[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-11 20:43 EST --- Is there any reason this bug can't be closed now? Looks like it's been imported and owners.list updated... am I missing anything? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 10:19 EST --- I have sent a message to the author for clarification, but I think this messages shodn't not harm the usage of luma. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 12:10 EST --- Yeah, I don't have a LDAP server handy here to fully test things, but the UI seems to work fine aside from the template warning. I don't see any further blockers here, so this package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this bug NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built. Also, consider reviewing another package thats waiting to help spread the review load out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-16 11:57 EST --- Can you upload the whole build log. Unfortunately, I haven't a 64 bit system, so I have no idea why the issue are ocured. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-16 13:33 EST --- Created an attachment (id=138594) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=138594action=view) build.log from mock on a x86_64 box -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-16 13:34 EST --- Attached the build.log from x86_64. I have a x86_64 test box that I would be happy to provide you an account on if you like. Just send me your ssh key in private email. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-16 13:47 EST ---
The error in comment 16 looks odd to me (how does $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}
expand to /var/tmp/luma-2.3-7.fc6-root-mockbuild/lib ??? I
get /var/tmp/luma-2.3-7.cmn6-root-scop//usr/lib64)
Anyway, this fixes it here on FC5 x86_64:
-pushd ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_libdir}
+pushd ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_prefix}/lib
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-16 15:10 EST --- Hello kevin, When I try to send you a mail, I got a SMTP error from remote server after RCPT command: host mail.tummy.com[66.35.36.132]: 554 moutng.kundenserver.de[212.227.126.187]: Client host rejected: IP address is or has been used to send UCE. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-16 15:14 EST --- Accoriding to comment #20 I have uploaded a new relase: Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma-2.3-7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-16 15:19 EST --- Accoriding to comment #20 I have uploaded a new relase: Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma-2.3-7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-16 16:35 EST --- In reply to comment #21: Sorry about that. Apparently we have gotten spams from that IP before. It should be unblocked now if you can resend... In reply to comment #22 (and #23): That does indeed get it building fine on x86_64. The first time I run it, I get: $ luma Could not read logger settings file. Reason: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/home/kevin/.luma/luma' Could not parse template file Then running again gets: $ luma Could not parse template file That doesn't seem related to your packaging however, it looks like a upstream problem with it not creating the template directory when it creates the others? Do you agree that the Could not parse template file is nothing to worry about? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-15 15:06 EST --- Next release: Next Release: Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma-2.3-7.src.rpm To #1 I didn't change the rpm macros, becouse I thing it improve the ability to changes the directories if necessary. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-15 19:01 EST --- Yeah, you will be maintaining it, so if you want to keep those macros it's up to you. :) However, lumalibs seems to be used in only 2 places and plugins never seems to be used. The patch seems to get it running, but it's still prints some errors/warnings (new ones): Could not read logger settings file. Reason: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/home/kevin/.luma/luma' Conflict in /usr/lib/qt-3.3/plugins/inputmethods/libqimsw-multi.so: Plugin uses incompatible Qt library! expected build key x86_64 Linux g++-4.* full-config, got i686 Linux g++- 4.* full-config. Conflict in /usr/lib/qt-3.3/plugins/inputmethods/libqimsw-none.so: Plugin uses incompatible Qt library! expected build key x86_64 Linux g++-4.* full-config, got i686 Linux g++- 4.* full-config. Conflict in /usr/lib/qt-3.3/plugins/inputmethods/libqsimple.so: Plugin uses incompatible Qt library! expected build key x86_64 Linux g++-4.* full-config, got i686 Linux g++- 4.* full-config. Conflict in /usr/lib/qt-3.3/plugins/inputmethods/libqxim.so: Plugin uses incompatible Qt library! expected build key x86_64 Linux g++-4.* full-config, got i686 Linux g++- 4.* full-config. Could not parse template file Also, it doesn't build on x86_64. The end of the build.log gives: + pushd /var/tmp/luma-2.3-7.fc6-root-mockbuild/lib /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.24941: line 33: pushd: /var/tmp/luma-2.3-7.fc6-root-mockbuild/ lib: No such file or directory error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.24941 (%install) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-14 14:16 EST --- OK - Spec file matches base package name. See below - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: c1f3a8033a047a7046848833445ed496 luma-2.3.tar.bz2 c1f3a8033a047a7046848833445ed496 luma-2.3.tar.bz2.