[Bug 479903] Review Request: gdesklet-slideshow - Cycle through a collection of pictures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479903 Luya Tshimbalanga l...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #20 from Luya Tshimbalanga l...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-31 04:05:21 EDT --- Yes, the package is fine -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457210] Review Request: dpkg - Package maintenance system for Debian Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457210 --- Comment #30 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com 2009-01-31 04:21:10 EDT --- (In reply to comment #29) Is there anyone doing this review? leigh, do you still need sponsorship? Yes I do still need sponsorship . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483363] Review Request: yanone-tagesschrift-fonts - Serif decorative latin TTF font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483363 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pala...@gmx.de Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-01-31 04:21:23 EDT --- Nothing much to say, this is a textbook simple font package that closely follows the template. Best practice nowadays is to use a summary that does not include the font name. Also, it seems there is a little more info on the font history in upstream's web page, it's always good to include it in description as long as it's limited to a few paragraphs. But all of this is nitpicking, the package itself is sane ⩐⩐⩐ APPROVED ⩐⩐⩐ I'll sponsor you so you can continue from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle#3.a as soon as I see one or two other clean package submissions from you. Thank you for packaging a new font for Fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479903] Review Request: gdesklet-slideshow - Cycle through a collection of pictures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479903 --- Comment #22 from Luya Tshimbalanga l...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-31 04:31:16 EDT --- Information is on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479903] Review Request: gdesklet-slideshow - Cycle through a collection of pictures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479903 --- Comment #21 from Luya Tshimbalanga l...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-31 04:30:22 EDT --- Make sure to change Summary in something like: A slideshow of collection for gdesklets. Also get a Fedora accound, a sponsor to get approval. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483360] Review Request: pdfshuffler - PDF file merging, rearranging, and spliting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483360 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-01-31 04:35:09 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: pdfshuffler Short Description: PDF file merging, rearranging, and splitting Owners: fab Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483360] Review Request: pdfshuffler - PDF file merging, rearranging, and spliting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483360 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-01-31 04:34:11 EDT --- Thanks for the review and finding the typo. (In reply to comment #1) - packaging guidelines - The summary should be a short and concise description of the package ? A desktop diary -- left from different spec file ? :) fixed OTHERS: - if you already insist on proper English grammar when patching (which is great!), do it proper;) from the desktop file patch: Comment=PDF Merging, Rearranging, and Spliting ^ fixed in summary and .desktop files -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478767] Review Request: spring - Realtime strategy game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478767 Aurelien Bompard gau...@free.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(ianwel...@gmail.c ||om) --- Comment #20 from Aurelien Bompard gau...@free.fr 2009-01-31 05:29:33 EDT --- OK, it looks like Spring is not even supposed to build or to run on Linux/PPC. http://spring.clan-sy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=20t=6234 I've asked for news on the subject, but if you're all OK I'll just ExcludeArch ppc and ppc64 : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Architecture_Build_Failures Here's the new package: http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/spring/spring-0.78.2.1-3.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483286] Review Request: perl-Data-Report - A flexible plugin-driven reporting framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483286 --- Comment #3 from Johan Vromans jvrom...@squirrel.nl 2009-01-31 05:37:33 EDT --- @Parag: Thanks for your feedback. 1) HTML::Entities is an optional module and not necessary for building and correct functioning of this package. Do you still need it should be added to the requirements? 2) Fixed. 3) Fixed. @Ralf: I do not understand. The package can work with either Text::CSV or Text::CSV_XS. The current version mentions Text::CSV in its requirements, and I changed that to Text::CSV_XS mainly because Text::CVS_XS is part of Fedora already. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 426751] Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426751 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://hackage.haskell.org/ ||cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/pac ||kage/X11 --- Comment #48 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-01-31 05:51:05 EDT --- Yaakov if you want to update/merge in the latest changes from http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/cabal2spec/ I am happy to take over 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 479796] Review Request: ghc-haskell-src-exts - Library for Manipulating Haskell source
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479796 --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-01-31 05:56:22 EDT --- This looks ready for review. I will try to do that soon unless someone else takes it first. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483320] Review Request: CodeAnalyst - Performance Analysis Suite for AMD-based System (based on Oprofile)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483320 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-01-31 06:21:36 EDT --- Links direct to Non Disclosure Agreement. Software clearly doesn't have a free license. Closing 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 483381] New: Review Request: metromap - Simple program for finding paths in subway/metro maps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: metromap - Simple program for finding paths in subway/metro maps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483381 Summary: Review Request: metromap - Simple program for finding paths in subway/metro maps Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fab...@bernewireless.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/metromap.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/metromap-0.1.2-1.fc10.src.rpm Project URL: http://metromap.antex.ru/ Description: A simple pygtk+2 application for finding paths in metro (subway) maps. Maps for Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kiev, London, and Berlin are included. Others can be downloaded. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1096182 rpmlint output: [...@laptop24 noarch]$ rpmlint metromap-0.1.2-1.fc10.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [...@laptop24 SRPMS]$ rpmlint metromap-0.1.2-1.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483205] Review Request: eclipse-SystemTapGui - GUI interface for SystemTap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483205 --- Comment #4 from Anithra anit...@linux.vnet.ibm.com 2009-01-31 06:39:18 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) Thanks for the build results and review. I've uploaded the spec file and SRPM with all changes to SourceForge SPEC URL: http://nchc.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/stapgui/eclipse-SystemTapGui.spec SRPM URL: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/stapgui/eclipse-SystemTapGui-1.0-2.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483205] Review Request: eclipse-SystemTapGui - GUI interface for SystemTap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483205 --- Comment #5 from Anithra anit...