[Bug 198330] Review Request: spca5xx-kmod-common
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: spca5xx-kmod-common https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198330 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 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 198331] New: Review Request: spca5xx-kmod
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=198331 Summary: Review Request: spca5xx-kmod 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://people.redhat.com/pnemade/Spca5xx/spca5xx-kmod.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/Spca5xx/spca5xx-kmod-20060501-1.2.6.16_1.2133_FC5.src.rpm Description: This is the spca5xx-kmod package that contains spca5xx kernel module. spca5xx is video for linux (v4l) driver, providing support for webcams and digital cameras based on the spca5xx range of chips manufactured by SunPlus Sonix Z-star Vimicro Conexant Etoms Transvision Mars-Semi Pixart. This package requires spca5xx-kmod-common package to be installed prior. -- 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 198331] Review Request: spca5xx-kmod
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: spca5xx-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198331 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||198330 OtherBugsDependingO||177841 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 198330] Review Request: spca5xx-kmod-common
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: spca5xx-kmod-common https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198330 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||198331 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 178905] Review Request: smbldap-tools
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: smbldap-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178905 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|fedora-extras- | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | CC||fedora-package- ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC|fedora-package- | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | CC||fedora-extras- ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 02:37 EST --- and now you can remove smbldap-tools files from samba package rpm -qd samba | grep smbldap-tools /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/CONTRIBUTORS /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/COPYING /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/ChangeLog /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/FILES /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/INFRA /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/INSTALL /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/Makefile /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/README /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/TODO /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/configure.pl /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/doc/html/contents_motif.gif /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/doc/html/index.html /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/doc/html/next_motif.gif /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/doc/html/previous_motif.gif /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/doc/html/smbldap-tools.html /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/doc/html/smbldap-tools001.html /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/doc/html/smbldap-tools002.html /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/doc/html/smbldap-tools003.html /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/doc/html/smbldap-tools004.html /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/doc/html/smbldap-tools005.html /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/doc/html/smbldap-tools006.html /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/doc/html/smbldap-tools007.html /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/doc/html/smbldap-tools008.html /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/doc/html/smbldap-tools009.html /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/doc/html/smbldap-tools010.html /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/doc/smbldap-migrate-pwdump-accounts /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/doc/smbldap-migrate-pwdump-groups /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/doc/smbldap-migrate-unix-accounts /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/doc/smbldap-migrate-unix-groups /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/doc/smbldap-tools.pdf /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/smb.conf /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/smbldap-groupadd /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/smbldap-groupdel /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/smbldap-groupmod /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/smbldap-groupshow /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/smbldap-passwd /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/smbldap-populate /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/smbldap-tools.spec /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/smbldap-useradd /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/smbldap-userdel /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/smbldap-userinfo /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/smbldap-usermod /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/smbldap-usershow /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/smbldap.conf /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/smbldap_bind.conf /usr/share/doc/samba-3.0.22/LDAP/smbldap-tools-0.9.1/smbldap_tools.pm -- 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 198331] Review Request: spca5xx-kmod
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: spca5xx-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198331 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 02:41 EST --- All kernel modules should be named kmod-*, otherwise installers (yum/apt/smart etc.) are likely not to be able to handle them properly. -- 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] 2006-07-11 02:52 EST ---
(In reply to comment #10)
python spec which uses rm and %{__python} on consecutive lines
The intention of using the macroized form for the python executable is to
provide some flexibility for local rebuilds in setups where multiple versions of
python are installed. And upstream rpm (not in FC yet) uses that form for
computing sitelib and sitearch, we need to be in sync with that as long as those
variables are only conditionally defined in the template. Ditto perl.
--
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 198331] Review Request: spca5xx-kmod
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: spca5xx-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198331 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 02:58 EST --- *-kmod is correct for the source package. But see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/KernelModules , missing A publishable explanation from the author(s) why the module is not merged with the mainline kernel yet and when it's planned to get merged. -- 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 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
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: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 03:24 EST --- Actually you must be right regarding pabrowse :) Something else I noticed on rawhide, I don't get the nice icons I can see on the screenshot for the GUI interfaces in the default gnome fedora theme. IE, I see a red cross in the trayicon when launching padevchooser instead of the speaker from the main site's screenshot. Likewise no icon in Applications ! Sound Video Menu for Pulseaudio Device Chooser. I must be missing something but what? -- 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 175047] Review Request: NetworkManager-openvpn
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: NetworkManager-openvpn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175047 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 03:44 EST --- (In reply to comment #25) 1) NM-problem 2) Needs fixes for the OpenVPN-package/SELinux policy for OpenVPN 3) This is true. It seems that after the last patch we finally reached the size where we need either more tabs or a popup with these settings. Other than that, it looks good, and useful (bug from comment #9 is gone). Maybe you meant comment 11? Hans, are you going to sponsor this 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 198331] Review Request: spca5xx-kmod
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: spca5xx-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198331 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 04:29 EST --- Ville Skyttä, Should i have to include publishable explanation from upstream source's Author? If yes then i am going to contact author for that and will include it in package. But where can i add that file in spca5xx-kmod package or in spca5xx-kmod-common package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194276] Review Request: kdeaccessibility: KDE accessibility tools
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: kdeaccessibility: KDE accessibility tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 04:34 EST --- Helle SRPM: URL Not found -- 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 193531] Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork
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: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 04:35 EST --- Spec URL: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SPECS/kicad.spec SRPM URL: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SRPMS/kicad-2006.06.26-4.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Jul 10 2006 Alain Portal aportal[AT]univ-montp2[DOT]fr 2006.06.26-4 - Remove BR libGLU-devel that is no more needed (bug #197501 is closed) - Fix files permissions. -- 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 198331] Review Request: spca5xx-kmod
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: spca5xx-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198331 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 05:48 EST --- There is one file regarding this i included already in spca5xx-kmod-common and its contents are like this = Dear users, For some strange reason Luca Risolia is setting a lot of drivers inside the main Kernel tree, specially those chips supported by spca5xx. Maybe there are not enought hardware to Hack:) As a consequence, you have to choice between spca5xx or the others. The problem is, hotplug will detect, the in kernel driver and maybe reject spca5xx claim. If you load the spca5xx first with modprobe spca5xx there are no problem. You can also blacklist the in kernel driver:) .If you get problem with the main kernel drivers, don't ask me please, you should ask here to get help: linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net or here for the v4l2 features :) video4linux-list@redhat.com best regards Michel Xhaard http://mxhaard.free.fr == But I have not found any problem from this package in FC5 with any 2.6.16 kernels. -- 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 193867] Review Request: klamav - Clam Anti-Virus on the KDE Desktop
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: klamav - Clam Anti-Virus on the KDE Desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193867 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193867] Review Request: klamav - Clam Anti-Virus on the KDE Desktop
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: klamav - Clam Anti-Virus on the KDE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193867
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 06:17 EST ---
It looks good to me, but however the following needs to be solved:
1.
