[Bug 476600] Review Request: python-ZODB3 - Zope Object Database: Object Database and Persistence

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476600





--- Comment #4 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org  2009-10-29 01:58:02 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #3)
  Mock build fails.

I've built the new version, which builds in rawhide mock for me.

Re: CFLAGS combined with setup.py:
 Right. Diving into it I can see that many packages does it that way - but also
 many noarch packages. And many python arch packages doesn't do it. It seems to
 me like the Python packaging guidelines could use some clarification here?

Yes, I completely agree. The guidelines could use some cleaning up and the spec
templates should be updated to match.

Re: commented out %check section: 
 Doesn't that mean that we need a comment about why it is disabled?

Yes, this is something I should have done, sorry. The age of the review is such
that I don't remember anymore -- I'll figure this out when I build the new
version.

Re: this package installs 4 separate python modules
 That might be true, even though I assume they are separate modules because
 upstream considers them independent?
 
 I don't feel comfortable with a package reserving such a generic term as
 persistent from the global Python module namespace just for its internal 
 use.

Hm, good point. I will package them as separate sub-packages.

New SRPM/SPEC:
http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-ZODB3.spec
http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/python-ZODB3-3.9.3-1.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 529605] Review Request: ohai - Profiles your system and emits JSON

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529605





--- Comment #5 from Matthew Kent mk...@magoazul.com  2009-10-29 02:43:42 EDT 
---
Still waiting on the license issue.

Spec URL: http://magoazul.com/wip/SPECS/ohai.spec
SRPM URL: http://magoazul.com/wip/SRPMS/ohai-0.3.6-1.fc12.src.rpm

* Wed Oct 28 2009 Matthew Kent mk...@magoazul.com - 0.3.6-1
- New upstream release.
- Add dependencies on rubygem-mixlib-{cli,config,log}
- man page included upstream

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 529605] Review Request: ohai - Profiles your system and emits JSON

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529605





--- Comment #6 from Matthew Kent mk...@magoazul.com  2009-10-29 03:14:56 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #5)
 Still waiting on the license issue.
 
 Spec URL: http://magoazul.com/wip/SPECS/ohai.spec
 SRPM URL: http://magoazul.com/wip/SRPMS/ohai-0.3.6-1.fc12.src.rpm
 
 * Wed Oct 28 2009 Matthew Kent mk...@magoazul.com - 0.3.6-1
 - New upstream release.
 - Add dependencies on rubygem-mixlib-{cli,config,log}
 - man page included upstream  

Apologies, this update is broken. I'm going to have to rework things a little.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 522169] Review Request: netplug - Daemon that responds to network cables being plugged in and out

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522169


Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 530688] Review Request: ghc-language-c - Haskell language-c library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530688





--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com  2009-10-29 04:41:58 
EDT ---
Looks fine to me.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 528675] Review Request: knm-new-fixed-fonts - 12x12 JIS X 0208 Bitmap fonts

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528675


Akira TAGOH ta...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




--- Comment #13 from Akira TAGOH ta...@redhat.com  2009-10-29 04:59:17 EDT ---
Thanks. pushed the package.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 479800] Review Request: hlint - Provides Haskell Source Code Suggestions

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479800





--- Comment #17 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com  2009-10-29 05:07:49 
EDT ---
cabal2spec-diff looks sane, should be ready for review.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 531605] Review Request: packmol - Packing Optimization for Molecular Dynamics Simulations

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531605


Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi




--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi  2009-10-29 05:07:32 
EDT ---
A few notes:

- You don't need to include AUTHORS and COPYING separately. Where did you get
them, anyway?

- I wouldn't use -ffast-math, since then the results aren't reproducible (they
depend on the machine type).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 531541] Review Request: rho - An SSH system profiler

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531541


Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi




--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi  2009-10-29 05:10:08 
EDT ---
- You are missing the Source URL. Fix it.

- Replace
 gzip rho.1
 mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1/
 mv rho.1.gz $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1/
with
 install -D -p -m 644 gzip.1 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1/rho.1
(If you move the file, short circuiting the build won't work. Also, rpm handles
compression of man files by itself, so you don't need to do it manually.)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 460974] Review Request: xmobar - status bar for X

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460974





--- Comment #9 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com  2009-10-29 05:15:16 
EDT ---
xmobar.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 21)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 460974] Review Request: xmobar - status bar for X

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460974





--- Comment #10 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com  2009-10-29 05:17:05 
EDT ---
Created an attachment (id=366582)
 -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=366582)
xmobar.spec-1.patch

You don't need doc/prof for a binary only package, plus other minor fixes.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 479800] Review Request: hlint - Provides Haskell Source Code Suggestions

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479800





--- Comment #18 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com  2009-10-29 05:37:25 
EDT ---
I haven't checked (yet) but is the License tag really 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 503250] Review Request: ghc-hinotify - Haskell binding to INotify

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503250





--- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com  2009-10-29 05:35:25 
EDT ---
You forgot to update the srpm.

ghc-hinotify.src: E: description-line-too-long This library provides a wrapper
to the Linux Kernel's inotify feature, allowing applications to subscribe to
notifications when a file is accessed or modified.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 491490] Review Request: ghmm - A library with data structures and algorithms for Hidden Markov Models

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491490





--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org  
2009-10-29 06:33:39 EDT ---
ghmm-0.7-4.svn2286.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghmm-0.7-4.svn2286.el5

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 491490] Review Request: ghmm - A library with data structures and algorithms for Hidden Markov Models

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491490





--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org  
2009-10-29 06:33:33 EDT ---
ghmm-0.7-4.svn2286.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghmm-0.7-4.svn2286.fc11

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC 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

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly 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 #11 from Michal Nowak mno...@redhat.com  2009-10-29 06:39:17 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #10)
There's always a chance... if you do the review :).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 525412] Review Request: mediaproxy - NAT traversal solution for compatible SIP-routers

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525412





--- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com  2009-10-29 06:44:46 
EDT ---
Ver. 2.3.8:

http://peter.fedorapeople.org/mediaproxy.spec
http://peter.fedorapeople.org/mediaproxy-2.3.8-1.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 519282] Review Request: calibre - e-book converter and library manager

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=519282





--- Comment #26 from Ionuț Arțăriși maple...@fedoraproject.org  2009-10-29 
07:08:32 EDT ---
Jose, I can't replicate the rpmlint errors you're getting. Here's a koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1776159


