[Bug 198758] Review Request: gnome-phone-manager
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-phone-manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 02:04 EST ---
There is at least one instance where you use 'rm', and then '%{__rm}'. The
guidelines require that you use one or the other form consistently. (MUST)
Also, the package fails to build under mock:
/usr/bin/ld: warning: libplds4.so, needed by
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/../../../../lib64/libedataserver-1.2.so,
not found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link)
/usr/bin/ld: warning: libplc4.so, needed by
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/../../../../lib64/libedataserver-1.2.so,
not found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link)
/usr/bin/ld: warning: libnspr4.so, needed by
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/../../../../lib64/libedataserver-1.2.so,
not found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link)
/usr/bin/ld: warning: libssl3.so, needed by /usr/lib64/libcamel-1.2.so.0, not
found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link)
/usr/bin/ld: warning: libsmime3.so, needed by /usr/lib64/libcamel-1.2.so.0,
not found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link)
/usr/bin/ld: warning: libnss3.so, needed by /usr/lib64/libcamel-1.2.so.0, not
found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link)
/usr/lib64/libcamel-1.2.so.0: undefined reference to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
(Full log attached.) I suspect this is due to nspr nss not being
buildrequires'ed, from the names of the libraries being referenced.
Additionally, are the scriptlets necessary? The .desktop file does not have a
MimeType entry (see wiki: ScriptletSnippets). In any case, desktop-file-utils
should not be required for the scriptlets and the scriptlets should be
tolerant of the desktop-file-utils not being installed.
After installing, I find I have two entries for the app in my menus.
X package meets naming and packaging guidelines (release tag).
X specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
+ Package URL is browsable.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
+ license field matches the actual license.
+ license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
+ source files match upstream:
951471bf5d6fe93fe550c60b6bdf58f9 gnome-phone-manager-0.7.tar.bz2
951471bf5d6fe93fe550c60b6bdf58f9 gnome-phone-manager-0.7.tar.bz2.srpm
+ latest version is being packaged.
X BuildRequires are proper.
X package builds in mock (devel/x86_64).
+ rpmlint is silent.
X final provides and requires are sane:
== provides
gnome-phone-manager = 0.7-2.fc5
== requires
/bin/sh
X desktop-file-utils
libICE.so.6()(64bit)
libORBit-2.so.0()(64bit)
libSM.so.6()(64bit)
libX11.so.6()(64bit)
libart_lgpl_2.so.2()(64bit)
libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libbluetooth.so.1()(64bit)
libbonobo-2.so.0()(64bit)
libbonobo-activation.so.4()(64bit)
libbonoboui-2.so.0()(64bit)
libbtctl.so.2()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libebook-1.2.so.5()(64bit)
libedataserver-1.2.so.7()(64bit)
libgconf-2.so.4()(64bit)
libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libglade-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgnokii.so.2()(64bit)
libgnome-2.so.0()(64bit)
libgnome-keyring.so.0()(64bit)
libgnomebt.so.0()(64bit)
libgnomecanvas-2.so.0()(64bit)
libgnomeui-2.so.0()(64bit)
libgnomevfs-2.so.0()(64bit)
libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpopt.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libxml2.so.2()(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
+ no shared libraries are present.
+ package is not relocatable.
+ owns the directories it creates.
+ doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ %clean is present.
X %check is not present, but there are no tests
X non-sane 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.
X desktop file installs correctly.
+ not a web app.
--
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 198758] Review Request: gnome-phone-manager
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-phone-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 02:07 EST --- Created an attachment (id=133370) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=133370action=view) mock x86_64/devel build.log -- 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 177104] Review Request: abook - Text-based addressbook program for mutt
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: abook - Text-based addressbook program for mutt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177104 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 03:09 EST --- Updated to 0.5.6. http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/abook.spec http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/abook-0.5.6-1.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 183439] Review Request: papyrus (Canvas drawing library based on cairo/cairomm)
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: papyrus (Canvas drawing library based on cairo/cairomm) Alias: papyrus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183439 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 06:40 EST --- Tested on two other x86 machines, failed to build in mock with the same error -- 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 200664] Review Request: soundtouch - Audio Processing library for changing Tempo, Pitch and Playback
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: soundtouch - Audio Processing library for changing Tempo, Pitch and Playback https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200664 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 06:42 EST --- Thanks. Can you upload a new srpm with the amended spec file so that it can tested again? -- 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] 2006-08-01 06:51 EST --- Spec Name or Url: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/gnome-build.spec Updated spec file (the SRPM is the same) Contains fPIC fix, spaces/tabs fix and Source0 fix -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200664] Review Request: soundtouch - Audio Processing library for changing Tempo, Pitch and Playback
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: soundtouch - Audio Processing library for changing Tempo, Pitch and Playback https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200664 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 07:43 EST --- New version here (I used your attached spec verbatim): Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/soundtouch.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/soundtouch-1.3.1-3.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 200760] Review Request: dogtail
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: dogtail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200760 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 07:49 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) I didn't realize putting '%post' in the changelog would be a problem; I'll obscure that. Just escape macros in the changelog (e.g. use %%post instead of %post) and you'll get the desired effect. -- 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 200664] Review Request: soundtouch - Audio Processing library for changing Tempo, Pitch and Playback