ERROR 0001: file '/usr/bin/klamav' contains a standard rpath '/usr/lib' in
[/usr/lib:/usr/lib/qt-3.3/lib]
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.9887 (%install)
You have a rpath error, you solve this add --disable-rpath in %configure
2.
your package is a gui, and hence you need to install the .desktop properly in
the menus:
see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop
here ,
desktop-file-install --vendor fedora \
--add-category X-Fedora \
--add-category Utilities \
--delete-original \
--dir ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/applications/ \
${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/applnk/Utilities/%{name}.desktop
would be appropriate
then in %files it will be %{_datadir}/applications/fedora-%{name}.desktop rather
than %{_datadir}/applnk/Utilities/klamav.desktop
don't forget to add desktop-file-utils as BuildRequires
3.
you can remove %define qtdir%(echo ${QTDIR}) and
--with-qt-dir=%{qtdir} from
%configure
4. Icons
You need to update the gtk+ icon cache as decribed here
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets#head-fc74f078205565f961f6d836b77c3428619c689d
though its a package for kde.
%post
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
if [ -x %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache ]; then
%{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
fi
%postun
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
if [ -x %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache ]; then
%{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
fi
Correct all this afterwards, Ill make a full review and approved it if needed :)
--
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 197189] Review Request: fonts-sinhala
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: fonts-sinhala https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197189 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 06:19 EST --- The first and third issue (i.e. BuildRoot and superfluous %ghosting) are still in -2. -- 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 193531] Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork
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: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed
circuit board artwork
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193531
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 06:23 EST ---
Line 187:
%{__rm} -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{name}/modules/packages3d/#push_butt_shape1_blue.wings#
I think you forgot to remove or correct this line because before this line you
have installed lots of directories in it and then delete them completely.
--
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 186817] Review Request: kshutdown
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: kshutdown https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186817 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 06:47 EST --- It has been more than 3 full months since your last comment, Kushal can you post a new version which does build in Mock, or are you no longer interested? -- 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 193867] Review Request: klamav - Clam Anti-Virus on the KDE Desktop
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: klamav - Clam Anti-Virus on the KDE Desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193867 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 07:03 EST --- Thanks for review. Updated file here: SRPM URL: ftp://andriy.asplinux.com.ua/pub/people/andy/extras/klamav-0.37- 2.src.rpm * Tue Jul 11 2006 Andy Shevchenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.37-2 - adjust spec according to Fedora Extras review: - remove --with-qt-dir, add --disable-rpath - BRs: desktop-file-utils - place desktop file properly - update gtk icon cache -- 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 193531] Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork
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: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 07:29 EST --- Spec URL: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SPECS/kicad.spec SRPM URL: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SRPMS/kicad-2006.06.26-5.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Jul 10 2006 Alain Portal aportal[AT]univ-montp2[DOT]fr 2006.06.26-5 - Removing backup files is no more needed. -- 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 193867] Review Request: klamav - Clam Anti-Virus on the KDE Desktop
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: klamav - Clam Anti-Virus on the KDE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193867
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 08:10 EST ---
MUST Items:
- MUST: rpmlint's output is clean
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}
- MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package is licensed (GPL) with an open-source compatible license and
meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- MUST: 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.
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
- MUST: The spec file for the package is be legible.
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
You can use
http://kent.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/klamav/klamav-0.37-source.tar.gz
- MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least i386.
- MUST: All build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires.
- MUST: The spec file handles locales properly.
- MUST: If the package does not contain shared library files located in the
dynamic linker's default paths
- MUST: the package is not designed to be relocatable
- MUST: the package owns all directories that it creates.
- MUST: the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
- MUST: Permissions on files are set properly.
- MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section
of Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content. This is described in
detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: There are no Large documentation files
- MUST: %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it
is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
- MUST: There are no Header files or static libraries
- MUST: The package does not contain library files with a suffix
- MUST: Package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives
- MUST: Package containing GUI applications includes a %{name}.desktop file, and
that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install
section.
- MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
SHOULD Items:
- SHOULD: The source package does include license text(s) as COPYING
- SHOULD: mock builds succcessfully in i386.
- SHOULD: The reviewer tested that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
- SHOULD: No scriptlets were used, those scriptlets must be sane.
- SHOULD: No subpackages present.
Correct Source and post an updated srpm, Ill approve it
--
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 197353] Review Request: man-pages-fr - French man pages from the Linux Documentation Project
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: man-pages-fr - French man pages from the Linux Documentation Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197353 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 09:03 EST --- Spec URL: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SPECS/man-pages-fr.spec SRPM URL: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SRPMS/man-pages-fr-2.13.0-1.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Jul 11 2006 Alain Portal aportal AT univ-montp2 DOT fr 2.13.0-1 - Update to 2.13.0 -- 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 193529] Review Request: radiusclient-ng - RADIUS protocol client library
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: radiusclient-ng - RADIUS protocol client library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193529 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 09:10 EST --- Spec URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/5/SRPMS/radiusclient-ng-0.5.2-2.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/5/SRPMS/radiusclient-ng-0.5.2-2.src.rpm * Tue Jul 11 2006 Jeffrey C. Ollie [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.5.2-2 - Add BR so that building in minimal buildroot works - Run libtoolize. -- 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 194276] Review Request: kdeaccessibility: KDE accessibility tools
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: kdeaccessibility: KDE accessibility tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 09:30 EST --- Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kdeaccessibility.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/kdeaccessibility-3.5.3-2.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 198025] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-amd
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-drv-amd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198025
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO_REPORTER
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|188265 |188267
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 10:05 EST ---
FEEDBACK:
- Since you went to the trouble of defining gitdate, might as well use it in
Source0 (:
- driver packages shouldn't own %{_libdir}/x11/modules or
%{_libdir}/x11/modules/drivers. These are owned by xorg-x11-server-Xorg, which
all drivers require.
Other than that, it looks good. Fix those, and I can approve it.
--
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 197936] Review Request: nas: Network Audio 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: nas: Network Audio System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197936 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 10:22 EST --- Are all ok? Or shut I fix somethink? -- 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 193531] Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork
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: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed
circuit board artwork
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193531
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 10:28 EST ---
- MUST: rpmlint's output
The package was signed, but with an unknown key.
See the rpm --import option for more information.
W: kicad mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a
cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.
Which im ignoring, but next time can you rpmlint your package first before the
review ?
rpmlint -i package.src.rpm
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}
- MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package is licensed (GPL) with an open-source compatible license and
meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- MUST: 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.
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
- MUST: The spec file for the package is be legible.
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
- MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least i386.
- MUST: All build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires.
- MUST: The spec file handles locales properly.
- MUST: If the package does not contain shared library files located in the
dynamic linker's default paths
- MUST: the package is not designed to be relocatable
- MUST: the package owns all directories that it creates.
- MUST: the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
- MUST: Permissions on files are set properly.
- MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section
of Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content. This is described in
detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: There are no Large documentation files
- MUST: %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it
is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
- MUST: There are no Header files or static libraries
- MUST: The package does not contain library files with a suffix
- MUST: Package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives
- MUST: Package containing GUI applications includes a %{name}.desktop file, and
that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install
section.
- MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
SHOULD Items:
- SHOULD: The source package does include license text(s) as COPYING
- SHOULD: mock builds succcessfully in i386.
- SHOULD: The reviewer tested that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
- SHOULD: No scriptlets were used, those scriptlets must be sane.
- SHOULD: No subpackages present.
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 197936] Review Request: nas: Network Audio 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: nas: Network Audio System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197936 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 10:29 EST --- Looks close yes, I'm just having trouble finding time to test this to make sure it actually works. (: Any recommended test-cases? -- 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 193531] Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork
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: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193531 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 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 192313] Review Request: koan
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: koan https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192313 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 10:30 EST --- Thanks for the heads up. These are the correct links: http://et.redhat.com/~mdehaan/software/cobbler/koan-0.1.0-2.src.rpm http://et.redhat.com/~mdehaan/software/cobbler/koan.spec -- 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 193531] Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork
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: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193531 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 182320] Review Request: gnome-build
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: gnome-build https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182320 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 10:33 EST --- Spec Name or Url: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/gnome-build.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/gnome-build-0.1.3-5.src.rpm Fixed all of the above problems as well as stripping out the perl stuff. -- 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 193867] Review Request: klamav - Clam Anti-Virus on the KDE Desktop
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: klamav - Clam Anti-Virus on the KDE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193867
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 11:04 EST ---
one more thing i forgot to say:
%build
CFLAGS=${RPM_OPT_FLAGS} \
CXXFLAGS=${RPM_OPT_FLAGS} \
%configure --disable-rpath
%{__make}
use %{__make} %{?_smp_mflags}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193867] Review Request: klamav - Clam Anti-Virus on the KDE Desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: klamav - Clam Anti-Virus on the KDE Desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193867 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 11:12 EST --- Updated file here: ftp://andriy.asplinux.com.ua/pub/people/andy/extras/klamav-0.37-3.src.rpm * Tue Jul 11 2006 Andy Shevchenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.37-3 - fix Source0 URL - change patch1 to patch0 - use smp if possible when make P.S. The klamav-X.Y-source isn't same klamav-X.Y. First of their is a couple of sources (klamav + dazuko) at one tarball. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193867] Review Request: klamav - Clam Anti-Virus on the KDE Desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: klamav - Clam Anti-Virus on the KDE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193867
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 11:16 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
%build
CFLAGS=${RPM_OPT_FLAGS} \
CXXFLAGS=${RPM_OPT_FLAGS} \
%configure --disable-rpath
There is no need to set CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS like this. The %configure macro
already includes those definitions.