$ rpmlint calibre-0.6.19-3.fc12.x86_64.rpm 
calibre.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/calibre/fonts/prs500/tt0419m_.ttf
/usr/share/fonts/liberation/LiberationMono-Regular.ttf
calibre.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/calibre/fonts/prs500/tt0003m_.ttf
/usr/share/fonts/liberation/LiberationSans-Regular.ttf
calibre.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/calibre/fonts/prs500/tt0011m_.ttf
/usr/share/fonts/liberation/LiberationSerif-Regular.ttf
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 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 462923] Review Request: jibx - Framework for binding XML data to Java objects

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462923


Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends on|462580  |




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 462580] Review Request: wstx - Woodstox Stax Implementation

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462580


Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords|Reopened|
 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Blocks|462923  |201449(FE-DEADREVIEW)
 Resolution||NOTABUG
   Flag|needinfo?(guth...@counterex |
   |ample.org)  |




--- Comment #6 from Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org  2009-10-29 
07:09:45 EDT ---
Well, nothing happens. No response. I close this now.

-- 
Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 526100] Review Request: django-registration - A user-registration application for Django

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526100





--- Comment #2 from Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org  2009-10-29 
07:13:19 EDT ---
Ping?

-- 
Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 509159] Review Request: PragmARC – a comp onent library for Ada

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509159


Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+




--- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com  2009-10-29 07:19:25 
EDT ---
Koji successful scratchbuild for F-11:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1776218

Sources, used to build package, are matching upstream ones:
[pe...@sulaco SOURCES]$ sha256sum pragmarc.zip*
6c80906ed7b64fb1c065f1a7a9331fa644ce1c2f34e807dd794d74db92201da9  pragmarc.zip
6c80906ed7b64fb1c065f1a7a9331fa644ce1c2f34e807dd794d74db92201da9 
pragmarc.zip.1
[pe...@sulaco SOURCES]$

REVIEW:

+ rpmlint is silent:

[pe...@workplace tmp]$ rpmlint PragmARC-
PragmARC-20060427-4.fc11.i586.rpm   
PragmARC-debuginfo-20060427-4.fc11.i586.rpm 
PragmARC-devel-20060427-4.fc11.i586.rpm  
[pe...@workplace tmp]$ rpmlint PragmARC-*
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[pe...@workplace tmp]$ 

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines .
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec .
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines .
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines .
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. (GPL
with exceptions)
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package are matching the upstream source.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. 
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ The package (or subpackage) calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings. 
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ Development-related files are in a -devel package.
+ The library file that end in .so (without suffix) is in a -devel package.
[20]
+ The devel sub-package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


APPROVED.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 529831] Review Request: opensips - Open Source SIP Server

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529831





--- Comment #3 from John A. Khvatov iva...@gmail.com  2009-10-29 07:54:19 EDT 
---
1.6.0-2 changelog:
- Added patch for init script to fix malformed comment block
- Added COPYING file
- Fixed not-capitalized not-capitalized summory of memcached subpackage

SPEC: http://dev.sgu.ru/fedora/opensips.spec
SRMP: http://dev.sgu.ru/fedora/opensips-1.6.0-2.fc11.src.rpm

Thanks.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 530342] Review Request: kcm-gtk - Configure the appearance of GTK apps in KDE

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530342





--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org  
2009-10-29 08:10:23 EDT ---
kcm-gtk-0.5.1-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kcm-gtk-0.5.1-2.fc11

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 529831] Review Request: opensips - Open Source SIP Server

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529831


Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-review?




--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com  2009-10-29 08:12:30 
EDT ---
Great. I don't see other issues, so this package is

APPROVED.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530743


Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||cassmod...@fedoraproject.or
   ||g
 AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cassmod...@fedoraproject.or
   ||g
   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 525146] Review Request: PDCurses - Public Domain curses library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525146


Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution||ERRATA




--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net  2009-10-29 08:20:06 EDT ---
Since this conflicts with ncurses, I'm withdrawing this 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 529831] Review Request: opensips - Open Source SIP Server

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529831


Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 428568] Review Request: synfig - Synfig is a vector based 2D animation package

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428568


Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 CC||toms...@fedoraproject.org
 Resolution||CANTFIX




--- Comment #49 from Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org  2009-10-29 
08:51:08 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #43)
 Failure of the submitter (Marc Wiriadisastra) to respond to a ping is
 sufficient reason for this to be closed.  If you (Lubomir) are now submitting
 this package, you should have opened your own review ticket.

Lubomir, this was the next ping, you are missing ;)

Please, close this as a dublicate to your own review request.

Without, this is a 'CANTFIX'.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 530756] Review Request: circuit_macros - A set of macros for drawing high-quality line diagram

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530756


Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||toms...@fedoraproject.org




--- Comment #1 from Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org  2009-10-29 
09:12:04 EDT ---
Just a comment:

The *.m4 files are executable, possibly not by intention…

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530743


Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||cwick...@fedoraproject.org
 AssignedTo|cassmod...@fedoraproject.or |cwick...@fedoraproject.org
   |g   |




--- Comment #4 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org  2009-10-29 
09:19:28 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
 As the license is clearly stated in *every* source-file this shouldn't be an
 issue for the package.  

It is, because we don't ship the sourcecode. Ether convince upstream to add the
files or add one yourself. I'd prefer a single file with both license texts and
a short notice which files are under the BSD license.

Two more minor comments:

In the patch you should set MANDIR to ${PREFIX}/share/man instead of
${PREFIX}/man

Use 
%{_mandir}/man1/tmux.1.*
instead of 
%{_mandir}/man1/tmux.1.gz
because compression of the manpages is a transparent process done by rpmbuild.
We could also switch to bz2 or lzma as discussed on fedora-packaging-list
recently.

Marcus, some comments on your review: 
You should not only check that the source matches upstream by md5, but also the
mdssum. In this case it's 716b12d9ea052f57d917bf2869d419df for both.

MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
Should be OK instead of N/A. :)

You could also have done a scratch build like
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1776460

Apart of that, your review was good.