@linux.vnet.ibm.com 2009-01-31 06:41:24 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) Is the camel casing necessary in the name? Just curious ... Its not really necessary, but is there just for the sake of uniformity as SystemTap also has camel casing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483205] Review Request: eclipse-SystemTapGui - GUI interface for SystemTap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483205 --- Comment #6 from Anithra anit...@linux.vnet.ibm.com 2009-01-31 06:45:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) Also, there's something weird happening with the feature not being included in the zips resulting from the build. I suspect something odd in the feature's build.properties or feature.xml. The os=linux thing may be it ... try a build without it and see if the feature is included in the zip. removing the os=linux solved the problem. Thanks!. The modified source tar ball has been uploaded to sourceforge. SRPM URL: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/stapgui/eclipse-SystemTapGui-1.0-2.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483286] Review Request: perl-Data-Report - A flexible plugin-driven reporting framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483286 --- Comment #4 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de 2009-01-31 06:43:22 EDT --- In my understanding, Text::CSV is an abstraction layer, which may use Text::CVS_XS underneath. That said, your patch to me is a hack to circumvent Text::CSV. = The proper way to package would be to first package Text::CSV, and then Data::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 479903] Review Request: gdesklet-slideshow - Cycle through a collection of pictures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479903 --- Comment #23 from MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2009-01-31 07:23:26 EDT --- ok i have update the summary. but i have a little problem with release 3 gdesklet do'nt add the control then the desklet do'nt work??? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483286] Review Request: perl-Data-Report - A flexible plugin-driven reporting framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483286 --- Comment #5 from Johan Vromans jvrom...@squirrel.nl 2009-01-31 08:04:39 EDT --- Thanks for your clarification. Not so long ago, Text::CSV and Text::CSV_XS were incompatible implementations with differing APIs. That is why many many tools require Text::CSV_XS directly. And I assume that is also the reason why Text::CSV_XS has been part of Fedora for a long time, while Text::CSV still isn't. Only recently (2007/2008) development of Text::CSV and Text::CSV_XS was coordinated. So I do not share your opinion on my patch being a hack. However, I have contacted the Text::CSV maintainer to ask permission for packaging. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225999] Merge Review: libdrm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225999 Dave Airlie airl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo? --- Comment #7 from Dave Airlie airl...@redhat.com 2009-01-31 08:16:55 EDT --- I've no idea what is going on in this bug. Its a 2 year old review request, that nobody cared about. Just read the spec file and review it. You aren't the maintainer so you can't decide when we need to upgrade to the latest upstream version, esp when we are also upstream maintainers, and libdrm is a pretty messy system component to just go upgrading due to links to X/mesa etc. I'm also nearly sure I did push 2.4.4 into rawhide 2-3 days ago, but again what has the version got to do with the spec file review? confused. Dave. -- 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 483376] Review Request: fluid-soundfont - Pro-quality GM/GS soundfont
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483376 --- Comment #2 from Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com 2009-01-31 08:28:42 EDT --- Woa, fluid relicensed under an MIT license, that is great news! You know I spend *days* mailing with soundfont authors to even find one that is freely re-distributable (albeit not free), so that we could atleast have midi playback functionality in Fedora. Anyways about the gus patches, *a* set of gus patches is needed for (older) timidity derived midi playing code, as found in libtimidity, allegro and SDL_mixer to be able to play midi. timidity itself now can also handle sf2 files. Given that all those which need gus patches explictly require PersonalCopy-Lite's gus patches, and that those do a decent job (sf2 to gus format conversion is not perfect, as the feature sets of the 2 formats are not a 100% match), I see no use in having a gus version of the fluid font, esp. given the huge package size this will cause. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483390] New: Review Request: perl-Schedule-Cron-Events - Take a line from a crontab and find out when events will occur
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-Schedule-Cron-Events - Take a line from a crontab and find out when events will occur https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483390 Summary: Review Request: perl-Schedule-Cron-Events - Take a line from a crontab and find out when events will occur Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/perl-Schedule-Cron-Events.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/perl-Schedule-Cron-Events-1.8-1.src.rpm Description: Given a line from a crontab, tells you the time at which cron will next run the line or when the last event occurred, relative to any date you choose. And this module uses Set::Crontab to understand the date specification, so it should be able to handle all forms of cron entries. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483205] Review Request: eclipse-SystemTapGui - GUI interface for SystemTap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483205 Anithra anit...@linux.vnet.ibm.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483205] Review Request: eclipse-SystemTapGui - GUI interface for SystemTap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483205 --- Comment #7 from Anithra anit...@linux.vnet.ibm.com 2009-01-31 09:36:30 EDT --- This is my first package to Fedora and I need a sponsor -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483392] New: Review Request: whohas - Command line tool for query package lists
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: whohas - Command line tool for query package lists https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483392 Summary: Review Request: whohas - Command line tool for query package lists Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fab...@bernewireless.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/whohas.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/whohas-0.22-1.fc10.src.rpm Project URL: http://www.philippwesche.org/200811/whohas/intro.html Description: whohas is a command line tool that allows querying several package lists at once - currently supported are Arch, Debian, Gentoo and Slackware. whohas is written in Perl and was designed to help package maintainers find ebuilds, pkgbuilds and similar package definitions from other distributions to learn from. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1096369 rpmlint output: [...@laptop24 noarch]$ rpmlint whohas-0.22-1.fc10.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [...@laptop24 SRPMS]$ rpmlint whohas-0.22-1.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481482] Review Request: perl-Perl6-Junction - Perl6 style Junction operators in Perl5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481482 Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.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 481681] Review Request: perl-MooseX-ClassAttribute - Declare class attributes Moose-style