Try:
$ rpm --eval '%configure'
to see for yourself.
--
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 194276] Review Request: kdeaccessibility: KDE accessibility tools
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: kdeaccessibility: KDE accessibility tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194276
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 11:17 EST ---
1.
# FIXME/TODO: get dfi to shut-the-hell-up about KDE's use of Keywords= and
# use of invalidate characters... bah.
What is it about ? Can you document me a bit please?
2.
Duplicates
desktop-file-install \
--add-category=X-Fedora --vendor= \
--dir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/kde \
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/kde/*.desktop ||:
desktop-file-install \
--add-category=X-Fedora --vendor= \
--dir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/kde \
--delete-original \
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applnk/Applications/*.desktop ||:
3.
chitlesh(~)[0]$rpmlint -i kdeaccessibility-3.5.3-2.src.rpm
W: kdeaccessibility mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a
cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.
--
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 194276] Review Request: kdeaccessibility: KDE accessibility tools
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: kdeaccessibility: KDE accessibility tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 11:20 EST --- Sorry forget the 2. -- 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 198198] Review Request: ooo2txt - Convert OpenOffice documents to simple text
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: ooo2txt - Convert OpenOffice documents to simple text https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198198 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 11:26 EST --- It's always nice to be able to click on the spec to look at it the browser. I'll do a quick review in a bit. -- 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 194276] Review Request: kdeaccessibility: KDE accessibility tools
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: kdeaccessibility: KDE accessibility tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 11:26 EST --- 1. Build the package, and you'll see desktop-file-install refusing to process perfectly legal .desktop files, yielding errors (which *should* be at most warnings): ... error: invalid characters in value of key Keywords[bg], keys of type string may contain ASCII characters except control characters ... -- 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 197936] Review Request: nas: Network Audio 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: nas: Network Audio System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197936 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 11:40 EST --- ok tested and it works(with sb live!). simple install it and run sevice nasd start -- 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 189400] Review Request: em8300(-kmod) - Hollywood+/DXR3 hardware MPEG decoder drivers and tools
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: em8300(-kmod) - Hollywood+/DXR3 hardware MPEG decoder drivers and tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 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 198198] Review Request: ooo2txt - Convert OpenOffice documents to simple text
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: ooo2txt - Convert OpenOffice documents to simple text https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198198 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 12:11 EST --- * source files match upstream: 3751eb30189c1d546aa404dff34954fa LGPL.txt 9f3c3794ba9ba61f6dc2c3b9465279ae ooo2txt.006.pl 1cd6103b0b9c49524438c2f17fede3a9 readme.txt ce95a6c73a221041321d9582276a5358 update.txt * 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. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: ooo2txt = 0.0.6-1.fc6 = /usr/bin/perl perl(Archive::Zip) perl(File::Temp) perl(Getopt::Std) perl(XML::Twig) perl(strict) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * 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. * 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 187351] Review Request: bmpx - Media player with the WinAmp GUI
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: bmpx - Media player with the WinAmp GUI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187351 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 12:32 EST --- I'm not sure what to do here... bmpx has evolved quite fast. It's still somewhat buggy from my experience, and the current 0.20.2 release optionally uses faad2 (MP4/AAC decoder...) to read some tags, so it cannot be shipped full-featured in Extras. This does seem wrong though, since using gstreamer for all the tags would be the proper thing to do... *sigh* It also has a dependency on a version of libnotify that isn't even in FC development yet (see bug #191731). -- 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 198331] Review Request: spca5xx-kmod
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: spca5xx-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198331 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 12:44 EST --- The explanation is not required in any package (although it doesn't hurt). Its intention is to help FESCO to decide whether the module is appropriate for FE, and it is sufficient to include the explanation in this bug report, see the Wiki page. I think the text in comment 4 does not answer that request. -- 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 187351] Review Request: bmpx - Media player with the WinAmp GUI
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: bmpx - Media player with the WinAmp GUI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187351 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 12:51 EST --- Does it really require faad2 for reading the tags, or would libmp4v2 (bug 191036) be enough? -- 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 187351] Review Request: bmpx - Media player with the WinAmp GUI
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: bmpx - Media player with the WinAmp GUI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187351 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 12:56 EST --- Thanks for the pointer. Indeed, only libmp4v2 should be enough. Still the libnotify requirement left... then wait for legal... then continue with the submission. Might be a while... -- 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 174021] Review Request: aplus-fsf - Advanced APL Interpreter
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: aplus-fsf - Advanced APL Interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174021 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 13:03 EST --- During the mock run, I have read http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2006-July/msg00126.html Now, I own /usr/share/X11/app-defaults in the current release. But I agree with you, that /usr/share/X11/app-defaults should go into xorg-x11-filesystem and all packages which put files into /usr/share/X11/app-defaults should depend on it. -- 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 191036] Review Request: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container format
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: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container format https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191036 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 13:05 EST --- FWIW, mpeg4ip 1.5.0.1 has been released. Is there any effort going on to try and get upstream to officially split out libmp4v2 from mpeg4ip, so that the whole mess between mpeg4ip and faad2 both providing it can be fixed? It seems like this is what you're trying to do for Fedora packages, but it would definitely benefit to other people and distributions if done upstream directly. -- 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 175047] Review Request: NetworkManager-openvpn
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: NetworkManager-openvpn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175047 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 13:09 EST --- Regarding comment #27 When I get a spare moment, I'll file bugs for #1 and #2. In regards to #3, I was actually referring to commment #13, which is no longer a problem for me. -- 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 174021] Review Request: aplus-fsf - Advanced APL Interpreter
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: aplus-fsf - Advanced APL Interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174021 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 13:59 EST --- Next release: Spec: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/aplus-fsf/aplus-fsf.spec SRPM: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/aplus-sfs/aplus-fsf-4.20.2-4.src.rpm Caution: In acording to the naming guidelines I have rename the subpackage aplus-fsf-el to xemacs-aplus-fsf. -- 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 189400] Review Request: em8300(-kmod) - Hollywood+/DXR3 hardware MPEG decoder drivers and tools
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: em8300(-kmod) - Hollywood+/DXR3 hardware MPEG decoder
drivers and tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189400
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 14:20 EST ---
== General ==
Review without appropriate hardware to test, but I'm sure it'll work.