Sven, the only remaining blocker is the license issue.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567


Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|479527  |




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 479527] Review Request: synfigstudio - Vector-based 2D animation studio

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479527


Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||Reopened
 Status|CLOSED  |ASSIGNED
 Depends on|428567  |
 Resolution|NOTABUG |




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 428568] Review Request: synfig - Synfig is a vector based 2D animation package

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428568





--- Comment #50 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk  2009-10-29 09:27:50 EDT 
---
bug #531773

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 531773] Review Request: synfig - Vector-based 2D animation rendering backend

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531773


Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||479527




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 479527] Review Request: synfigstudio - Vector-based 2D animation studio

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479527


Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
 Blocks|201449(FE-DEADREVIEW)   |
 Depends on||531773




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 531773] New: Review Request: synfig - Vector-based 2D animation rendering backend

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: synfig - Vector-based 2D animation rendering backend

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531773

   Summary: Review Request: synfig - Vector-based 2D animation
rendering backend
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: low
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: lkund...@v3.sk
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora


SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/synfig.spec
SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/synfig-0.61.09-4.fc11.src.rpm  

Description:

Synfig is a powerful, industrial-strength vector-based 2D animation
software, designed from the ground-up for producing feature-film quality
animation with fewer people and resources.  It is designed to be capable of
producing feature-film quality animation. It eliminates the need for
tweening, preventing the need to hand-draw each frame. Synfig features
spatial and temporal resolution independence (sharp and smoothat any
resolution or framerate), high dynamic range images, and a flexible plugin
system.

This package contains the command-line-based rendering backend.
Install synfigstudio package for GUI-based animation studio.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 531773] Review Request: synfig - Vector-based 2D animation rendering backend

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531773


Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||m...@mwiriadi.id.au




--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi  2009-10-29 09:32:04 
EDT ---
*** Bug 428568 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 428568] Review Request: synfig - Synfig is a vector based 2D animation package

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428568


Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi
 Resolution|CANTFIX |DUPLICATE




--- Comment #51 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi  2009-10-29 09:32:04 
EDT ---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 531773 ***

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 510511] Review Request: aws - Set of tools to access Amazon EC2, S3 and SQS

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510511


Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution||CANTFIX




--- Comment #3 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk  2009-10-29 09:32:45 EDT ---
I am no longer interested in this package. If anyone wants to resurrect it feel
free to. I'd gladly help if needed.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 483838] Review Request: vmware-view-open-client - Client for Windows desktops managed by VMware View

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483838


Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution||CANTFIX




--- Comment #10 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk  2009-10-29 09:32:37 EDT 
---
I am no longer interested in this package. If anyone wants to resurrect it feel
free to. I'd gladly help if needed.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530743


Sven Lankes s...@lank.es changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tcall...@redhat.com




--- Comment #5 from Sven Lankes s...@lank.es  2009-10-29 09:52:48 EDT ---
 It is, because we don't ship the sourcecode. Ether convince upstream to add 
 the
 files or add one yourself. I'd prefer a single file with both license texts 
 and
 a short notice which files are under the BSD license.

I cannot find any justification that this is mandatory and spot 
doesn't think so either:

14:45  killefiz spot: do I have to create a LICENSE-File for an RPM if
upstream doesn't supply one (he doesn't want to add one either)
14:45  spot killefiz: no, it is not required.

I'll upload a new spec addressing the two other issues you raised later today
(unless you want me to upload as is and add fixes later).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530743





--- Comment #6 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com  2009-10-29 
10:05:37 EDT ---
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its
own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package
must be included in %doc. If the source package does not include the text of
the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to
correct this mistake.

It is explicitly (and intentionally) not mandatory. I would encourage you to
note in the spec file (in comments) the licensing situation and breakdown.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 530617] Review Request: libixp - Stand-alone client/server 9P library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530617


Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||maple...@fedoraproject.org




--- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com  2009-10-29 10:14:49 
EDT ---
*** Bug 454025 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 454025] Review Request: libixp - stand-alone client/server 9P library including ixpc client

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454025


Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|NOTABUG |DUPLICATE




--- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com  2009-10-29 10:14:49 
EDT ---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 530617 ***

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 531773] Review Request: synfig - Vector-based 2D animation rendering backend

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531773





--- Comment #2 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk  2009-10-29 10:26:25 EDT ---
kouzi skrec bild
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1776478

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 531541] Review Request: rho - An SSH system profiler

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531541





--- Comment #2 from Devan Goodwin dgood...@rm-rf.ca  2009-10-29 10:52:04 EDT 
---
alik...@redhat.com will be taking over this package, if possible (when package
is added) it'd be great if he could be added as the owner. If not we'll just
dole out the permissions ourselves.

Fixes for the above coming 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 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530743


Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+




--- Comment #7 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org  2009-10-29 
10:52:07 EDT ---
I have to admit that I still disagree because this is a package with multiple
licenses. The users will nether see the headers nor the spec, all they have is
the info from rpm -qi.

However if Spot says it's ok and you are not willing to add a README.licensing,
I don't insist on this as a blocker. The package is APPROVED

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530743





--- Comment #8 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org  2009-10-29 
11:06:17 EDT ---
BTW: Debian has a couple of interesting patches for tmux, see
http://patch-tracker.debian.org/package/tmux/1.0-1

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 524107] Review Request: qbrew - A Brewing Recipe Calculator

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524107





--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org  
2009-10-29 11:06:21 EDT ---
qbrew-0.4.1-6.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qbrew-0.4.1-6.fc11

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 495669] Review Request: sgpio - Intel SGPIO enclosure management utility

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495669


Ruben Kerkhof ru...@rubenkerkhof.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ru...@rubenkerkhof.com




--- Comment #6 from Ruben Kerkhof ru...@rubenkerkhof.com  2009-10-29 11:09:49 
EDT ---
What's the status of this review? I don't see sgpio in F-11 yet.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 519282] Review Request: calibre - e-book converter and library manager

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=519282





--- Comment #27 from José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt  2009-10-29 11:21:30 EDT ---
I run mock locally:

$ mock --rebuild -r fedora-devel-x86_64 calibre-0.6.19-3.fc11.src.rpm

Probably this is related with different set of build tools used in the koji
building system...

If that is not a problem then proceed.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 472639] Review Request: Scilab - Numerical Analysis toolkit

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472639





--- Comment #30 from Sylvestre Ledru sylvestre.le...@scilab.org  2009-10-29 
11:33:26 EDT ---
OK, thanks for the feedback.
Is there anyway that Jogl  Gluegen could be accepted under this form into the
archive ?