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481681 Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.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 481567] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Async - Set of Metaclasses for MooseX::POE and it's siblings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481567 Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 470155] Review Request: xword - Reads and writes crossword puzzles in the Across Lite file format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470155 --- Comment #7 from Alex Eskin alexes...@yahoo.com 2009-01-31 11:04:05 EDT --- Yes, I still would like to import it. Thanks! --Alex -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225999] Merge Review: libdrm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225999 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo? | --- Comment #8 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-01-31 12:05:17 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) I've no idea what is going on in this bug. Its a 2 year old review request, that nobody cared about. There are plenty of Merge Reviews that are waiting for a reviewer. Sorry, we didn't have the manpower to finish them up in the last two years. People are working on them. Just read the spec file and review it. You aren't the maintainer so you can't decide when we need to upgrade to the latest upstream version, esp when we are also upstream maintainers, and libdrm is a pretty messy system component to just go upgrading due to links to X/mesa etc. Thank you for the explanation. Being verbose just *helps*. I'm also nearly sure I did push 2.4.4 into rawhide 2-3 days ago, Again, I'm sorry. I didn't check the rawhide SPEC. I was busy with monitoring many SPEC files and this one just slipped through. It would be nice if the maintainer wrote about the update here. but again what has the version got to do with the spec file review? confused. Dave. Dave, this is not a SPEC file review. It is a package review. The former is only a subset of the latter. For reference, look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines Some of these elements cannot be checked within SPEC file only and they need to be re-checked with each upstream version. I'll do the package review now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479903] Review Request: gdesklet-slideshow - Cycle through a collection of pictures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479903 --- Comment #25 from MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2009-01-31 12:42:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #22) Information is on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers ok, i read all the document i am at : koji build --scratch dist-f10 rpmbuild/SRPMS/SlideShow-0.9-4.fc10.src.rpm Uploading srpm: rpmbuild/SRPMS/SlideShow-0.9-4.fc10.src.rpm [] 100% 00:00:04 143.64 KiB 28.83 KiB/sec Created task: 1096424 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1096424 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 1096424 build (dist-f10, SlideShow-0.9-4.fc10.src.rpm): open (xenbuilder2.fedora.redhat.com) 1096425 buildArch (SlideShow-0.9-4.fc10.src.rpm, noarch): free 1096425 buildArch (SlideShow-0.9-4.fc10.src.rpm, noarch): free - open (ppc10.fedora.phx.redhat.com) 1096425 buildArch (SlideShow-0.9-4.fc10.src.rpm, noarch): open (ppc10.fedora.phx.redhat.com) - closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 1096424 build (dist-f10, SlideShow-0.9-4.fc10.src.rpm): open (xenbuilder2.fedora.redhat.com) - closed 0 free 0 open 2 done 0 failed 1096424 build (dist-f10, SlideShow-0.9-4.fc10.src.rpm) completed successfully -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483390] Review Request: perl-Schedule-Cron-Events - Take a line from a crontab and find out when events will occur
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483390 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-31 12:50:05 EDT --- Robert, the fedora‑review flag must be set by the reviewer... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483400] New: Review Request: vollkorn-fonts - A serif latin OTF font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: vollkorn-fonts - A serif latin OTF font https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483400 Summary: Review Request: vollkorn-fonts - A serif latin OTF font Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: pala...@gmx.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://palango.fedorapeople.org/vollkorn-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://palango.fedorapeople.org/vollkorn-fonts-1.008-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Serif latin OTF font by Friedrich Althausen with focus on good readability. This needs to be sponsored. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483400] Review Request: vollkorn-fonts - A serif latin OTF font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483400 Paul Lange pala...@gmx.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-fonts-bugs-l...@redh ||at.com, pala...@gmx.de Blocks||177841 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483390] Review Request: perl-Schedule-Cron-Events - Take a line from a crontab and find out when events will occur
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483390 --- Comment #2 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de 2009-01-31 13:08:14 EDT --- Of course, Manuel. Sorry, that happened accidentally. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483392] Review Request: whohas - Command line tool for query package lists
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483392 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 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 483390] Review Request: perl-Schedule-Cron-Events - Take a line from a crontab and find out when events will occur
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483390 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 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 483376] Review Request: fluid-soundfont - Pro-quality GM/GS soundfont
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483376 --- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-01-31 13:09:55 EDT --- I made an attempt to modify the SPEC file so that one can build the GUS subpackages by passing --with GUS to rpmbuild: http://6mata.com:8014/review/fluid-soundfont.spec.optional.gus Should I leave it like this, or should I revert? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478767] Review Request: spring - Realtime strategy game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478767 Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(ianwel...@gmail.c | |om) | --- Comment #21 from Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com 2009-01-31 13:10:26 EDT --- Now x86_64 is failing. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1096475 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476404] Review Request: bullet - 3D Collision Detection and Rigid Body Dynamics Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476404 --- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-31 13:34:29 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=330530) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=330530) Licenses in need of audit -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476404] Review Request: bullet - 3D Collision Detection and Rigid Body Dynamics Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476404 --- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-31 13:33:22 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=330529) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=330529) License analysis -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476404] Review Request: bullet - 3D Collision Detection and Rigid Body Dynamics Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476404 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Blocks||182235 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483392] Review Request: whohas - Command line tool for query package lists
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483392
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-31
13:36:10 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type according to the program: GPLv2+
License type according to the program: GPLv2
= see issue 1
[x] 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 is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: 936832728dccf7f2c46d741f928c52ee4f84dcb1
whohas-0.22.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR:
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Final provides and requires are sane.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: koji scratch build
[x] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check is present and the test passes.
