[Bug 189375] Re-Review Request: Maelstrom: space combat game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Re-Review Request: Maelstrom: space combat game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189375 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 02:39 EST --- Release bumped, waiting on response from Sam. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193787] Review Request: scite - Scintilla based text editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: scite - Scintilla based text editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193787 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 02:58 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) (In reply to comment #2) The license seems to me to be equivalent to the MIT license (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php); that's what I'd use in the License: field. That's wrong. I've got some involvement with the scintilla project and I'm almost sure both scintilla and scite have ever used the Python license. http://sourceforge.net/projects/scintilla/ License: Python License (CNRI Python License). http://www.opensource.org/licenses/pythonpl.php I can request an authoritative answer upstream if you wish, as I've been participating on scintilla's mailing list for some years now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193806] Review Request: libsvg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libsvg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193806 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 03:50 EST --- I have put my key onto those two sites. Let me know if you have any changes that should be done to the SPEC file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187282] Review Request: sax2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sax2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187282 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 04:01 EST --- BTW, we have no rule for this in the Guidelines, but I think the questions should be raised: Does it create a valid config for Fedora Core? E.g. are module path set proberly? Does it load the same modules as the xorg.conf created my system-config-display? In other words: Does sax2 really make sense for Fedora Extras or might it do more harm because it does things in different ways than system-config-display (which could lead to problems or bugs in other areas)? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192119] Review Request: tuxkart - Kids 3D go-kart racing game featuring Tux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tuxkart - Kids 3D go-kart racing game featuring Tux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192119 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 04:34 EST --- libGL-devel should be required by plib-devel as the plib includes #include GL/gl.h . I've committed a new plib version with the correct Requires to CVS and requested a build. About the other 3, the configure script in gnukart unnecesarry adds these 3 to the linking cmdline, they aren't used. It also unnecesarry adds -lICE and -lSM . Here is a new version with a small patch which stops configure from doing this, this takes 4 libs out of the ldd output for the tuxkart binary, reducing deps and startup time. Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/tuxkart.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/tuxkart-0.4.0-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177080] Review Request: metisse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: metisse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177080 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 05:50 EST --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 194027 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194027] Review Request: metisse - Experimental X desktop with OpenGL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: metisse - Experimental X desktop with OpenGL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194027 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 05:50 EST --- *** Bug 177080 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 06:27 EST --- I see you've made a few comments on other package reviews, but unless I've missed something these appear to be limited to posting the output of rpmlint. This is just domonstrating that you can can use bugzilla and rpmlint. What I'd really like to see is a detailed review of a package (use the package review guidelines from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines). If you find problems with a package, don't just point them out, make a suggestion for how to fix the problem (if you know how - otherwise, try asking on fedora-extras-list - it will be a useful learning experience). Remember, what a sponsor is looking for is that you know how to make good packages and are aware of the Fedora Extras processes and packaging standards. Doing a detailed, point-by-point review will go a long way towards demonstrating that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 07:00 EST --- thanks for your comment will do full package review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192432] Review Request: compiz
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: compiz https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192432 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 07:18 EST --- Spec URL: http://fedoraxgl.tuxfamily.org/repository/5/SPECS/compiz.spec SRPM URL: http://fedoraxgl.tuxfamily.org/repository/5/SRPMS/compiz-0.0.10-1.fc5.src.rpm Several changes, some based on the Eric Work version: - update cvs mesa version with this of yesterday. - add devel package, but comment out a this time. - more use of macro. - remove compiz gconf entry when unstalling the package (preun). - update fedora-log.patch, patch compiz.schemas file too. - remove extra comments. - fix version, so old user of the package must uninstall the old package to be able to install the new one. - fix release in changlog. this version is well cleaned, rpmlint complain only for the licence (X11/MIT/GPL), and for the gconf .schemas (he says W: compiz non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/compiz.schemas but all gconf schemas are there, so i think that this warning may be ignored?). Thx to Eric for him work! (if the next time you sendings me a patch it will be still better ;)) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192436] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xgl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xgl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192436 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 07:25 EST --- SPEC Url: http://fedoraxgl.tuxfamily.org/repository/5/SPECS/xorg-x11-server-Xgl.spec SRPM Url: http://fedoraxgl.tuxfamily.org/repository/5/SRPMS/xorg-x11-server-Xgl-1.1.99.1-4.fc5.src.rpm Several changes, some based on the above 'Eric' version. - update mesa version with this of yesterday. (According to what I read here http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/compiz/2006-May/000203.html this version of mesa would add support for old INTEL i810 cards). - add Xgl patch for the new mesa version. - add default gdm configuration in post install. - --enable-xkb. - add build requiered packages. - add package documentations. - always use macro when it is possible. - --disable-static and remove the line that delele these static libs. - Remove many pushd and popd stuff. I think that this version is well cleaned, rpmlint has only problem about the licence (X11/MIT), but according with what there's in COPYING file, the licence is not easy to determine. Thx to Eric for him work! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 167364] Review Request: Fuse emulator utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Fuse emulator utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167364 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 08:01 EST --- Spec Name or Url: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/monodevelop.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/monodevelop-0.11-7.src.rpm Additional 64 bit fix -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190664] Review Request: keyutils - Kernel key management userspace utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: keyutils - Kernel key management userspace utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190664 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 08:16 EST --- Okay, I've made the source tarball available at the Source0 URL and I've fixed the ldconfig lack. SPEC URL: http://people.redhat.com/~dhowells/keyutils/keyutils-1.1-4/keyutils.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~dhowells/keyutils/keyutils-1.1-4/keyutils-1.1-4.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193787] Review Request: scite - Scintilla based text editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: scite - Scintilla based text editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193787 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 08:27 EST --- SciTE's License.txt file contains a copy of the Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer license instead of the Python license. License.txt (scintilla/SciTE) http://scintilla.cvs.sourceforge.net/scintilla/scite/License.txt?view=markup Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer http://www.opensource.org/licenses/historical.php According to Wikipedia [1]: It [SciTE] is licensed under a minimal version of the Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scite -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194054] New: Review Request: monodoc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194054 Summary: Review Request: monodoc Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/monodoc.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/monodoc-1.1.13-9.src.rpm Description: monodoc is the documentation package required for monodevelop -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194054] Review Request: monodoc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: monodoc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194054 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||178904 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||194054 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190045] Review Request: caps - A set of audio plugins for LADSPA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: caps - A set of audio plugins for LADSPA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190045 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 10:13 EST --- I stripped caps.so, and I could still use it in sweep. So, is the patch really necessary? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193846] Review Request: ganglia - Ganglia Distributed Monitoring System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ganglia - Ganglia Distributed Monitoring System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193846 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 10:28 EST --- Updated spec and srpm, moves ganglia's web frontend into /usr/share/ganglia instead of /var/www/html/ganglia. Spec URL: http://wilsonet.com/packages/ganglia/ganglia.spec SRPM URL: http://wilsonet.com/packages/ganglia/ganglia-3.0.3-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187282] Review Request: sax2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sax2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187282 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 10:54 EST --- - In reply to comment #3. John, thanks for pointing out the mistakes I made in the spec file. I will take care for the mentioned issues. - But before I continue I think it is more important to discuss comment #4 Thorsten I can understand your concerns and maybe it makes no sense to have more than one X11 config tool an a distribution. I started to make sax working on fedora because there were enough questions :) I thought it would be a good idea to have that config tool available as an extra package. As far as I understand this will give people an option to use it. I really don't want to come into conflict with system-config-display and if I did that it happens accidently and I'm sorry for that. In this case I have no problems to stop my efforts immediately. sax touches only the xorg.conf file and creates a valid file which can be read in using Xorg's libxf86config. If system-config-display has its own library I agree this could lead to a problem when it tries to parse the sax written file. I'm using fedora at the University and I'm using sax to configure X there. If you want you can give it a try with the packages I provide on: ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/sax/head-build/i386/FC5 To see how it works it is the best to run sax2 from runlevel 3 If you think it is not useful, I will stop bothering you guys :) Thanks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192889] Review Request: openais standards based cluster framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openais standards based cluster framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192889 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 11:57 EST --- yes check out the new source rpm I have added the functionality. Unfortunately I am not sure which UID to use. Is there a UID registry maintained for fedora? There probably is but I don't know where (Bill Nottingham will probably know). However, unless there is a requirement for the account to have the same UID across different machines on a network (e.g. if they required shared access to the same files using NFS), you could just use the -r option of useradd to create a systen account and not worry about the exact UID. Reserve a uid in the uidgid registry (part of the setup package). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189010] Review Request: pybaz - Python library bindings for the GNU Arch/Bazaar RCS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pybaz - Python library bindings for the GNU Arch/Bazaar RCS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189010 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 13:14 EST --- Created an attachment (id=130522) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=130522action=view) rpmbuild log I'm still seeing lots of errors from make check. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181599] Review Request: gallery2: web based photo album software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gallery2: web based photo album software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181599 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 13:38 EST --- Yeah, multisite looks good now here too. So with the install under /usr/share/gallery2, further selinux changes will need to be made to allow it to work with selinux on, right? Also, since it changes files under that tree, read-only /usr won't work with it, but not sure how big a deal that is anymore. One rpmlint issue in this latest version: E: gallery2 non-executable-script /usr/share/gallery2/lib/tools/po/header.pl 0644 Should that be not shipped? or made 755? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192432] Review Request: compiz
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: compiz https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192432 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 14:12 EST --- I am sorry for the confusion about the SPEC files. I should have sent my changes to Alphonse Van Assche instead of submiting my own. Ignore my SPEC file and use the one supplied by Alphonse as his is now much better than mine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192436] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xgl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xgl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192436 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 14:14 EST --- I am sorry for the confusion about the SPEC files. I should have sent my changes to Alphonse Van Assche instead of submiting my own. Ignore my SPEC file and use the one supplied by Alphonse as his is now much better than mine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193342] Review Request: cegui - Free library providing windowing and widgets for graphics APIs / engines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cegui - Free library providing windowing and widgets for graphics APIs / engines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193342 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 14:57 EST --- I'm in the process of trying to patch cegui, not to use the bundled version of tolua++. So far I can get it to build successfully to the point where it ignores the bundled tolua++. It also has to regenerate the c++ bindings using the 'system' tolua++ otherwise it won't compile. However the following library 'libCEGUIluatoluapp.so.0', does not get built. On further investigation it appears that this library is probably just a wrapper library, containing the equivalent of 'liblua.so' and/or 'libtolua++.so' although it may be useful to confirm this. I'm not sure how best to proceed. 1. Do not supply 'libCEGUIluatoluapp.so.0' and hope the packages compiled against cegui will link with 'liblua.so' and/or 'libtolua++.so' when necessary and patch them if they dont. 2. Construct libCEGUIluatoluapp.so.0 based upon the system 'liblua.so' and 'libtolua++.so', but this seems a little messy to me and largely circumvents the entire reason for not using the bundled version in the first place. 3. Perhaps some sort of alias method using symlinks / sonames? Not even sure if this is possible. Anyway if you'd like to see the current state of things with the SRPM I'll upload it. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, if you have the time :) Thanks Hans. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192889] Review Request: openais standards based cluster framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openais standards based cluster framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192889 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 15:13 EST --- Added Phil as CC for review of new uidgid file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192889] Review Request: openais standards based cluster framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openais standards based cluster framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192889 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 15:21 EST --- Created an attachment (id=130534) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=130534action=view) a patch to modify the uidgid registry to add the core package openais this should be merged into the setup package. Phil will you do this or should I? Thanks. -steve -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189713] Review Request: gnubg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnubg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189713 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 15:35 EST --- * Sun Jun 5 2006 - Joost Soeterbroek [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 20060530-4 - added BuildReqs desktop-file-utils Spec URL: http://www.soeterbroek.com/linux/fedora/extras/gnubg/gnubg.spec SRPM URL: http://www.soeterbroek.com/linux/fedora/extras/gnubg/gnubg-20060530-4.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193804] Review Request: glitz