Building jogl  gluegen from the same tarball is not enough ?

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 522341] Review Rquest：kde4-windeco-aurora e

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522341


Ryan Rix phrkonale...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||phrkonale...@gmail.com
   Flag||needinfo?(vvfa...@gmail.com
   ||)




--- Comment #3 from Ryan Rix phrkonale...@gmail.com  2009-10-29 11:33:01 EDT 
---
Are you a sponsored packager? According to FAS you are not. Please set the
'Blocks' entry to FE-NEEDSPONSOR if so. 

A few suggestions for packager:
1) Make sure this builds in Koji (do you have the koji tools installed on your
machine? koji build --scratch dist-f13
kde4-windeco-aurorae-0.2.1-1.fc11.src.rpm ) Provide taskID of the entire build
in your review request
2) rpmlint output of the SPEC, SRPM, RPM and -debuginfo RPM in review request.

These things are not technically required, but they make things easier for your
reviewer and in general expediate the package review process.

If you are sponsored I will take this review, if not I cannot review it, only
provide pre-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 530756] Review Request: circuit_macros - A set of macros for drawing high-quality line diagram

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530756





--- Comment #2 from Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com  2009-10-29 11:40:59 EDT 
---
Fixed. Does install -p add executable permissions? Guess I should just use -m
all the time and not trust what's in the tar/zip from now on anyways.

Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/circuit_macros/circuit_macros.spec
SRPM URL:
http://benboeckel.net/packaging/circuit_macros/circuit_macros-6.61-2.fc12.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 529810] Review Request: perl-MooseX-CascadeClearing - Cascade clearer actions across attributes

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529810


Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||RAWHIDE




--- Comment #8 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com  2009-10-29 
11:46:04 EDT ---
Thank 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 524107] Review Request: qbrew - A Brewing Recipe Calculator

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524107


Chris St. Pierre chris.a.st.pie...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




--- Comment #19 from Chris St. Pierre chris.a.st.pie...@gmail.com  2009-10-29 
11:47:16 EDT ---
Tag request submitted for F12.  All appears to be well in the world.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 231861] Review Request: cyrus-imapd - high-performance mail server (IMAP, POP3, ...)

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=231861





--- Comment #11 from Michal Hlavinka mhlav...@redhat.com  2009-10-29 11:49:54 
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #10)
 Is this package still ready for review? 

somehow :o)

 (And shouldn't it be a Merge Review?)

definitely 

 How can it be that it has status Assigned but isn't assigned to anybody?

afaict, it seems it was assigned to someone whose account has been closed

 My first impression is that it looks like it haven't been dressed up for examn
 and could use some polishing before a final review.

sure, I've inherited this package and it required a *lot* of polishing. But
after a few rounds it got lower and lower in my todo-list, especially because
there was no reviewer.

 Some brief comments:
 
 It seems like most (all?) of the code now is licensed announcement-BSD-ish, so
 the License and the comments about it are a bit misleading.

fixed

 
 The spec is quite complex and verbose and IMHO not easy to read.

I agree

 The spec contains comments left over from the Invoca version.

fixed

 _perlhack variable seems to be unused since 7.3 - Red Hat, not Fedora!

yes, this was leftover, I've removed all perlhack ifdefs some time ago

removed

 
 There are manu variables and configuration options. Are they necessary and
 used?

this is what I can't even guess actually. I'd definitely like to get rid of all
those switches, but I don't want to break it for someone... Well, I've just
though about removing them in new rawhide and wait if someone complains.

and since devel is future rawhide now, I've removed them

 
 The %file specs are very explicit and verbose. Is that intentional and
 necessary? (And %{_contribdir} is listed twice.)

second _contribdir removed

it seems to me there is quite a lot of space for improvement since attributes
do not need to be specified twice (install in %install and %files), I'll look
at this.

 Rpmlint says
 6 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 20 errors, 61 warnings.
 Some of the warnings might be invalid, but some of them definitely should be
 adressed before review.

I've lowered the number a little for now 

 The spec has 30 sources and 15 patches without any indication if they have 
 been
 pushed upstream.  

Afaik they were rejected

some sources are additional modules/tools that upstream is not interested in

--

This is first round and definitely not finished. Just to show you there is
someone on the other end. I'll continue with this on monday

---

changes were only commited, not tagged yet, you find actual (not finished) spec
in cvs

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530743


Sven Lankes s...@lank.es changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




--- Comment #9 from Sven Lankes s...@lank.es  2009-10-29 11:51:04 EDT ---
New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: tmux
Short Description: A terminal multiplexer
Owners: slankes
Branches: F-11 F-12 EL-5

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 494695] Review Request: qutim - Multiplatform Instant Messenger on Qt4

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494695





--- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com  2009-10-29 11:56:57 
EDT ---
Koji scratchbuild for F-11 failed due to easy-to-fix issue in the %files
section:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1776709

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 495669] Review Request: sgpio - Intel SGPIO enclosure management utility

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495669





--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org  
2009-10-29 12:06:44 EDT ---
sgpio-1.2.0.10-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sgpio-1.2.0.10-2.fc11

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 495669] Review Request: sgpio - Intel SGPIO enclosure management utility

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495669


Jiri Moskovcak jmosk...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED




--- Comment #8 from Jiri Moskovcak jmosk...@redhat.com  2009-10-29 12:07:56 
EDT ---
I'm sorry, I built it but forgot to push it as an update for F11.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 231861] Review Request: cyrus-imapd - high-performance mail server (IMAP, POP3, ...)

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=231861





--- Comment #12 from Mads Kiilerich m...@kiilerich.com  2009-10-29 12:30:49 
EDT ---
 The spec has 30 sources and 15 patches without any indication if they have 
 been
 pushed upstream.  
 
 Afaik they were rejected

Probably. I worked a bit on packaging 10 (hmm ... scary!) years ago
(http://www.rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/conectiva/atualizacoes/8/RPMS/cyrus-imapd-devel-static-2.0.17-1U80_1cl.i386.html),
and back then upstream wasn't that open. But the license change might be an
indication that things have changed now?

 some sources are additional modules/tools that upstream is not interested in

That might be. But there are so many of them that it almost deserves a real
home. Fedora CVS is not a good upstream. Perhaps upstream could be convinced to
carry it in its contrib folder?