=== Issues ===
1. Correct license is GPLv2+. The program explicitely says:
# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
# the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
# (at your option) any later version.
#
2. The perl(Module_Compat) line is not needed, this is a standalone program,
not a perl module. And if needed it will pull in perl as needed due to the
dependencies:
/usr/bin/perl
perl(Env)
perl(LWP::UserAgent)
perl(sigtrap)
perl(strict)
perl(threads)
perl-libwww-perl
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
(this is a local test, with Module_Compat removed, and which works perfectly
despite being built for rawhide and tested in F7)
*** APPROVED *** under the condition of fixing issues 1 and 2 above
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the
[Bug 476404] Review Request: bullet - 3D Collision Detection and Rigid Body Dynamics Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476404 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-31 13:43:49 EDT --- Scratch build on dist-f11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1094409 CCing to spot. To spot: * Would you audit the licenses in the attached file in my comment 7? For this package, GPL compatibility check is also needed. * I found in Fedora Licensing wiki http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing that CPL is incompatible with GPLv2. Would you examine if CPL is incompatible also with GPLv3? If they are incompatible, this package already contains legal problem, because for example libLinearMath.so.2.73: contains: src/BulletMultiThreaded/SpuNarrowPhaseCollisionTask/SpuGatheringCollisionTask.cpp .. includes Extras/software_cache/cache/include/spe_cache.h = CPL Demos/BspDemo/BspLoader.cpp = GPLv2+ - To Bruno: * Would you check if or how files in the attachment in my comment 6 which are marked as under NVIDIA 1/2 are used in this software? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483390] Review Request: perl-Schedule-Cron-Events - Take a line from a crontab and find out when events will occur
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483390 --- Comment #3 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-31 13:58:37 EDT --- Suggestion: drop the BR on perl 5.8.0. MUSTFIX: drop the perldoc -t lines. We are not allowed to add licenses to packages which do not ship them [*]. Instead you should contact the author and ask him to include them. Note that cron_event_predict.plx has no license at all and this should be clarified before inclusion. Quote from ReviewGuidelines: MUST: 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.[4] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476404] Review Request: bullet - 3D Collision Detection and Rigid Body Dynamics Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476404 --- Comment #9 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-01-31 14:23:11 EDT --- NVIDIA 1 and NVIDIA 2 are non-free. I'm asking RH Legal about the SCEA license. CPL is incompatible with GPLv3 because it contains a choice of law clause, which is expressly prohibited in section 7. It looks like this will need some upstream relicensing work in order for this to be okay for Fedora, even if SCEA comes back okay, due to the CPL issues. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483390] Review Request: perl-Schedule-Cron-Events - Take a line from a crontab and find out when events will occur
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483390 Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com Blocks||182235 --- Comment #4 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de 2009-01-31 14:31:26 EDT --- Interesting: In bug #193960 comment #6, I was even asked to add such a file to avoid confusions. I'm no lawyer, but the text from the Review Guidelines seems not to forbid my behaviour, it only forces the other way round. Regarding cron_event_predict.plx: It mostly contains documentation, the rest is just example code. So let's clarify both points you've mentioned now by someone from Fedora Legal... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470155] Review Request: xword - Reads and writes crossword puzzles in the Across Lite file format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470155 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 #8 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-31 14:29:03 EDT --- Well, I have not checked your package at all, however - NOTE: Before being sponsored: Before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) must sponsor you. Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) are required to show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines as is described on : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored Usually there are two ways to show this. A. submit other review requests with enough quality. B. Do a pre-review of other person's review request (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do a formal review) When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report so that I can check your comments or review request. Fedora package collection review requests which are waiting for someone to review can be checked on my wiki page: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mtasaka#B._Review_request_tickets (Check No one is reviewing) Review guidelines are described mainly on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483390] Review Request: perl-Schedule-Cron-Events - Take a line from a crontab and find out when events will occur
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483390 --- Comment #5 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-01-31 14:45:46 EDT --- You can add the license text(s) if you're comfortable, but you are by no means required to do so. You should advise upstream to include them, as their omission is a notable bug in the software. As to cron_event_predict.plx, you should confirm with upstream that it is available under the same terms as the library, because the licensing attribution only covers the library: This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. I'm leaving FE-Legal here until the licensing on cron_event_predict.plx is clarified or it is removed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476404] Review Request: bullet - 3D Collision Detection and Rigid Body Dynamics Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476404 --- Comment #10 from Bruno Mahe br...@gnoll.org 2009-01-31 14:49:24 EDT --- Demos are not included in the rpm. Does that still count ? We could also not include libBulletMultiThreaded which include some CPL code. Generally speaking, is it ok to not include non-free parts in the resulting rpm so we end up with only free parts ? To Mamoru: * I will look into that -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476404] Review Request: bullet - 3D Collision Detection and Rigid Body Dynamics Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476404 --- Comment #11 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-31 14:54:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) If they are incompatible, this package already contains legal problem, because for example libLinearMath.so.2.73: contains: src/BulletMultiThreaded/SpuNarrowPhaseCollisionTask/SpuGatheringCollisionTask.cpp .. includes Extras/software_cache/cache/include/spe_cache.h = CPL Demos/BspDemo/BspLoader.cpp = GPLv2+ - Ah, sorry, please ignore this part. libLinearMath.so.2.73 does not use BspLoader.cpp. I will recheck what files are used in the libraries in this software. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477144] Review Request: eclipse-cmakeed - CMake Editor plug-in for Eclipse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477144 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-01-31 15:00:28 EDT --- Thanks. Good to go. -- This package (eclipse-cmakeed) is APPROVED by oget -- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476404] Review Request: bullet - 3D Collision Detection and Rigid Body Dynamics Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476404 --- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-31 15:08:35 EDT --- Okay, after recheck actually codes under GPLv2+ are *NOT USED* (only used to create some demo binaries, which are not included in binary rpms). BulletDino.c is not used, either So if - non-free codes are not used - SCEA 1.0 is free this package should be okay for Fedora. Again sorry! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483363] Review Request: yanone-tagesschrift-fonts - Serif decorative latin TTF font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483363 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483400] Review Request: vollkorn-fonts - A serif latin OTF font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483400 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks|177841 | AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pala...@gmx.de Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-01-31 15:48:39 EDT --- 1. You don't really need to specify the format in the summary 2. I'm quite sure that in all the German I can't read on the homepage and pdf there is some material to fatten up the description a bit. But, that's 100% nitpicking on my part. ⧆⧆⧆ APPROVED ⧆⧆⧆ And since you've proven twice you could read documentation and ask the right questions on the list, I'm also going to sponsor you. Please don't prove me wrong (as your sponsor I'm also here to help you should you have packaging problems later). You can now continue from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle#3.a Thank you for packaging another Fedora font. It's a pleasure to do reviews where there is nothing really wrong, don't stop here :p -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483390] Review Request: perl-Schedule-Cron-Events - Take a line from a crontab and find out when events will occur
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483390 --- Comment #6 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-31 15:54:38 EDT --- As far as I can see, the Review Guideline say if (and only if) I admit that my English is not so good, but I do not think that my understanding of and only if is wrong... Is there a special meaning due to the fact that those three words are in parenthesizes ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479903] Review Request: gdesklet-slideshow - Cycle through a collection of pictures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479903 --- Comment #26 from Luya Tshimbalanga l...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-31 16:01:18 EDT --- Next step is to find a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483403] New: A colection of quote in french language for gdesklets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: A colection of quote in french language for gdesklets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483403 Summary: A colection of quote in french language for gdesklets Product: Fedora Version: 10 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Keywords: Desktop Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: bioinfornat...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora http://bioinformatiques.free.fr/Citation-1.3-3.fc10.noarch.rpm http://bioinformatiques.free.fr/Citation-1.3-3.fc10.src.rpm http://bioinformatiques.free.fr/Citation-1.3-3.spec _ rmlint issue: $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/citation.spec Error: no installed packages by name rpmbuild/SPECS/citation.spec 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/Citation-1.3-3.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/Citation-1.3-3.fc10.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/Citation.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. _ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483403] A collection of quote in french language for gdesklets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483403 MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|A colection of quote in |A collection of quote in |french language for |french language for |gdesklets |gdesklets -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453422] Review Request: songbird - Mozilla based multimedia player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422 --- Comment #23 from Nikolay Vladimirov niko...@vladimiroff.com 2009-01-31 16:08:29 EDT --- Several things: 1) Is anyone going to make a full review for this + sponsoring the packager? 2) There is an issue with the package. When installed it places the binary executable in /usr/bin/songbird which leads to: songbird: error while loading shared libraries: libjemalloc.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory Running songbird-bin from /usr/lib64/songbird-1.0.0 raises the same error. I guess that the start up script songbird must be used. As far as I know it's some generic mozilla script that's used for starting their apps. For example firefox uses something similar. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483403] A collection of quote in french language for gdesklets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483403 --- Comment #1 from MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2009-01-31 16:09:33 EDT --- $ koji build --scratch dist-f10 rpmbuild/SRPMS/Citation-1.3-3.fc10.src.rpm Uploading srpm: rpmbuild/SRPMS/Citation-1.3-3.fc10.src.rpm [] 100% 00:00:04 132.10 KiB 27.94 KiB/sec Created task: 1096640 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1096640 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 1096640 build (dist-f10, Citation-1.3-3.fc10.src.rpm): open (xenbuilder4.fedora.phx.redhat.com) 1096641 buildArch (Citation-1.3-3.fc10.src.rpm, noarch): free 1096641 buildArch (Citation-1.3-3.fc10.src.rpm, noarch): free - open (x86-7.fedora.phx.redhat.com) 1096641 buildArch (Citation-1.3-3.fc10.src.rpm, noarch): open (x86-7.fedora.phx.redhat.com) - closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 1096640 build (dist-f10, Citation-1.3-3.fc10.src.rpm): open (xenbuilder4.fedora.phx.redhat.com) - closed 0 free 0 open 2 done 0 failed 1096640 build (dist-f10, Citation-1.3-3.fc10.src.rpm) completed successfully -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483392] Review Request: whohas - Command line tool for query package lists
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483392 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-01-31 16:12:59 EDT --- Thanks for the review (In reply to comment #1) 1. Correct license is GPLv2+. The program explicitely says: fixed 2. The perl(Module_Compat) line is not needed, this is a standalone program, not a perl module. And if needed it will pull in perl as needed due to the dependencies: Yes, it's not 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 483392] Review Request: whohas - Command line tool for query package lists
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483392 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-01-31 16:14:19 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: whohas Short Description: Command line tool for query package lists Owners: fab Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483403] A collection of French quotes language for gdesklets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483403 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|A collection of quote in|A collection of French |french language for |quotes language for |gdesklets |gdesklets -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483403] A collection of quotes in French for gdesklets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483403 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|A collection of French |A collection of quotes in |quotes language for |French for gdesklets |gdesklets | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483406] Review Request: perl-Text-CSV - Comma-separated values manipulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483406 --- Comment #1 from Johan Vromans jvrom...@squirrel.nl 2009-01-31 16:54:38 EDT --- Latest koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1096643 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483406] Review Request: perl-Text-CSV - Comma-separated values manipulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483406 Johan Vromans jvrom...@squirrel.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483406] New: Review Request: perl-Text-CSV - Comma-separated values manipulator