These packages provide drivers and utilities for Sigma Designs Hollywood
Plus/ Creative DXR3 hardware MPEG decoder cards. The cards require a
microcode (firmware) blob which is not included due to redistribution
issues
Ehh, I don't get that here. I saw a file
modules/em8300.uc
in the package. Is that the firmware? If yes: why it is included? At least there
is a file
em8300-nofirmware-0.15.3.tar.gz
on
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=5165package_id=5202
and it's missing exactly that file. But from the docs it look like a file
em8300.bin needs to contain the firmware.
/me confused
but can be extracted from vendor provided Windows drivers using the tools in
the em8300-devel package, or downloaded from the upstream project site at
Is there a good reason why it needs to be in the devel package? It's not the
obvious place where I would look out for it.
== em8300 ==
rpmlint:
SRPM:
no output
RPM:
W: em8300-devel no-documentation
- can be ignored
* download of Source0 doesn't work -- seems to be a sourceforge problem afaics
* Open-Source-License (GPL)
* Source matches upstream
* package is named according to the guidelines
* builds in mock on ix86-FC5
* Is there a reason why the devel package doesn't require the base package?
* Requires: kmod-em8300 = %{version} is wrong -- it needs to be
Requires: em8300-kmod = %{version}
== em8300-kmod ==
rpmlint:
SRPM:
W: em8300-kmod mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
- Might be a good idea to fix that in the longer term
RPMS:
W: kmod-em8300 summary-not-capitalized em8300 kernel module(s)
- This is probably the right thing in this case
W: kmod-em8300 unstripped-binary-or-object
/lib/modules/2.6.17-1.2139_FC5/extra/em8300/adv717x.ko
W: kmod-em8300 unstripped-binary-or-object
/lib/modules/2.6.17-1.2139_FC5/extra/em8300/bt865.ko
W: kmod-em8300 unstripped-binary-or-object
/lib/modules/2.6.17-1.2139_FC5/extra/em8300/em8300.ko
- they get stripped during build. Hmmm, this looks like a problem in rpm. Could
you look into this?
W: kmod-em8300 no-documentation
- expected behaviour for kmod-packages
Review:
* package is named according to the guidelines
* Open-Source-License (GPL)
* Source matches upstream
* builds in mock on ix86-FC5
* download of Source0 doesn't work -- seems to be a sourceforge problem afaics
Probably needs fixing:
- The module isn't build for smp-kernels on ppc. Please fix if there isn't a
good reason not to do so.
--
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 193529] Review Request: radiusclient-ng - RADIUS protocol client library
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: radiusclient-ng - RADIUS protocol client library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193529 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 14:28 EST --- Both of those URLs give 404 errors, but I found the proper files in that directory. Running autotools and libtoolize are generally avoided in Fedora Extras. However, not only does this package have an rpath problem, but DESTDIR doesn't work in the makefile and the patches requires many fixes to various .in files which would be much more complicated to make after configure has processed them. So in this case I do think it reasonable to do what you're doing. rpmlint complains: E: radiusclient-ng non-readable /etc/radiusclient-ng/servers 0600 which is acceptable for a server configuration file. Nothing seems to own /etc/radiusclient-ng; this is a blocker. Since there's just one issue and the fix is simple, I'll go ahead and approve and you can fix it when you check in. Review: * source files match upstream: c54eb70e964bdd22dd44b39a9b4df8ca radiusclient-ng-0.5.2.tar.gz * 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. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * Compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). O rpmlint has only ignorable complaints. * debuginfo package looks complete. * final provides and requires are sane: radiusclient-ng-0.5.2-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm config(radiusclient-ng) = 0.5.2-2.fc6 libradiusclient-ng.so.2()(64bit) radiusclient-ng = 0.5.2-2.fc6 = /sbin/ldconfig config(radiusclient-ng) = 0.5.2-2.fc6 libradiusclient-ng.so.2()(64bit) radiusclient-ng-devel-0.5.2-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm radiusclient-ng-devel = 0.5.2-2.fc6 = libradiusclient-ng.so.2()(64bit) radiusclient-ng = 0.5.2-2.fc6 radiusclient-ng-utils-0.5.2-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm radiusclient-ng-utils = 0.5.2-2.fc6 = /bin/sh libradiusclient-ng.so.2()(64bit) radiusclient-ng = 0.5.2-2.fc6 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * shared libraries are present; ldconfig is called and unversioned .so files are in the -devel subpackage. * package is not relocatable. X owns the directories it creates (/etc/radiusclient-ng). * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets present are OK (calls to ldconfig) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel subpackage. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. APPROVED, just make sure you own /etc/radiusclient-ng. -- 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 193529] Review Request: radiusclient-ng - RADIUS protocol client library
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: radiusclient-ng - RADIUS protocol client library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193529 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 15:06 EST --- Thanks for the review! Package imported, built for rawhide, branches for FC-4 and FC-5 requested. -- 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 189400] Review Request: em8300(-kmod) - Hollywood+/DXR3 hardware MPEG decoder drivers and tools
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: em8300(-kmod) - Hollywood+/DXR3 hardware MPEG decoder drivers and tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189400 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 15:45 EST --- Thanks for the thorough review. modules/em8300.uc is indeed the firmware blob (which should be installed as /lib/firmware/em8300.bin), and the kmod package used accidentally the wrong source tarball even though the firmware wasn't installed. The microcode/firmware extractor depends on perl which was a bigger issue a long time ago when things were packaged differently, but that's no longer the case. Devel doesn't require the main package or -utils simply because there's nothing in it that would require those, -devel is self contained. Adding the dependency would additionally inflict the need to install a kernel and a suitable em8300 module package for it which seems just useless and may be a problem in eg. some build systems. Strip vs not-stripped: the modules are stripped of something indeed, but something is also