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: glitz https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193804 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 15:37 EST --- Updated the SPEC with your recommendations. SPEC file: http://www.ece.ucdavis.edu/~ewwork/repo/testing/SPECS/glitz.spec SRPM file: http://www.ece.ucdavis.edu/~ewwork/repo/testing/SRPMS/glitz-0.5.6-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193342] Review Request: cegui - Free library providing windowing and widgets for graphics APIs / engines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cegui - Free library providing windowing and widgets for graphics APIs / engines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193342 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 15:52 EST --- I say go with 1, but you do need to add -llua -ltolua++ to the link command building the cegui.so which actually calls the (to)lua functions. If it only calls tolua++ functions then -ltolua++ should be enough, tolua++ itself is linked against lua itself and this will bring in lua for itself as needed. When the .so containing the functions which call (to)lua is linked against to(lua) then the app doesn't need the to link with 'liblua.so' and/or 'libtolua++.so'. We may still need the app to not link to CEGUIluatoluapp though. Anyways please do post a link to the SRPM then I can see what you've got sofar and offer some feedback. p.s. Great work! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192876] Review Request: V2Strip ID3v2(Mp3 Files) tags remover
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: V2Strip ID3v2(Mp3 Files) tags remover https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192876 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 16:05 EST --- Good: - rpmlint checks return nothing! :) - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file Short, sweet, simple. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192876] Review Request: V2Strip ID3v2(Mp3 Files) tags remover
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: V2Strip ID3v2(Mp3 Files) tags remover https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192876 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192889] Review Request: openais standards based cluster framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openais standards based cluster framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192889 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 16:19 EST --- As per Paul's suggestions, I have made the following changes: * Mon Jun 5 2006 Steven Dake [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.76-1.3 - Allocated uid 102 from setup package for user add operation. - Added || : to initscript stuff so initscript bugs dont cause RPM transaction failures as per Paul's suggestion. - Added /sbin/services to post requires as per Paul's suggestion. - Removed ldconfig from the requires post for the main package as per Paul's suggestion. - Changed post devel scriptlet action as per Paul's suggestion. The new SRPM and specfile can be downloaded from: Spec URL: http://developer.osdl.org/dev/openais/SRPM/openais.spec SRPM URL: http://developer.osdl.org/dev/openais/SRPM/openais-0.76-1.3.src.rpm Thanks again Paul regards -steve -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189713] Review Request: gnubg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnubg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189713 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 16:23 EST --- Hi, just a few quick remarks I take a closer look soon: * # convert man page from UTF8 to ISO-8859-1 Actually its the other way around :) * /usr/bin/iconv -f ISO-8859-1 -t UTF8 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/share/man/man6/gnubg.6 /tmp/foo /bin/mv /tmp/foo $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/share/man/man6/gnubg.6 Don't use a file in the global temp dir for this and don't do this in %install do it in %prep and then use gnubg.6.tmp as tempfile name, what happens when using the global /tmp dir and another packages which gets build at the same time does the same? Also by using a fixed name in /tmp you're creating a tempfile security vulnerability (on the buildsys). * I see you've put the png ion the 32x32 dir is it (circa) 32x32 pixels? if not it should probably be in another dir (for example 48x48 or ... see the ones on your system). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192889] Review Request: openais standards based cluster framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openais standards based cluster framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192889 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 16:24 EST --- Wit. gkrellm aside (that's a bug) all system UIDs for core should be 100. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192413] libdhcp : IPv6 and IPv4 DHCP client and network configuration library API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: libdhcp : IPv6 and IPv4 DHCP client and network configuration library
API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192413
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 16:52 EST ---
(In reply to comment #32)
How small does loader2 have to be ? Have you tried using libdhcp and found
it to be too big ? What is the actual size limitation of loader2 ?
It's not really a hard limit, but rather a mindset. How much memory do we want
to require during installation is a better way to think about it.
libdhcp could also be MUCH smaller if loader2 could use shared libs -
why can't it ?
Because it's a PITA trying to work on a initrd.img when you have 17 thousand
things to copy in instead of just one binary. Ooops, forgot those 30 symlinks.
Ooops, forgot all of those things. And so on.
Originally the requirement for a static loader was to cram everything on to a
1.44MB boot image for diskettes. We don't make boot floppies anymore, but
having a static loader makes it WAY more easy to do development. The installer
environment is special.
there are certainly things in dhclient (and the one for IPv6) that just
don't matter for the installer.
Which things ?
Everything in dhclient and dhcpv6 is required, depending on configuration
settings.
I'm just thinking about things supported as command line switches. A
user-defined timeout, for example.