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-Text-CSV - Comma-separated values manipulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483406 Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-CSV - Comma-separated values manipulator Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jvrom...@squirrel.nl QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.squirrel.nl/pub/xfer/perl-Text-CSV.spec SRPM URL: http://www.squirrel.nl/pub/xfer/perl-Text-CSV-1.10-1.fc11.src.rpm I packaged this module since Text::CSV seems to be preferred over Text::CSV_XS. The spec and srpm are rpmlint free of errors and warnings. If you like this please consider sponsoring me. Description of Text::CSV: Text::CSV provides facilities for the composition and decomposition of comma-separated values. An instance of the Text::CSV class can combine fields into a CSV string and parse a CSV string into fields. The module accepts either strings or files as input and can utilize any user-specified characters as delimiters, separators, and escapes so it is perhaps better called ASV (anything separated values) rather than just CSV. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483406] Review Request: perl-Text-CSV - Comma-separated values manipulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483406 Johan Vromans jvrom...@squirrel.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||483286 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483286] Review Request: perl-Data-Report - A flexible plugin-driven reporting framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483286 Johan Vromans jvrom...@squirrel.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||483406 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483403] A collection of quotes in French for gdesklets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483403 --- Comment #2 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-31 17:03:36 EDT --- COPYING is included twice: -rw-r--r--1 rootroot17645 Mar 24 2007 /usr/share/doc/Citation-1.3/COPYING -rw-r--r--1 rootroot17645 Mar 24 2007 /usr/share/gdesklets/Displays/Citation/COPYING uhm, and the URL for the spec is not valid -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483376] Review Request: fluid-soundfont - Pro-quality GM/GS soundfont
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483376 --- Comment #4 from Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com 2009-01-31 17:51:01 EDT --- Having --with GUS is fine with me, but seems of little value, so dropping it might be a good idea 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 483403] A collection of quotes in French for gdesklets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483403 --- Comment #3 from MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2009-01-31 18:06:37 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) COPYING is included twice: -rw-r--r--1 rootroot17645 Mar 24 2007 /usr/share/doc/Citation-1.3/COPYING -rw-r--r--1 rootroot17645 Mar 24 2007 /usr/share/gdesklets/Displays/Citation/COPYING uhm, and the URL for the spec is not valid bug is fixed http://bioinformatiques.free.fr/Citation-1.3-4.fc10.noarch.rpm http://bioinformatiques.free.fr/Citation-1.3-4.fc10.src.rpm http://bioinformatiques.free.fr/Citation.spec _ rmlint issue: $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/citation.spec Error: no installed packages by name rpmbuild/SPECS/citation.spec 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/Citation.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/Citation-1.3-4.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/Citation-1.3-4.fc10.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483403] A collection of quotes in French for gdesklets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483403 --- Comment #4 from MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2009-01-31 18:08:33 EDT --- $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/Citation.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483363] Review Request: yanone-tagesschrift-fonts - Serif decorative latin TTF font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483363 Paul Lange pala...@gmx.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Paul Lange pala...@gmx.de 2009-01-31 18:51:06 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: yanone-tagesschrift-fonts Short Description: A serif decorative latin font. Owners: palango Branches: devel only InitialCC: fonts-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483403] A collection of quotes in French for gdesklets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483403 MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483400] Review Request: vollkorn-fonts - A serif latin OTF font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483400 Paul Lange pala...@gmx.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Paul Lange pala...@gmx.de 2009-01-31 18:53:43 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: vollkorn-fonts Short Description: A serif latin font. Owners: palango Branches: devel only InitialCC: fonts-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481022] Review Request: SPE it is a Python IDE editor released
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481022 MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481564] Review Request: bind-to-tinydns - Convert DNS zone files in BIND format to tinydns format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481564 Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #18 from Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br 2009-01-31 18:54:52 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: bind-to-tinydns Short Description: Convert DNS zone files in BIND format to tinydns format Owners: itamarjp timj Branches: F-10 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225999] Merge Review: libdrm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225999 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|oget.fed...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #9 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-01-31 19:46:12 EDT --- OK, here's the review, with questions (?), issues (*) and comments (!). ? From what you told, I understand that you are the upstream maintainer too. So why are the patches? This confuses me. Can't they be integrated into the source? Also why use autoreconf? ? Why are those header files are getting removed? And if they are irrelevant, why are being installed by the Makefile? An explanation please, preferably in the SPEC file as a comment. * Generally, all the patches need to be explained as comments in the SPEC file (and they need to be sent upstream but we skip this part). It's best to keep the SPEC file at a state where a new package maintainer can take it over easily without spending hours to figure out what's going on. * Now, the rpmlint complaints: libdrm.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch2: libdrm-2.4.0-no-freaking-mknod.patch should be removed if it's useless libdrm.src: W: strange-permission make-git-snapshot.sh 0755 we should have 644 for source files libdrm.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/91-drm-modeset.rules this %files entry should be a %config libdrm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation at the least, the file libdrm/ChangeLog and the tests directory can go in here. * %description should be descriptive, not a carbon copy of the summary. * libdrm/TODO should go to %doc * The upstream should be advised to put a copy of the full text of the license in a seperate COPYING file. ! The timestamp of the sourcefile is wrong (should be downloaded with wget -N or such) ! BR: pkgconfig is not required since libxcb-devel will pull that up. * /etc/udev/rules.d is not owned. So we must require the package that owns it (which, I think, is udev). * Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). This applies to the devel package. * Parallel make must be supported whenever possible. If it is not supported, this should be noted in the SPEC file as a comment. -- 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 478759] Review Request: perl-SystemPerl - SystemPerl Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478759 --- Comment #6 from Chitlesh GOORAH cgoo...