left behind which causes file to report not stripped and rpmlint uses that for its check. Note: it's the same as for all kernel modules, including those shipped with the kernel itself. I'm not compentent to analyze this, to me it's just how /usr/lib/rpm/debugedit seems to behave ;) Other than those: http://cachalot.mine.nu/5/SRPMS/em8300-0.15.3-4.src.rpm * Tue Jul 11 2006 Ville Skyttä ville.skytta at iki.fi - 0.15.3-4 - Require = em8300-kmod, not = kmod-em8300 (#189400). - Move microcode extractor to -utils as em8300-mc_ex (like Debian) (#189400). - Don't ship microcode_upload.pl, the modules and em8300setup already can handle that. http://cachalot.mine.nu/5/SRPMS/em8300-kmod-0.15.3-6.2.6.17_1.2145_FC5.src.rpm * Tue Jul 11 2006 Ville Skyttä ville.skytta at iki.fi - 0.15.3-6 - Enable PPC SMP builds (#189400). - Use firmwareless tarball (#189400). - Untabify specfile (#189400). -- 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 189384] Review Request: python-ruledispatch: A generic function package for Python
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: python-ruledispatch: A generic function package for Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189384 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 16:36 EST --- APPROVED. Luke - are you going to be the maintainer 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 196229] Review Request: xkeyboard-config
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: xkeyboard-config https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196229 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 16:56 EST --- Added to dist, package approved. -- 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 198025] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-amd
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-drv-amd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 16:59 EST --- Updated URLs: http://people.freedesktop.org/~ajax/xorg-x11-drv-amd/xorg-x11-drv-amd.spec http://people.freedesktop.org/~ajax/xorg-x11-drv-amd/xorg-x11-drv-amd-0.0-1.git20060707.fc6.src.rpm -- 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 192311] Review Request: cobbler
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: cobbler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192311 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 17:01 EST --- Looks like you're missing a dep on yaml: rpm -q cobbler cobbler-0.1.0-2 cobbler help Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/bin/cobbler, line 18, in ? import cobbler.cobbler as app File /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/cobbler/cobbler.py, line 18, in ? import api File /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/cobbler/api.py, line 17, in ? import config File /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/cobbler/config.py, line 27, in ? import serializer File /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/cobbler/serializer.py, line 15, in ? import yaml # Howell-Clark version ImportError: No module named yaml -- 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 198025] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-amd
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-drv-amd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|188267 |188268 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 17:06 EST --- Problems fixed, and the name changed per guidelines. Approving. -- 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 198561] New: Review Request: main package name here
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=198561 Summary: Review Request: main package name here 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://wilsonet.com/packages/zabbix/zabbix.spec SRPM URL: http://wilsonet.com/packages/zabbix/zabbix-1.1-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: ZABBIX is software that monitors numerous parameters of a network and the health and integrity of servers. ZABBIX uses a flexible notification mechanism that allows users to configure e-mail based alerts for virtually any event. This allows a fast reaction to server problems. ZABBIX offers excellent reporting and data visualisation features based on the stored data. This makes ZABBIX ideal for capacity planning. ZABBIX supports both polling and trapping. All ZABBIX reports and statistics, as well as configuration parameters are accessed through a web-based front end. A web-based front end ensures that the status of your network and the health of your servers can be assessed from any location. Properly configured, ZABBIX can play an important role in monitoring IT infrastructure. This is equally true for small organisations with a few servers and for large companies with a multitude of servers. Assorted notes: -rpmlint complains about the non-standard-uid/gid on some directories that are owned by 'zabbix'. This is necessary to run zabbix as non-root. (Similar deal to my ganglia package). -the zabbix server component is currently set to Requires: mysql-server. Technically, it doesn't, as the mysql server could be on another machine, but I think this is a nice convenience, since the vast majority of people run the zabbix server against a local db. -- 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 198562] New: Review Request: zabbix - Open-source monitoring solution for your IT infrastructure
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=198562 Summary: Review Request: zabbix - Open-source monitoring solution for your IT infrastructure 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://wilsonet.com/packages/zabbix/zabbix.spec SRPM URL: http://wilsonet.com/packages/zabbix/zabbix-1.1-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: ZABBIX is software that monitors numerous parameters of a network and the health and integrity of servers. ZABBIX uses a flexible notification mechanism that allows users to configure e-mail based alerts for virtually any event. This allows a fast reaction to server problems. ZABBIX offers excellent reporting and data visualisation features based on the stored data. This makes ZABBIX ideal for capacity planning. ZABBIX supports both polling and trapping. All ZABBIX reports and statistics, as well as configuration parameters are accessed through a web-based front end. A web-based front end ensures that the status of your network and the health of your servers can be assessed from any location. Properly configured, ZABBIX can play an important role in monitoring IT infrastructure. This is equally true for small organisations with a few servers and for large companies with a multitude of servers. Assorted notes: -rpmlint complains about the non-standard-uid/gid on some directories that are owned by 'zabbix'. This is necessary to run zabbix as non-root. (Similar deal to my ganglia package). -the zabbix server component is currently set to Requires: mysql-server. Technically, it doesn't, as the mysql server could be on another machine, but I think this is a nice convenience, since the vast majority of people run the zabbix server against a local db. -- 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 198561] Review Request: main package name here