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. The lumadata, lumalib and plugins macros seem like overkill to me. Not a blocker, but I would prefer if you remove them. It would make the spec more readable, IMHO. 2. On installing and trying to run, I get: Could not read logger settings file. Reason: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/home/kevin/.luma/luma' Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/bin/luma, line 71, in ? startApplication() File /usr/bin/luma, line 44, in startApplication gui.loadPlugins(splash) File /usr/share/luma/lib/base/gui/MainWin.py, line 186, in loadPlugins pluginObject = PluginLoader(self.checkToLoad()) File /usr/share/luma/lib/base/backend/PluginLoader.py, line 53, in __init__ self.importPluginMetas(pluginsToLoad) File /usr/share/luma/lib/base/backend/PluginLoader.py, line 84, in importPluginMetas for x in self.pluginDirList: TypeError: iteration over non-sequence -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-06 01:19 EST ---
This builds fine in mock; rpmlint says:
E: luma hardcoded-library-path in ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/usr/lib
which seems bogus as the spec is doing this to fix brokenness in the upstream
source.
W: luma mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 63, tab: line 5)
Fix if you like.
The Comment= line in the .desktop file is ungrammatical; please consider
changing it to read Tool for managing LDAP servers.
Please also consider s/server/servers/ in %description.
When you call desktop-file-install, the vendor should be fedora, not Fedora.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-10 14:06 EST --- The new packaging guidelines for python packages says that *.pyo files should include as normal files into the package. Therefor I have changed the packages: Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma-2.3-5.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 12:20 EST --- OK, you have right. Here the next release: Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma-2.3-4.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 10:56 EST --- Sorry for the delay, been swamped with work... Finally poked at the -3 version a bit, and got the following out of rpmlint: $ rpmlint -i /build/RPMS/noarch/luma-2.3-3.fc5.noarch.rpm E: luma only-non-binary-in-usr-lib There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share. This would appear to require some hacking of install.py, and I'm actually wondering if maybe these bits should go in /usr/lib/python2.x/site-packages/luma/ instead of /usr/lib/luma, /usr/share/luma/ or /usr/share/luma/lib. But python packaging definitely isn't my area of expertise, so that could be a bad idea. :) rpmlint seems to think somewhere under /usr/share is the place to put things. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 15:04 EST --- I know this error message from rpmlint. But becouse other packages like yum does it in the same way. I decide not to change the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-26 11:33 EST --- Next release: Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma-2.3.0-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-26 13:09 EST ---
Package build goes bonk on x86_64, install.py puts everything in /usr/lib/luma,
while the spec is looking for /usr/lib64/luma.
Also, why the %{ver} stuff? The upstream tarball is versioned simply 2.3, why
are you turning that into 2.3.0?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-26 13:28 EST --- If you visit http://luma.sf.net you will see, that there was versions like luma-2.2.1. So the version 2.3 is the same as 2.3.0. Therefore I use a three qualified versioning schema to be sure that the updating will worked in the future. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-26 13:41 EST --- Version 2.3.1 will already be rpm-newer than 2.3, there is no need to make it into 2.3.0. Altering the upstream versioning is frowned upon, and altogether unnecessary in this case. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-26 14:48 EST --- Next release: Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma-2.3-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 16:34 EST --- For reference, here's my local package of this: http://cachalot.mine.nu/5/SRPMS/luma-2.3-0.1.src.rpm The above contains some improvements over your package but it is pretty much untested and known to be not quite complete, so approach with care. And I don't have use for luma at the moment, so I'm not doing a full review. But a quick peek into the specfile differences tells me that: - Possibly missing Requires on python-ldap, PyQt, maybe python-smbpasswd - Odd placement of icon and icon caches not updated (does the menu entry actually show an icon?), see my specfile for ideas for a more thorough implementation - Could %lang'ify translations, see my specfile - Specfile comment says Desktop entry for nvidia-settings -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