@yahoo.com.au 2009-01-31 19:59:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) Chitlesh notified me of this thread. The src/ prefix is because many users have multiple versions of SystemPerl installed (generally in a repository) and just point to the one they want. Lane has a the right solution for the present version, as makefiles etc also have the src/ path hardcoded. If there's a strong objection to the extra src/ in the path, I can add a new envvariable that will set the location. Hello Wilson, From my point of view, in order to ease the installation of multiple version of SystemPerl, those *.cpp should rather be placed into -- /usr/include/perl-SystemPerl - for the distribution supported package -- /usr/include/perl-SystemPerl-$version - for parallel installations I would welcome an envvariable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481040] Review Request: skyeye - integrated simulation environment for typical Embedded Computer Systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481040 --- Comment #4 from Chitlesh GOORAH cgoo...@yahoo.com.au 2009-01-31 20:11:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) * Source code quality: Building on FC10 exposes an exciting amount of not-so-harmless warnings. Some of them definitely are worth going after and be fixed. Hello Ralf, can you help to improve those warnings please? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476449] Review Request: perl-SystemC-Vregs - Utility routines used by vregs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476449 --- Comment #4 from Chitlesh GOORAH cgoo...@yahoo.com.au 2009-01-31 20:13:08 EDT --- Ping Brennan -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474980] Review Request: ovm - Open Verification Methodology : IEEE 1800 SystemVerilog standard
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474980 Chitlesh GOORAH cgoo...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||INSUFFICIENT_DATA Flag|fedora-cvs? | --- Comment #24 from Chitlesh GOORAH cgoo...@yahoo.com.au 2009-01-31 20:18:58 EDT --- I'm closing this bug: Reason : No simulator currently available under fedora If the situation changes, I will still be interested to push OVM into fedora repositories. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 482880] Review Request: perl-Sane - Access SANE-compatible scanners with perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482880 Bernard Johnson bjohn...@symetrix.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Bernard Johnson bjohn...@symetrix.com 2009-01-31 20:20:08 EDT --- Thanks Parag AN(पराग)! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Sane Short Description: Perl extension for the SANE (Scanner Access Now Easy) Project Owners: bjohnson Branches: F-10 InitialCC: fedora-perl-devel-l...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459892] Review Request: rubygem-mocha - Mocking and stubbing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459892 --- Comment #13 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com 2009-01-31 20:53:55 EDT --- Marked these files as %doc New SPEC: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/rubygem-mocha.spec New SRPM: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f10/SRPMS/rubygem-mocha-0.9.1-4.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468597 Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(sahar...@xs4all.n ||l) --- Comment #32 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com 2009-01-31 21:22:48 EDT --- Stefan, ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474412] Review Request: giver - A simple file sharing desktop application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474412
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro|
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-31
21:25:02 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:
giver.x86_64: E: no-binary
giver.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.
= rpmlint is obviously wrong here, I'll dig later why
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: MIT
[x] 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 is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: 969e794f61a7ef94396a830b1fa623b93679c8c3
giver-0.1.8.tar.gz
[x] Package is known to require ExcludeArch
Arches excluded: ppc64 sparc64
Why: No mono implementation for ppc64 or sparc64 right now
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[x] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Final provides and requires are sane.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: koji scratch build
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: koji scratch build
[?] Package functions as described.
[x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check is present and the test passes.
=== Final Notes ===
1. Duplicate BuildRequires: mono-core (by avahi-sharp), perl(XML::Parser) (by
intltool)
=Not a blocker.
*** 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 474012] Review Request: qodem - terminal emulator and communications package.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474012 --- Comment #5 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-31 21:43:54 EDT --- Jeff, is there an updated package available for review ? At http://marlene.zimage.com/packages/ I can only see the first src.rpm Please do not forget to increment the release tag and add a proper entry in the changelog each time you make modifications to the spec. Are you already sponsored? I have not found you in FAS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483421] New: Review Request: apophysis-j - Fractal flame editor and creator, based on Apophysis
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: apophysis-j - Fractal flame editor and creator, based on Apophysis https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483421 Summary: Review Request: apophysis-j - Fractal flame editor and creator, based on Apophysis Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ianwel...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/apophysis-j/2.6-1/apophysis-j.spec SRPM URL: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/apophysis-j/2.6-1/apophysis-j-2.6-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: apophysis-j is a Java port of the famous fractal flame editor Apophysis. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468465] Review Request: posterazor - Make your own poster
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468465 --- Comment #3 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-31 22:35:54 EDT --- sorry, I meant: [x] Package functions as described. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468465] Review Request: posterazor - Make your own poster
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468465
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-31
22:35:28 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPLv3+
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, contai
ning the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: a2959c23a3614fc7358bf73a00ec54f911396e58
PosteRazor-1.5-Source.zip
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[x] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Final provides and requires are sane.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: koji scratch build
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: koji scratch build
[?] Package functions as described.
[x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[-] %check is present and the test passes.