-- 
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 531648] Review Request: python3-setuptools - Easily build and distribute Python 3 packages

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531648





--- Comment #1 from Andrew McNabb amcn...@mcnabbs.org  2009-10-29 12:38:03 
EDT ---
1) Probably the sane thing to do would be to call it easy_install-3, right? 
That's what has been done with most of the other tools for Python 3, and it
looks like python-setuptools-devel installs easy_install-2.6.  It seems to me
that it would be fine for the Python 3 version to only install under the
versioned name.

2) I assume that when the brp-python-bytecompile patch is in, the __python def
will go away, right?

3) The python_sitelib stuff looks a bit hackish, but there might not be any
better way to do it.

4) I still think it's insane that easy_install is in the -devel subpackage.  I
know that this is a carryover from the python2 packaging, but I think it's
worth reconsidering.  If I recall correctly, the rationale was that
easy_install depended on some files from python-devel, or something like that. 
Anyway, I think it's a disservice to users that the setuptools package doesn't
include easy_install.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 479800] Review Request: hlint - Provides Haskell Source Code Suggestions

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479800





--- Comment #19 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org  2009-10-29 12:52:08 EDT 
---
GPL+ is the default if they just specify GPL. I can double check later today
or if you want to do it, that works 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 231861] Review Request: cyrus-imapd - high-performance mail server (IMAP, POP3, ...)

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=231861





--- Comment #13 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu  2009-10-29 13:00:54 
EDT ---
I'm glad to see some progress with cyrus-imapd, or any merge review for that
matter, but is anyone actually reviewing this?  fedora-review is set to '?' but
the ticket isn't assigned to anyone.

-- 
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 486937] Review Request: rhnlib - Python libraries for the RHN project

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486937


Alexander Todorov atodo...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||atodo...@redhat.com




--- Comment #4 from Alexander Todorov atodo...@redhat.com  2009-10-29 
12:59:50 EDT ---
I'm seeing this package in EPEL which is newer than what I have from
rhn.redhat.com. Can the two packages conflict or the newer package break things
on a RHEL5 system ?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 531648] Review Request: python3-setuptools - Easily build and distribute Python 3 packages

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531648





--- Comment #2 from Dave Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com  2009-10-29 13:42:42 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #1)
Thanks for the feedback.

 1) Probably the sane thing to do would be to call it easy_install-3, right? 
 That's what has been done with most of the other tools for Python 3, and it
 looks like python-setuptools-devel installs easy_install-2.6.  It seems to me
 that it would be fine for the Python 3 version to only install under the
 versioned name.
It already installs a /usr/bin/easy_install-3.1

It's not clear to me if we need an easy_install-3; we could rename it to that,
or drop it.

 2) I assume that when the brp-python-bytecompile patch is in, the __python def
 will go away, right?

I also used __python in order to override the standard python fragments for
getting sitearch/sitelib for setup, build and install.  One of my aims is to
minimize the diff against the original specfile.

 3) The python_sitelib stuff looks a bit hackish, but there might not be any
 better way to do it.
What do you see as hackish about it?   I'm trying to follow the changes
proposed here:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-October/msg00042.html
to these: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
(which work around the print change from 2 to 3; again trying to keep the 2
and 3 versions in sync)


 4) I still think it's insane that easy_install is in the -devel subpackage.  I
 know that this is a carryover from the python2 packaging, but I think it's
 worth reconsidering.  If I recall correctly, the rationale was that
 easy_install depended on some files from python-devel, or something like 
 that. 
 Anyway, I think it's a disservice to users that the setuptools package doesn't
 include easy_install.  
I want to stick as close as possible to the python 2 version of the package, so
I'd suggest taking that up as a separate bug report against that 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 529605] Review Request: ohai - Profiles your system and emits JSON

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529605





--- Comment #7 from Matthew Kent mk...@magoazul.com  2009-10-29 13:51:04 EDT 
---
Asking for advice on this package at 

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-October/msg00091.html

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 476600] Review Request: python-ZODB3 - Zope Object Database: Object Database and Persistence

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476600





--- Comment #5 from Mads Kiilerich m...@kiilerich.com  2009-10-29 13:52:54 
EDT ---
Any comments to rpmlint warnings like the following?

python-BTrees.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/BTrees/_IOBTree.c
python-BTrees.i586: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/BTrees/_OIBTree.so 0775
python-persistent.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/persistent/cPersistence.h
python-ZODB3.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/python2.6/ZODB3/cPersistence.h

Have you considered putting sub-modules somewhere else than in the global
namespace instead of creating sub-packages? If it was an executable it could be
put in /usr/share (like for example rpmlint does), but in this case I guess it
could be below /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ZODB? What is upstreams
opinion? (My past experience with Zope is that they have their own strong
sub-community and don't try that hard to fit into system packaging, but instead
recommends building a python from source and not sharing it with anything
else.)

Shouldn't some of the subpackages require a specific version of the others?
There must be a reason the modules are distributed in one tar file?

Upstream project on pypi is ZODB3, and ZODB3 is also used in the tar name. But
it provides the ZODB module, and it seems like upstream consistently refers to
it as ZODB (or ZODB 3.9). Shouldn't the package be called python-ZODB instead?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 226522] Merge Review: valgrind

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226522


Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||loganje...@gmail.com
 AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com
   Flag||fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com  2009-10-29 13:51:15 EDT 
---
I will review the F-12 branch.  It looks like the F-12 branch is several
commits ahead of the devel branch, so that needs to be sorted out.  Here is the
output of rpmlint on F-12:

valgrind.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.5.0-6 ['1:3.5.0-6',
'1:3.5.0-6']
valgrind.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided valgrind-callgrind
valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/valgrind/memcheck-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/lib64/valgrind/memcheck-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary
/usr/lib64/valgrind/memcheck-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_helgrind-amd64-linux.so
valgrind.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information
/usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_helgrind-amd64-linux.so
valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/valgrind-listener
valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/valgrind/cachegrind-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/lib64/valgrind/cachegrind-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary
/usr/lib64/valgrind/cachegrind-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so
valgrind.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information
/usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so
valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/valgrind/exp-bbv-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/lib64/valgrind/exp-bbv-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary
/usr/lib64/valgrind/exp-bbv-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/valgrind/exp-ptrcheck-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/lib64/valgrind/exp-ptrcheck-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary
/usr/lib64/valgrind/exp-ptrcheck-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/valgrind/drd-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/lib64/valgrind/drd-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary
/usr/lib64/valgrind/drd-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/valgrind/lackey-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/lib64/valgrind/lackey-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary
/usr/lib64/valgrind/lackey-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_massif-amd64-linux.so
valgrind.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information
/usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_massif-amd64-linux.so
valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/valgrind
valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_exp-ptrcheck-amd64-linux.so
valgrind.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information
/usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_exp-ptrcheck-amd64-linux.so
valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_drd-amd64-linux.so
valgrind.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information
/usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_drd-amd64-linux.so
valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/valgrind/none-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/lib64/valgrind/none-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary
/usr/lib64/valgrind/none-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/bin/no_op_client_for_valgrind
valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/cg_merge
valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/valgrind/massif-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/lib64/valgrind/massif-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary
/usr/lib64/valgrind/massif-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_core-amd64-linux.so
valgrind.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information
/usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_core-amd64-linux.so
valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/valgrind/callgrind-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/lib64/valgrind/callgrind-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary
/usr/lib64/valgrind/callgrind-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/valgrind/helgrind-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/lib64/valgrind/helgrind-amd64-linux
valgrind.x86_64: E: 

[Bug 531605] Review Request: packmol - Packing Optimization for Molecular Dynamics Simulations

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531605


Cristian Ciupitu cristian.ciup...@yahoo.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||cristian.ciup...@yahoo.com




--- Comment #2 from Cristian Ciupitu cristian.ciup...@yahoo.com  2009-10-29 
14:21:47 EDT ---
I agree with Jussi Lehtola regarding AUTHORS and COPYING. You should contact
upstream about this, like I did
http://code.google.com/p/django-app-plugins/issues/detail?id=13can=1#c2 .

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 498218] Review Request: picturetile - Tiles a bunch of images into one large photo wall

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498218





--- Comment #5 from Edwin ten Brink fed...@tenbrink-bekkers.nl  2009-10-29 
14:28:07 EDT ---
The add-in PictureTile version 0.6.0.1 for f-spot-0.6.1.2-3.fc11.i586 works
with the package under review (picturetile-0.20050314-2).

I incorporated the version-comment, so the version is now prefixed with 0.
The package is otherwise unchanged.

Uploaded files:
Spec URL: http://fedora.tenbrink-bekkers.nl/picturetile/picturetile.spec
SRPM URL:
http://fedora.tenbrink-bekkers.nl/picturetile/picturetile-0.20050314-2.fc11.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 498218] Review Request: picturetile - Tiles a bunch of images into one large photo wall

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498218


Bug 498218 depends on bug 498222, which changed state.

Bug 498222 Summary: Crashed by using PictureTile plugin (create photowall)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498222

   What|Old Value   |New Value

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE



-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 531648] Review Request: python3-setuptools - Easily build and distribute Python 3 packages

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531648





--- Comment #3 from Andrew McNabb amcn...@mcnabbs.org  2009-10-29 14:33:34 
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
  Anyway, I think it's a disservice to users that the setuptools package 
  doesn't
  include easy_install.  
 I want to stick as close as possible to the python 2 version of the package, 
 so
 I'd suggest taking that up as a separate bug report against that package.  

I actually did once, as bug #510659.  The action to move easy_install from
python-setuptools to python-setuptools-devel was made in response to bug
#240707.  I'll reopen my bug report and give some more detailed information,
but that really doesn't have any bearing on the python3-setuptools package.

The python3-setuptools-devel package has two files:

1) /usr/bin/easy_install-3: a 9 line script that imports and runs
pkg_resources.load_entry_point

2) /usr/lib/python3.1/site-packages/easy_install.py: a 5 line script that loads
and runs setuptools.command.easy_install.main

The actual dependency on python3-devel happens in the setuptools libraries, not
in these trivial scripts, so the python3-setuptools package is the one that
should depend on python3-devel package.  This is a simple matter of incorrect
dependencies in the specfile, and the packaging guidelines make it pretty clear
that python3-setuptools needs to depend on python3-devel (or the files it
depends on need to move from python3-devel to python3).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 531648] Review Request: python3-setuptools - Easily build and distribute Python 3 packages

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531648





--- Comment #4 from Andrew McNabb amcn...@mcnabbs.org  2009-10-29 14:51:07 
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)

 It already installs a /usr/bin/easy_install-3.1
 
 It's not clear to me if we need an easy_install-3; we could rename it to that,
 or drop it.

I think it would be good to have an easy_install-3, so that there's more
continuity with upgrades from 3.1 to 3.2 to 3.3, etc., but that's just my
opinion.


 I also used __python in order to override the standard python fragments for
 getting sitearch/sitelib for setup, build and install.  One of my aims is to
 minimize the diff against the original specfile.

I would think that the goal would be more to set the standard for Python 3
packaging, especially since there aren't any packaging guidelines yet.  Not
that I know what the right thing is. :)


  3) The python_sitelib stuff looks a bit hackish, but there might not be any
  better way to do it.
 What do you see as hackish about it?   I'm trying to follow the changes
 proposed here:

Sorry, I was totally wrong on that.  Thanks for the links.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 531648] Review Request: python3-setuptools - Easily build and distribute Python 3 packages

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531648





--- Comment #5 from Andrew McNabb amcn...@mcnabbs.org  2009-10-29 15:07:57 
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
 
 The actual dependency on python3-devel happens in the setuptools libraries, 
 not
 in these trivial scripts, so the python3-setuptools package is the one that
 should depend on python3-devel package.  This is a simple matter of incorrect
 dependencies in the specfile, and the packaging guidelines make it pretty 
 clear
 that python3-setuptools needs to depend on python3-devel (or the files it
 depends on need to move from python3-devel to python3).  

