for swing UIs *Allows for generation a wide variety of object-connection relation diagrams in a java user interface. I am getting errors during the RPM debug information extraction step when rebuilding (F10). A cursory examination makes me suspect it may be related to this bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472292 + /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh --strict-build-id /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/BUILD/jgraph-5.12.2.1 extracting debug info from /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/jgraph-5.12.2.1-1.fc10.i386/usr/lib/gcj/jgraph/jgraph-5.12.2.1.jar.so cpio: jgraph-5.12.2.1/aot-compile-rpm/usr/lib/gcj/jgraph/org/jgraph/JGraph$EmptySelectionModel.java: Cannot stat: No such file or directory cpio: jgraph-5.12.2.1/aot-compile-rpm/usr/lib/gcj/jgraph/org/jgraph/JGraph$GraphSelectionRedirector.java: Cannot stat: No such file or directory cpio: jgraph-5.12.2.1/aot-compile-rpm/usr/lib/gcj/jgraph/org/jgraph/JGraph.java: Cannot stat: No such file or directory cpio: jgraph-5.12.2.1/aot-compile-rpm/usr/lib/gcj/jgraph/org/jgraph/event/GraphLayoutCacheEvent$GraphLayoutCacheChange.java: Cannot stat: No such file or directory Licencing is not clearly LGPLv2+. It might be LGPLv2. LICENSE does not state if it is or any later, which is usually indicated in the source files (which do not show GPL headers, as required by LICENSE). Please raise a bug upstream, and for now the package will need to be LGPLv2 only. BuildRequires: dos2unix I prefer not using dos2unix for endline conversion. sed is available and capable of the conversion, and can be used to preserve timestamps. One less BuildRequires. $ echo hi helloworld] $ ls -l helloworld -rw-rw-r-- 1 makerpm makerpm 3 2009-07-19 12:30 helloworld $ unix2dos helloworld unix2dos: converting file helloworld to DOS format ... $ ls -l helloworld -rw-rw-r-- 1 makerpm makerpm 4 2009-07-19 12:31 helloworld Simply use this instead (shamelessly pinched from someone else's review of one of my packages): #convert EOL encodings, maintaining timestames for file in LICENSE examples/com/jgraph/example/SerialGraph.java ; do sed 's/\r//' $file $file.new \ touch -r $file $file.new \ mv $file.new $file done %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) You could simply use (-,root,root,-) here.. Its minor i know. Also, can you please provide koji scratch builds against F-10, F-11? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 512500] Review Request: multimedia-menus - Categorization for the GNOME/KDE AudioVideo/Multimedia menu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512500 --- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-07-19 00:37:40 EDT --- Thanks for the input Chris, the classification was discussed numerous times in fedora-devel and in fedora-music lists and on IRC. This is what we came up with, taking into consideration what many people said. It is sort of a mid-point of all the input we received. I acknowledge that there is really no perfect solution. However, I can debate that there can be a best solution. freedesktop standards were obviously created without media creation in mind. Their categories are not the best ones to start with. I will go by examples. For those who you use jack applications with many audio effects, and also use MIDI related applications, there was a definite need for subclassification. In time it became difficult to remember what was doing what among 200 different audio applications in the menu. And the classification was mainly based on the needs of such folks who are using multiple such applications at once. The Player category is the only thing that I'm not 100% sure what to do with. In the classification of this multimedia-menus package, we put the players on the top menu. The idea is, the players are the most popular applications for most users; we wanted to keep the player applications for easiest access. Still, I will ask the package maintainers to use the Player category in their .desktop files, in case there is a demand for putting them into a submenu in the future. This is by no means the final version that there will be and it can be expanded in time. The Recorder category is one the worst we could have used. There are so many applications that can be regarded as a recorder, or can be associated with recording (e.g. simple sound recorders, multitrack sequencers, optical media burners, ladspa, lv2 etc effects, wave editors, stream recorders, ...), that listing all of them in one Recorders submenu would kill the purpose of this classification. The subcategories need not to be strictly distinguishable. Certain applications can fall into more than one submenu. But there is nothing wrong with this as explained in the proposal that was sent to FESCo. The key is easy access. If an application uses Jack and MIDI, let it be in both Jack and in MIDI submenus, so that people who want to use the Jack capability of this application can find it the Jack menu. Similarly for people who want to use the MIDI capability of the same application. Anyhow, this is not the best place to discuss this. Shall we continue in the fedora-music list, where most people participated in this discussion? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