We need a minimal IPv4 and IPv6 library that can link in to loader2.
That is what libdhcp and libdhcp{4,6}client provide.
Either we use the ISC dhclient and DHCPv6 code for anaconda, giving users a
full featured and configurable DHCP client that they already know how to
configure, and allowing us to re-use the code from the FC clients, or we
write our own DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 clients for anaconda from scratch.
I can undertake to write DHCP and DHCPv4 clients from scratch if desired,
but it seems to me to be the wrong way to go when we already have tried and
tested DHCP client code that users are familiar with and know how to
configure.
Please at least give libdhcp a try - if we come across any obstacles, I can
resolve them.
I have moved anaconda's loader to using libdhcp and friends. I do have some
questions, concerns, *BUT* the end result is that I think this library is the
right direction to move for Fedora. libdhcp has my vote for inclusion in FC.
Now for the questions/concerns for down-the-road things:
1) The pump compatibility layer is great right now, but down the road we want to
remove that entirely. I know we asked for that, but just know that it's a
transition tool and we shouldn't be making other users aware of that API as
something they can rely on forever.
2) Are there plans to get the ISC client library patches integrated upstream?
3) Are there plans to merge the ISC client libraries in to one?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 178901] Review Request: gtksourceview-sharp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtksourceview-sharp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178901 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 17:45 EST --- Spec Name or Url: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/gtksourceview-sharp.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/gtksourceview-sharp-2.0-10.src.rpm Fix for devel file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 176374] Review Request: nagios-plugins
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nagios-plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176374 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 17:48 EST --- APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192413] libdhcp : IPv6 and IPv4 DHCP client and network configuration library API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: libdhcp : IPv6 and IPv4 DHCP client and network configuration library API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192413 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 17:49 EST --- Great news! I'm glad to hear loader2 will now be IPv6 capable with libdhcp usage. I've also just heard that libdhcp has been added to the dist-fc6 brew package list, and it is now building in brew - the packages should be in tomorrow's rawhide. RE: pump compatibility layer ... we shouldn't be making other users aware of that API as something they can rely on forever Actually, adding the pump.[ch] Doxygen documentation was something I hadn't got around to yet ... I guess I'll continue holding off on that. The pump API is entirely superfluous as is, and is just a wrapper around the underlying libdhcp API, which is fully Doxygen documented. Are there plans to get the ISC client library patches integrated upstream? Are there plans to merge the ISC client libraries in to one ? As for 'fully integrated', probably not, but ISC have already agreed to ship dhcdbd in the contrib/ directory of their source tarball, so would probably be amenable to shipping the libdhcp4client patch in contrib/ also. DHCPv6 is not an ISC product, but is a sourceforge project - I can attach the libdhcp6client patch in sourceforge, so that should not be a problem - I'll get going on this now. Bear in mind that libdhcp (and dhcdbd) are actually a stopgap until ISC release their super-duper integrated DHCP and DHCPv6 natively D-BUS based server and client, which is rumored to be in dhcp-4.0.x, to be released within the next year or so (I have not heard any hard dates yet) . Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194132] Review Request: yum-metadata-parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: yum-metadata-parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194132
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|188265 |188267
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 18:31 EST ---
NEEDSWORK:
- %{?dist} doesn't work in brew
Question:
- Is this really a development library, or a runtime library? (is there a
difference?)
