[Bug 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
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: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
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: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 13:10 EST --- Builds for FC-5 have been just queued, closing as 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 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
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: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-01 07:00 EST --- Over two weeks have passed and the package is still not built for FC-5. *ping* -- 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 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
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: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-13 14:16 EST --- (In reply to comment #12) I'm not sure what impact this would have on other dependent projects, and it's for fixing something that (currently) isn't broke. IMHO this is avoiding future trouble. I also consulted the packaging commitee and most agree on that (but we were only 5 out of 10 present). 3/10 is hardly a majority. I suggest the following: Let the package pass as is (at least wrt to headers, if the are other issues, they need to be fixed, of course), and I will take the header topic upstream. So should a clash with say glibc's assumed future extensions folder come up, the issue would have been ironed out at the source and not the package. Do you agree? No, I don't, but I'm not going to hold this up. If anyone has some issues later, I'll tell them to take it up with you four. APPROVED -- 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 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
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: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-13 14:55 EST --- Thanks Dominik! FWIW it wasn't 3/10, but all 5 present members agreed on that. If something breaks in the future, it will get fixed, of course. -- 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 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
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: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-28 16:51 EST --- I'm not sure what impact this would have on other dependent projects, and it's for fixing something that (currently) isn't broke. I also consulted the packaging commitee and most agree on that (but we were only 5 out of 10 present). I suggest the following: Let the package pass as is (at least wrt to headers, if the are other issues, they need to be fixed, of course), and I will take the header topic upstream. So should a clash with say glibc's assumed future extensions folder come up, the issue would have been ironed out at the source and not the package. Do you agree? -- 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 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
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: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-28 22:26 EST --- (In reply to comment #12) I'm not sure what impact this would have on other dependent projects, and it's for fixing something that (currently) isn't broke. I also consulted the packaging commitee and most agree on that (but we were only 5 out of 10 present). Sorry, due to an unplanned commitment, I could not make it yesterday. If I had been around, I would have voted against allowing /usr/include/extensions I suggest the following: Let the package pass as is (at least wrt to headers, if the are other issues, they need to be fixed, of course), and I will take the header topic upstream. So should a clash with say glibc's assumed future extensions folder come up, the issue would have been ironed out at the source and not the package. Do you agree? I don't fully understand what you are trying to say, but the answer probable is no. IMO, THIS package is misbehaving and therefore MUST be fixed. If other packages contain hard-coded dependencies on this misbehavior, all necessary changes MUST be reflected to them, too. -- 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 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
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: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-27 13:23 EST --- After some consideration, I've decided to ask you to move /usr/include/extensions to, say, /usr/include/Foundation/extension. The name *is* too generic and even X11 has its extensions/ dir in /usr/include/X11. -- 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 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
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: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 14:53 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) Yet another case of a package polluting /usr/include. IMO, /usr/include/extensions definitely is too general to be acceptable, the headers in /usr/include/ are arguable. I strongly recommend to move all /usr/include/* to a subdirectory. I'm inclined to agree. Axel? -- 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 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
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: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 15:13 EST --- Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~athimm/fedorasubmit/libFoundation/libFoundation.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~athimm/fedorasubmit/libFoundation/libFoundation-1.1.3-10.at.src.rpm * Wed Sep 20 2006 Axel Thimm [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1.1.3-10 - With the FHS changes some %%_includedir entries appeared as duplicates. Addresses the open issues from comment #4. Wrt to moving includedirs around I prefer not to. -- 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 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
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: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 14:11 EST --- since this is one possible implementation of part of the OpenStep specification I *seriously* doubt we will ever see another implementation (at least in our lifetimes...) (; Let's not invent solutions for problems that don't (yet) exist. -- 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 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
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: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-11 14:42 EST --- Thanks, I'll fix 17. Wrt license: It looks rather BSD-like (w/o attribution), but has some rewording. So I wouldn't call it OSI-approved, but it's otherwise an open source license as required. -- 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 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
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: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 15:23 EST --- Here we go: 1. package meets naming and packaging guidelines. 2. specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. 3. dist tag is present. 4. build root is sane, though not the recommended one 5. license field matches the actual license. 6. ??? license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. 7. source files match upstream: 7df921ab5705af28a75e62a3a8744cb6 libFoundation-1.1.3-r155.tar.gz 8. latest version is being packaged. 9. BuildRequires are proper. 10. package builds in mock ( ). 11. rpmlint warnings as expected. 12. final provides and requires are sane: libFoundation.so.1.1()(64bit) libFoundation = 1.1.3-8 = /sbin/ldconfig libFoundation.so.1.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libobjc.so.1()(64bit) libFoundation-devel = 1.1.3-8 = gcc-objc gnustep-make libFoundation = 1.1.3-8 13. shared libraries are present and ldconfig is called as appropriate 14. package is not relocatable. 15. owns the directories it creates. 16. doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. 17. duplicates in %files: warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/Foundation warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/Foundation/Foundation.h ... warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/Foundation/UnixSignalHandler.h warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/Foundation/exceptions warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/Foundation/exceptions/EncodingFormatExceptions.h ... warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/Foundation/exceptions/StringExceptions.h warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/extensions warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/extensions/DefaultScannerHandler.h ... warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/extensions/support.h warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/lfmemory.h warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/real_exception_file.h 18. file permissions are appropriate. 19. %clean is present. 20. %check is not present nor necessary 21. no scriptlets present. 22. code, not content. 23. documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. 24. %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. 25. headers in devel 26. no pkgconfig files. 27. no libtool .la droppings. 28. not a GUI app. 29. not a web app. Please fix 17. Is the license OSI-approved? -- 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 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
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: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 Bug 201000 depends on bug 197649, which changed state. Bug 197649 Summary: Review Request: gnustep-make - GNUstep makefile package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197649 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- 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 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
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: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |188267 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 18:05 EST --- I'll review this, too, since it depends on #197649. -- 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 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
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: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
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: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 20:14 EST --- Shouldn't this block FE-REVIEW instead of FC-REVIEW? I don't think this is destined for core quite yet. -- 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 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
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: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|188267 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 20:16 EST --- It should, my mistake. -- 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 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
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: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||197649 -- 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