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: main package name here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198561 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: main |Review Request: main |package name here |package name here Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 17:52 EST --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 198562 *** -- 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 198562] Review Request: zabbix - Open-source monitoring solution for your IT infrastructure
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: zabbix - Open-source monitoring solution for your IT infrastructure https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198562 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 17:52 EST --- *** Bug 198561 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 198561] Review Request: main package name here
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: main package name here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198561 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | 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 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] 2006-07-11 17:54 EST --- Oops .. I've been meaning to make those changes, but didn't get around to it yetserday. Made them today. New files: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/spec/ruby-postgres.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/SRPMS/ruby-postgres-0.7.1-3.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 194276] Review Request: kdeaccessibility: KDE accessibility tools
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: kdeaccessibility: KDE accessibility tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194276 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 18:23 EST --- I see, ill have a look at them -- 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 192311] Review Request: cobbler
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: cobbler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192311 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 18:34 EST --- Thanks. Fixed (per my email to David) at 17:38 EST. Same URLs are still valid. The setup.py file was not updated after doing some work to make the code build/run on RHEL, which involved swapping out yaml modules. -- 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 189384] Review Request: python-ruledispatch: A generic function package for Python
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: python-ruledispatch: A generic function package for
Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189384
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 18:46 EST ---
I have no problem maintaining this until Ignacio returns.
Imported into CVS, added to owners.list, FC{4,5} branches requested, tagged and
built for fc6.
Thanks!
(please close this bug as NEXTRELEASE; I don't have the privs)
--
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 198285] Review Request: python-simplejson - Simple, fast, extensible JSON encoder/decoder for Python
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: python-simplejson - Simple, fast, extensible JSON
encoder/decoder for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198285
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 18:51 EST ---
I'm not terribly well-versed in Python, but this looks to violate the
guidelines:
Python packages that use setuptools need to add python-setuptools as a
BuildRequires and must either add --single-version-externally-managed to the
line invoking setup.py in %install, or must add a .pth file containing the path
to the egg or egg directory to %{python_sitelib}.
I don't believe either of those are being done. In addition:
E: python-simplejson zero-length
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/simplejson-1.3-py2.4.egg-info/zip-safe
In general the packaging here looks odd. Why is the test suite included in the
installed module, but not called at all by a %check section in the spec? What
about the contents of
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/simplejson-1.3-py2.4.egg-info? Shouldn't this
all be %doc, if it must be installed at all?
--
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 189384] Review Request: python-ruledispatch: A generic function package for Python
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: python-ruledispatch: A generic function package for Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189384 [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 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 19:54 EST ---
Review of http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/Qcwebcam/streamer-1.1.3-1.fc5.src.rpm
* rpmlint must be run on every package.
$rpmlint -v /home/andy/Desktop/streamer-1.1.3-1.fc5.src.rpm
I: streamer checking
$ rpmlint -v /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/streamer-1.1.3-1.i386.rpm
I: streamer checking
W: streamer incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1-3-1 1.1.3-1
$ rpmlint -v /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/streamer-debuginfo-1.1.3-1.i386.rpm
I: streamer-debuginfo checking
suggest correcting version 1.1-3-1 to 1.1.3-1 likewise 1.1-2-1 to 1.1.2-1
otherwise ok
* package must be named according to the guidelines.
ok
* spec file name must match the base package name
ok
* package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
It amuses me that meeting the packaging guidlines is an item within the
packaging guidelines checklist
* package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license
spec file = GPL
tarball contains licence file = GPL v2
* The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
most source files themselves do contain copyright, but not licencing info,
of those that do, only one or two clearly state GPL,
others in contrib-plugin directory seem to make a weaker GPL claim.
* If package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file
must be included in %doc.
ok
* The spec file must be written in American English.
ok
* The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
ok, to be ultrapicky, add a space between Name: and streamer?
suggestion, make Description: slightly more, err, descriptive
e.g. use Command line tool for streaming capture, including audio. from the
README file.