I can't build it until the new yum becomes available.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193787] Review Request: scite - Scintilla based text editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: scite - Scintilla based text editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193787 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 18:53 EST --- The new package looks good; the only issue I had is fixed. APPROVED Let me know if you need help checking in. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193071] Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193071
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 20:21 EST ---
I addressed all these problems with an updated package
- the ruby_sitarch{,dir} happened because I started with the ruby specfile
template, but decided that I really want the macros to have the same name as the
entry in Config::CONFIG. I'll try and get the fedora-rpmdevtools template
updated once the guidelines have been finalized
- requires now ruby = 1.8 which is what the gemspec requires, too
- no more stripping; thanks for the tip
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/spec/ruby-sqlite3.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/SRPMS/ruby-sqlite3-1.1.0-3.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193161] Review Request: ruby-postgres
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-postgres https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193161 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 20:22 EST --- Both issues are addressed in the latest update to the RPM. Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/spec/ruby-postgres.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/SRPMS/ruby-postgres-0.7.1-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189374] Re-Review Request: jed: an editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Re-Review Request: jed: an editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189374 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 22:01 EST --- Everything looks good, execpt that you don't use the dist tag. (Sorry I didn't notice it earlier; that's why I always run through my checklist.) It's not an absolute requirement but it's very strongly recommended. If you don't mind my asking, how did you get rid of rpath? I assume it's in the multilib patch; is it the third hunk? Since the only issue is the dist tag I'll go ahead and approve. Normally I'd say you can fix it when you check in, but it's already checked in, so I suppose you can fix it at your leisure. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. X dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * source files match upstream: 5378c8e7805854018d9ec5c3cfadf637 jed-0.99-18.tar.bz2 5378c8e7805854018d9ec5c3cfadf637 jed-0.99-18.tar.bz2-srpm * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: jed-common jed-xjed jed = 0.99.18-4 = libselinux.so.1()(64bit) libslang.so.2()(64bit) libslang.so.2(SLANG2)(64bit) libutil.so.1()(64bit) libutil.so.1(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181599] Review Request: gallery2: web based photo album software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gallery2: web based photo album software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181599 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 22:51 EST --- It looks like the only thing that would need to get written in /usr/share/gallery2 is the login.txt file that the installer requires you to put there to authenticate. Is there any chance you could patch it to look for that in /srv/gallery2/ instead? Thats the only final issue I see before approval. ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194202] New: Review Request: scim-bridge (gtkimm module in C)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194202 Summary: Review Request: scim-bridge (gtkimm module in C) Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/petersen/scim-bridge.spec SRPM URL: http://fedoraproject.org/extras/development/SRPMS/scim-bridge-0.1.12-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: SCIM Bridge is an alternative Gtk Input Method Module for SCIM implemented in C (ie it does not depend on libscim and libstdc++) to avoid libstdc++ symbol ABI conflicts for gtk C++ apps. We want to add it to FC6 so that scim no longer needed to depend on libstdc++so7. See bug 190243 for the Extras review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194202] Review Request: scim-bridge (gtkimm module in C)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: scim-bridge (gtkimm module in C)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194202
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|188265 |188268
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 23:16 EST ---
The only thing I see is that %{?dist} won't work in brew right now, so don't
expect that to translate. Other than that I approve.
You'll need to get Bill's signoff on including in Core and then I'll add it to
brew.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194132] Review Request: yum-metadata-parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: yum-metadata-parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194132 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 23:24 EST --- rpmlint fails. E: yum-metadata-parser non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/sqlitecachec.py 0644 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194012] Review Request: xaos - A fast, portable real-time interactive fractal zoomer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xaos - A fast, portable real-time interactive fractal zoomer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194012 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-06 01:08 EST --- This is a problem which prevents things from installing: E: xaos info-dir-file /usr/share/info/dir Since this is a GUI app, it would be good to have a desktop file. Most of the files aren't writable by root. I've not seen %doc --parents before, and can't find a reference. Do you have one handy? However, one huge problem with this software is that I can't seem to make it run in anything but text mode. It seems to need DGA for any graphics, and that seems to require root. Unfortunately it won't run for me even as root. Is there any way to get this software to run graphically? I seem to recall running it some years ago. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * source files match upstream: 8df634737b276f9f172060f3ffc489be XaoS-3.2.1.tar.gz 8df634737b276f9f172060f3ffc489be XaoS-3.2.1.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). X rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: xaos = 3.2.1-1.fc5 = /bin/sh /sbin/install-info libX11.so.6 libXxf86dga.so.1 libXxf86vm.so.1 libaa.so.1 libgpm.so.1 libncurses.so.5 libpng12.so.0 libslang.so.2 libz.so.1 * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. X file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * scriptlets present and sane. (info file installation) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. X a GUI app, but no desktop file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194012] Review Request: xaos - A fast, portable real-time interactive fractal zoomer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xaos - A fast, portable real-time interactive fractal zoomer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194012 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-06 01:28 EST --- I found that if you add BR: libXt-devel, the X11 driver is built and works fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