=== Final Notes ===
1. Would be nice to have a touch -r in the loop which removes the \rs in
order to preserve the timestamps.
*** 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 483187] Review Request: kde-plasma-weather - Plasma applet for weather forecasts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483187
Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||oget.fed...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-02-01
01:31:14 EDT ---
Here are my notes:
! rpmlint says:
kde-plasma-weather.x86_64: W: no-documentation
but there is really no documentation, so this can be ignored
? The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Upstream webpage says:
For those looking for the weather forecast plasmoid (that's the official
name of it), it's now...
So shall we call this package kde-plasma-weatherforecast instead?
* please make use of the %{name} macro.
* According to the guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
the pre-release packages are versioned in a special way. Check the kismet
example given in the above link. So it would probably better to change
Version:0.0
Release:0.2%{?dist}.20090130svn
to
Version:0
Release:0.2.20090130svn%{?dist}
The right-hand side of the disttag is to be used when there is a fix in an
older branch, e.g. F-9
* Isn't plasma-devel provided by kdelibs-devel which is one of the dependencies
of kdebase-workspace-devel? So, that BR seems redundant.
* Fedora-specific flag -fexceptions is overriden by -fno-exceptions but I think
this is a problem with the compilation of kde itself. Can this be fixed?
* Do we really need call ldconfig on post{,un} ?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225999] Merge Review: libdrm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225999 --- Comment #10 from Dave Airlie airl...@redhat.com 2009-02-01 02:11:24 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) OK, here's the review, with questions (?), issues (*) and comments (!). ? From what you told, I understand that you are the upstream maintainer too. So why are the patches? This confuses me. Can't they be integrated into the source? Also why use autoreconf? We ship stuff in Fedora this isn't released fully suitable for upstream yet, libdrm is a small component in a the big kernel/X stack, nothing can hit a released libdrm until corresponding code is shipped in the upstream kernel, so we carry kernel patches + libdrm patches until the code is all in the correct upstream places. We use autoreconf because we change Makefile.am's and we need to reconfigure. ? Why are those header files are getting removed? And if they are irrelevant, why are being installed by the Makefile? An explanation please, preferably in the SPEC file as a comment. Upstream and kernel are still working out ownership of certain header files, the kernel now installs some header files and we are working on transitioning libdrm away from this task, its not an overnight task. 2.4.5 will hopefully have a configure option. * Generally, all the patches need to be explained as comments in the SPEC file (and they need to be sent upstream but we skip this part). It's best to keep the SPEC file at a state where a new package maintainer can take it over easily without spending hours to figure out what's going on. I've put some info in there but no new package maintainer will ever take it over, libdrm is part of the X stack, we have a team in RH looking after it, if someone new joins the team they already know what we are up to with libdrm. * Now, the rpmlint complaints: libdrm.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch2: libdrm-2.4.0-no-freaking-mknod.patch Okay I can drop that I think we fixed it upstream. should be removed if it's useless libdrm.src: W: strange-permission make-git-snapshot.sh 0755 we should have 644 for source files This isn't a source file its a script you run to make a snapshot of libdrm from git for shipping it never gets shipped. so I'm leaving it as-is. libdrm.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/91-drm-modeset.rules this %files entry should be a %config good point. libdrm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation at the least, the file libdrm/ChangeLog and the tests directory can go in here. the changelog is no longer generated, the tests aren't actually tests, they are like little apps, that aren't really used by anyone anymore, so I don't want to ship or even try and support them. * %description should be descriptive, not a carbon copy of the summary. Not sure we can say more, that's all it is, its the runtime library supporting the direct rendering management infrastructure. Nobody uses this library outside of mesa and X stuff, its not general purpose by any means. it used to be part of the X server and mesa internals. * libdrm/TODO should go to %doc Sorely out of date so no point. * The upstream should be advised to put a copy of the full text of the license in a seperate COPYING file. its MIT/BSD if a patch appeared upstream I'd apply it but I've a lot bigger things to worry about, but its on every file in the package. ! The timestamp of the sourcefile is wrong (should be downloaded with wget -N or such) will fix that next revision upload hopefully. ! BR: pkgconfig is not required since libxcb-devel will pull that up. I'd prefer to keep it explicit just in case we figure out we don't need libxcb-devel later. * /etc/udev/rules.d is not owned. So we must require the package that owns it (which, I think, is udev). done. * Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). This applies to the devel package. done. * Parallel make must be supported whenever possible. If it is not supported, this should be noted in the SPEC file as a comment. it should be supported not sure why it was disabled - re-enabled Thanks for the review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478007] Review Request: vmware-requirements - Installs packages needed for VMware's virtualization programs to run
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478007 --- Comment #19 from David Timms dti...@iinet.net.au 2009-02-01 02:16:32 EDT --- For future reference for similar non Fedora application support packages, please see the FESCo IRC log at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Fesco_IRC_Log_20090130#tJan_30_11:46:53 and summary: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/104241 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225999] Merge Review: libdrm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225999 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-02-01 02:37:31 EDT --- You're welcome. I thank you for the nice explanations in a language understandable by non low-level programmers. Most of the issues I pointed are solved and the remaining ones are defended with valid reasonings. -- This Merge Review (libdrm) is APPROVED by oget -- Closing the bug. -- 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 453422] Review Request: songbird - Mozilla based multimedia player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422 --- Comment #24 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2009-02-01 02:44:56 EDT --- 1) Is anyone going to make a full review for this + sponsoring the packager? I unfortunately don't believe due to packaging policies that songbird can be included until it can be compiled against the Fedora xulrunner rather than its own. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