* The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
cannot test because source
http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/Qcwebcam/streamer-1.1.3.tar.bz2
does not exist
* The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least
one supported architecture.
compiled and build on i386 (FC6T1/rawhide)
* If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to
the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries
during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment
until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the
long explanation with the bug number. (Extras Only) The bug should be marked as
blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues:
[WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-x86, [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-x64, [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-ppc
nothing excluded, I can test on FC5/x86_64 later, does the packager know how
it performs on other architectures?
* All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those
as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
Some BRs are specified, I have not checked the list is exhaustive
* The spec file MUST handle locales properly
No locales in package
* If the package contains shared library files located in the dynamic linker's
default paths, that package must call ldconfig
ok, .so files in own directory only, not added to linker path
* If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of
that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a
blocker.
no such statement, assume this is correct.
* A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory. The exception to this are directories listed explicitly in the
Filesystem Hierarchy Standard ([WWW]
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html), as it is safe to assume that
those directories exist.
ok (/usr/lib/streamer and /usr/share/doc/streamer-version)
* A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
ok, all files explicitly listed, no wildcards used at all
would it be considered neater to use %{_libdir}/streamer/*.so
[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] 2006-07-11 19:59 EST --- (In reply to comment #17) The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source cannot test because source http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/Qcwebcam/streamer-1.1.3.tar.bz2 does not exist However previous versions of streamer source tarballs appear to be in http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/streamer/ directory, rather than http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/Qcwebcam -- 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 197847] Review Request: pymsnt - MSN Transport for Jabber Servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pymsnt - MSN Transport for Jabber Servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197847 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 20:16 EST --- Looks like you just beat 0.11.1 ouut. Some rpmlint issues: E: pymsnt no-status-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/pymsnt W: pymsnt mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs Indeed, the init script doesn't accept status, and some lines in the spec are indented with tabs while others use spaces. (I.e. spaces for Source0 and tabs for Source1.) You don't seem to include the spool directory in the package. In case you find making the %files list tedious, you might consider using the stuff at the end of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python, which gets it down to three find statements and a few calls to sed. You don't seem to include the spool directory in the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194276] Review Request: kdeaccessibility: KDE accessibility tools
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: kdeaccessibility: KDE accessibility tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194276
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 20:39 EST ---
1.
/var/tmp/kdeaccessibility-3.5.3-2-root-chitlesh/usr/share/applications/kde/kmag.desktop:
warning: file contains key DocPath, this key is currently reserved for use
within KDE, and should in the future KDE releases be prefixed by X-
/var/tmp/kdeaccessibility-3.5.3-2-root-chitlesh/usr/share/applications/kde/kmousetool.desktop:
warning: file contains key DocPath, this key is currently reserved for use
within KDE, and should in the future KDE releases be prefixed by X-
/var/tmp/kdeaccessibility-3.5.3-2-root-chitlesh/usr/share/applications/kde/kmouth.desktop:
warning: file contains key DocPath, this key is currently reserved for use
within KDE, and should in the future KDE releases be prefixed by X-
Use the following to correct the shut-the-hell-up about KDE's use of DocPath:
for f in
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applnk/Applications/{kmag,kmousetool,kmouth}.desktop
do
%{__sed} -i -e 's/DocPath/X-DocPath/' $f
done
2.
/var/tmp/kdeaccessibility-3.5.3-2-root-chitlesh/usr/share/applications/kde/kcmkttsd.desktop:
warning: file contains key Keywords, this key is currently reserved for use
within KDE, and should in the future KDE releases be prefixed by X-
/var/tmp/kdeaccessibility-3.5.3-2-root-chitlesh/usr/share/applications/kde/kcmkttsd.desktop:
warning: file contains key ServiceTypes, this key is currently reserved for
use within KDE, and should in the future KDE releases be prefixed by X-
/var/tmp/kdeaccessibility-3.5.3-2-root-chitlesh/usr/share/applications/kde/kcmkttsd.desktop:
warning: file contains key DocPath, this key is currently reserved for use
within KDE, and should in the future KDE releases be prefixed by X-
you can use this before desktop-file-installs, to correct the shut-the-hell-up
about KDE's use of 'Keywords':
%{__sed} -i \
-e 's/Keywords/X-Keywords/' \
-e 's/ServiceTypes/X-ServiceTypes/' \
-e 's/DocPath/X-DocPath/' \
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/kde/kcmkttsd.desktop
3.
/var/tmp/kdeaccessibility-3.5.3-2-root-chitlesh/usr/share/applications/kde/ksayit.desktop:
warning: file contains key DocPath, this key is currently reserved for use
within KDE, and should in the future KDE releases be prefixed by X-
Solution:
%{__sed} -i -e 's/DocPath/X-DocPath/'
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/kde/ksayit.desktop
4.
/var/tmp/kdeaccessibility-3.5.3-2-root-chitlesh/usr/share/applications/kde/kttsmgr.desktop:
warning: non-standard key MimeTypes lacks the X- prefix
5.
Now the repetitive:
/var/tmp/kdeaccessibility-3.5.3-2.fc5-root-mockbuild/usr/share/applications/kde/kcmkttsd.desktop:
error: invalid characters in value of key Keywords[ca], keys of type string
may contain ASCII characters except control characters
have gone. yooohoo :)
I've updated the spec file, see attachment.
I've left W: kdeaccessibility mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs for you to correct :)
Post an updated SRPM, Rex, i'll review it.
--
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 175047] Review Request: NetworkManager-openvpn
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: NetworkManager-openvpn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175047 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 22:40 EST --- For those trying to keep track, #1 from comment #25 is already filed as bug #185992. -- 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