Hmm.  It turns out that the dependency is actually in distutils, which is part
of the python3 package.  I'll make a comment on this over on the python3
packaging page and open a separate bug report for python2.  Once these are
fixed, setuptools packaging can be made sane. :)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 526126] Review Request: python3 - Python 3.x (backwards incompatible version)

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526126





--- Comment #37 from Andrew McNabb amcn...@mcnabbs.org  2009-10-29 15:16:08 
EDT ---
The current specfile puts %{pylibdir}/config/* into the devel subpackage. 
However, distutils needs to load %{pylibdir}/config/Makefile (see the
get_makefile_filename() function in distutils/sysconfig.py.  Since distutils is
and should be in the main python3 package, then %{pylibdir}/config/Makefile
also needs to be in the main python3 package instead of the devel subpackage. 
Based on _init_posix() in distutils/sysconfig.py, it looks like this is also
true for /usr/include/python2.6/pyconfig.h.  The only alternative would be to
put distutils into the python3-devel subpackage, but that doesn't seem right at
all.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 530275] Review Request: rubygem-erubis - A fast and extensible eRuby implementation

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530275


Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
   Flag||fedora-review?




--- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp  2009-10-29 
15:14:11 EDT ---
Well,

* About %check:
  - I decided to add the fix for test_syntax2 on ruby.
Now for F-13/12/11 the fixed ruby rpms are added into buildroot
tree (i.e. koji scratch build should success now)
( and for F-12 the fixed ruby will be pushed on the next
rawhide push ). So you can remove test_syntax2 hack.

  - The following may be smarter:

export GEM_PATH=$(pwd)/%{gemdir}
export PATH=$(pwd)/%{gemdir}/bin:$PATH

pushd .%{geminstdir}/test
find data/users-guide -type f -name \*.rb | \
 xargs sed -i -e '/require.*erubis/i\require rubygems'

mv data/users-guide/Example.ejava data/users-guide/example.ejava
ruby -rrubygems test.rb

By the way the line mv data/ should be moved to %build
section because for this file the filename is definitely
wrong and it is better that the installed file should also
be renamed.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 531541] Review Request: rho - An SSH system profiler

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531541


Adrian Likins alik...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||alik...@redhat.com




--- Comment #3 from Adrian Likins alik...@redhat.com  2009-10-29 15:31:52 EDT 
---
new version of packages is at:
spec: http://alikins.fedorapeople.org/files/rho/rho.spec
src rpm: http://alikins.fedorapeople.org/files/rho/rho-0.0.10-1.fc11.src.rpm

Includes fixes for comment #1.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 531912] New: Review Request: perl-Net-ARP - Create and Send ARP Packets

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: perl-Net-ARP - Create and Send ARP Packets

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531912

   Summary: Review Request: perl-Net-ARP - Create and Send ARP
Packets
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: wdier...@rackspace.com
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora


Spec URL: http://5dollarwhitebox.org/tmp/perl-Net-ARP.spec
SRPM URL: http://5dollarwhitebox.org/tmp/perl-Net-ARP-1.0.6-1.src.rpm

Description: 
This module is a Perl extension to create and send ARP packets and lookup
local or remote mac addresses. You do not need to install any additional 
libraries like Libnet to compile this extension. It uses kernel header files 
to create the packets.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 531912] Review Request: perl-Net-ARP - Create and Send ARP Packets

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531912


BJ Dierkes wdier...@rackspace.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||526311




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 526311] Review Request: mysql-mmm - Multi-Master Replication Manager for MySQL

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526311


BJ Dierkes wdier...@rackspace.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends on||531912




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 477542] Review Request: mpdscribble - A mpd client which submits information about tracks being played to Last.fm

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477542


Jaroslaw Gorny jaroslaw.go...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




--- Comment #26 from Jaroslaw Gorny jaroslaw.go...@gmail.com  2009-10-29 
16:25:18 EDT ---
New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: mpdscribble
Short Description: A mpd client which submits information about tracks being
played to last.fm
Owners: jaroslav
Branches: F-11
InitialCC: peter

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 526866] Review Request: torium - A minimalistic, easily configurable torrent client for Linux

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526866





--- Comment #12 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org  2009-10-29 
17:00:30 EDT ---
Hmm, I think you'll need a rebuild because rb_libtorrent-0.14.6 was also built
for F-12.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 526866] Review Request: torium - A minimalistic, easily configurable torrent client for Linux

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526866





--- Comment #13 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com  2009-10-29 
17:22:41 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #12)
 Hmm, I think you'll need a rebuild because rb_libtorrent-0.14.6 was also built
 for F-12.  


rb_libtorrent-0.14.6 isn't included in the F12 build system.

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/static-repos/dist-rawhide-current/i386/pkglist

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/static-repos/dist-f12-build-current/i386/pkglist

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 526866] Review Request: torium - A minimalistic, easily configurable torrent client for Linux

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526866





--- Comment #14 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org  2009-10-29 
17:27:47 EDT ---
It's in updates-testing for F12:

$ koji list-tagged dist-f12 rb_libtorrent
Build Tag   Built by
   

rb_libtorrent-0.14.4-3.fc12   dist-f12  tmraz
$ koji list-tagged dist-f12-updates-candidate rb_libtorrent
Build Tag   Built by
   

rb_libtorrent-0.14.6-1.fc12   dist-f12-updates-candidate  pgordon

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 476600] Review Request: python-ZODB3 - Zope Object Database: Object Database and Persistence

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476600





--- Comment #6 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org  2009-10-29 17:29:21 EDT 
---
(In reply to comment #5)
 Any comments to rpmlint warnings like the following?
 
 python-BTrees.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
 /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/BTrees/_IOBTree.c
 python-BTrees.i586: E: non-standard-executable-perm
 /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/BTrees/_OIBTree.so 0775
 python-persistent.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
 /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/persistent/cPersistence.h
 python-ZODB3.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
 /usr/include/python2.6/ZODB3/cPersistence.h

Yes, after I replied I remembered that I had forgotten to deal with these. My
next package will simply remove these files from the install, unless you have a
better suggestion.

 Have you considered putting sub-modules somewhere else than in the global
 namespace instead of creating sub-packages? If it was an executable it could 
 be
 put in /usr/share (like for example rpmlint does), but in this case I guess it
 could be below /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ZODB? What is upstreams
 opinion? (My past experience with Zope is that they have their own strong
 sub-community and don't try that hard to fit into system packaging, but 
 instead
 recommends building a python from source and not sharing it with anything
 else.)

I'm not familiar with this; I think it would involve (at least) modifying all
the ZODB sources to look for these packages in a different place (or run any
program using ZODB with a PYTHONPATH including whatever subdirectory we
choose). My particular interest in Zope libraries is for SAGE
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/SciTech/SAGE).

 Shouldn't some of the subpackages require a specific version of the others?
 There must be a reason the modules are distributed in one tar file?

Quite possibly. I must apologize for the sloppy work, I was rushed for time
yesterday.

 Upstream project on pypi is ZODB3, and ZODB3 is also used in the tar name. But
 it provides the ZODB module, and it seems like upstream consistently refers to
 it as ZODB (or ZODB 3.9). Shouldn't the package be called python-ZODB instead?

This sounds reasonable.

New Spec/SRPM:
http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-ZODB.spec
http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/python-ZODB-3.9.3-2.fc11.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 530857] Review Request: drehatlas-xaporho-fonts - latin typeface inspired by a hobby rock band logo

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530857


Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 530857] Review Request: drehatlas-xaporho-fonts - latin typeface inspired by a hobby rock band logo

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530857


Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@adsllc.com
   Flag||fedora-review+




--- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net  2009-10-29 
17:30:34 EDT ---
Review:

1. typo in the description: orginaly

2. I don't think we go as far as asking to convert .ttf to .otf when upstream
chose .ttf. When upstream does both, we prefer .otf, but it's fine keeping .ttf
if it's upstream's choice. I doubt that for this particular font this will
change anything, ttf vs otf is mostly relevant for complex fonts (this is not a
criticism, the package is fine as is, just an informational note)

3. repo-font-audit notes this font could easily be extended to cover more
scripts with just a little effort (many scripts are less than ten glyphs away).
I'll attach the report if you want to relay it upstream

܈܈܈ APPROVED ܈܈܈

You can now continue from:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle#3.a

Please do not forget the wiki gardening. Thank you for another contribution to
our font package pool.

⇒ REASSIGNING

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 526866] Review Request: torium - A minimalistic, easily configurable torrent client for Linux

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526866





--- Comment #15 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com  2009-10-29 
17:39:11 EDT ---
It's not available @ koji so I can't build against it. (that's why I wanted the
buildroot override ).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 526866] Review Request: torium - A minimalistic, easily configurable torrent client for Linux

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526866





--- Comment #16 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org  2009-10-29 
17:49:02 EDT ---
Then go ahead and request 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 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly 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


Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||or...@cora.nwra.com
 AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|or...@cora.nwra.com
   Flag||fedora-review?




--- Comment #20 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com  2009-10-29 17:56:45 
EDT ---
I'll take the review.  First comments:

Let's change all the %define statements to %global.

I'm a little leery about the defaults if pkg-config emacs doesn't work.  What's
the motivation?  Perhaps other conditionals would be more appropriate?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 495669] Review Request: sgpio - Intel SGPIO enclosure management utility

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495669





--- Comment #9 from Ruben Kerkhof ru...@rubenkerkhof.com  2009-10-29 18:02:06 
EDT ---
Great, thanks!

Don't forget to close this tickets when it's been pushed.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 526866] Review Request: torium - A minimalistic, easily configurable torrent client for Linux

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526866





--- Comment #17 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com  2009-10-29 
18:11:39 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #16)
 Then go ahead and request it. :)  


Ticket filed.

https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/2904

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 530857] Review Request: drehatlas-xaporho-fonts - latin typeface inspired by a hobby rock band logo

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530857





--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net  2009-10-29 
18:17:58 EDT ---
Created an attachment (id=366726)
 -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=366726)
repo-font-audit report

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 509159] Review Request: PragmARC – a comp onent library for Ada

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509159


Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




--- Comment #7 from Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se  2009-10-29 
19:29:15 EDT ---
Thanks for the review!

New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: PragmARC
Short Description: PragmAda Reusable Components, a component library for Ada
Owners: rombobeorn
Branches: F-11 F-12
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 480279] Review Request: gnome-globalmenu - centralized menu bar

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480279


Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 496433] Tracker: packages from Russian Fedora Remix

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496433


Bug 496433 depends on bug 525389, which changed state.

Bug 525389 Summary: Review Request: madwimax - Driver for mobile WiMAX devices 
based on Samsung CMC-730 chip
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525389

   What|Old Value   |New Value

 Resolution||ERRATA
 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED

Bug 496433 depends on bug 480279, which changed state.

Bug 480279 Summary: Review Request: gnome-globalmenu - centralized menu bar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480279

   What|Old Value   |New Value

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE



-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 476600] Review Request: python-ZODB3 - Zope Object Database: Object Database and Persistence

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476600





--- Comment #7 from Mads Kiilerich m...@kiilerich.com  2009-10-29 20:49:31 
EDT ---
 python-BTrees.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
 /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/BTrees/_IOBTree.c
 python-BTrees.i586: E: non-standard-executable-perm
 /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/BTrees/_OIBTree.so 0775
 python-persistent.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
 /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/persistent/cPersistence.h
 python-ZODB3.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
 /usr/include/python2.6/ZODB3/cPersistence.h
 
 Yes, after I replied I remembered that I had forgotten to deal with these. My
 next package will simply remove these files from the install, unless you have 
 a
 better suggestion.

I guess that depends on what upstreams purpose with the files is? Are they
installed on purpose or is it an oversight? 

FWIW I can't imagine any reasons why .c files should be included in any
package. Theoretically it could perhaps make sense to expose the C code as a C
library and put the .h files in a -devel package, but I don't think that is
upstreams intention.

 Have you considered putting sub-modules somewhere else than in the global
 namespace instead of creating sub-packages? If it was an executable it could 
 be
 put in /usr/share (like for example rpmlint does), but in this case I guess 
 it
 could be below /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ZODB? What is upstreams
 opinion? (My past experience with Zope is that they have their own strong
 sub-community and don't try that hard to fit into system packaging, but 
 instead
 recommends building a python from source and not sharing it with anything
 else.)
 
 I'm not familiar with this; I think it would involve (at least) modifying all
 the ZODB sources to look for these packages in a different place (or run any
 program using ZODB with a PYTHONPATH including whatever subdirectory we
 choose). 

It _could_ be done in the ZODB module simply by inserting the right path in
sys.path before importing - or by manipulating sys.modules. But I don't know if
I would propose doing it in a Fedora patch.

I think we need input from upstream if they see it as one module or as 4
modules each on their own right. In either case it could be nice if they
distributed it in a way which matched their intention.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review