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: soundtouch - Audio Processing library for changing Tempo, Pitch and Playback https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200664 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 08:05 EST --- Thanks. Good: mock builds cleanly rpmlint shows nothing of importance software works md5sums are the same upstream version same no dupes no ownership problems On the condition that you add pkgconfig to the R: on the devel package, I'm happy for this to go in. This was discussed at the start of July on IRC (FESCo) 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 191200] Review Request: lvm2-cluster
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: lvm2-cluster https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 09:59 EST --- Permissions set to 0755, macro expansion in changelog repaired. Spec file commited to CVS - link above. I cannot get rpmlint error shlib-with-non-pic-code (on local build rpm brew build), how did you get this ? -- 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 199681] Review Request: slab
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: slab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199681 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 10:25 EST --- Work so far today: * Tue Aug 1 2006 Chris Chabot [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.6.2-1.20060801cvs - Changed version to actual upstream version - Reworked requires/buildrequires - Formatted spec file - Changed package manger patch, made remove/update menu items optional incase these will some day be posible thru pup / pirut - Added patch to DocPath, to support X-Gnome-DocPath in .desktop files too - Changed network click to call system-config-network, and added requires spec file looks a bit cleaner now too, (build/)requires are a bit saner now, mock builds cleanly and rpmlint is happy too.. Also renamed the version to 0.6.2, thats whats reported internally in slab :-) Will have some more time hopefully tonight to knock a few more things of the todolist. updated spec/srpm: http://develop.intermax.nl/slab/slab.spec http://develop.intermax.nl/slab/slab-0.6.2-1.20060801cvs.src.rpm Not finished yet, but getting closer step by step :-) -- 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 200374] Review Request: qstat - Real-time Game Server Status for Quake 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: qstat - Real-time Game Server Status for Quake servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200374 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 10:49 EST --- Injected into CVS. Thanks for review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200918] New: Review Request: pgadmin3-admin81 - Server instrumentation for PostgreSQL
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=200918 Summary: Review Request: pgadmin3-admin81 - Server instrumentation for PostgreSQL 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://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/pgadmin3/pgadmin3-admin81.spec SRPM URL: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/pgadmin3/pgadmin3-admin81-1.4.3-1.src.rpm Description: pgAdmin3 adminpacks enable server instrumentation on PostgreSQL 8.1.X servers. -- 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 200918] Review Request: pgadmin3-admin81 - Server instrumentation for PostgreSQL
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: pgadmin3-admin81 - Server instrumentation for PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200918 [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 184331] Review Request: K-3D - 3D modeling and rendering 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: K-3D - 3D modeling and rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184331 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 12:02 EST --- SPEC: http://www.poolshark.org/src/k3d.spec SRPM: http://www.poolshark.org/src/k3d-0.5.15.0-2.src.rpm - I cleaned up the %files section a bit, as you requested. The package does indeed have both libraries in /usr/lib and /usr/lib/k3d (those are plugins). - For the undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings. I believe this is intentional. See here: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-July/msg00569.html Essentially you are getting the warnings because the package dependencies are not installed. As for the weak linking, I believe it is intentional to allow k3d libs to link to either libGL.so from Xorg or from Nv***a. - For the devel vs non-devel. Part of the package can be considered a devel package, but I dont think it does what a traditional devel package would do. The reasons has to do with what K-3D does: it's merely a modeler, the first step before calling the main rendering engine (e.g. aqsis, which I'll try to package next), and that step involves using the devel-type files. So the devel files are required by the main package. This is explicitely mentioned in the project page at http://www.k-3d.org/wiki/GettingStarted , as well as in comment #1 above. I brought up the issue on a fedora mailing list a while ago, but I can't seem to track it down in the archives. I remember the consensus was that it made little sense to split a package if both parts require each other. OTOH I can't say I have a strong opinion on the matter... -- 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 197688] Review Request: inotify-tools - Command line utilities for inotify
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: inotify-tools - Command line utilities for inotify https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197688 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 12:06 EST --- Package was built fine in devel :) -- 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 198247] Review Request: libpng10
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: libpng10 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198247 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 12:25 EST --- OK, I've managed to persuade, with the aid of a patch, the configure script to generate the correct soname. Can you give this one a try on rawhide x86_64? SPEC: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/libpng10.spec SRPM: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/libpng10-1.0.20-3.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 177105] Review Request: gnomeradio - Graphical FM-Tuner program
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: gnomeradio - Graphical FM-Tuner program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177105 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 12:49 EST --- Yes, you're totally right and I'm very sorry about the delay. It won't happen again. I've just jumped through the hoops of getting an account and pushed my first approved package (sysconftool). I promise to be more responsive from now on. -- 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 200551] Review Request: cachefilesd
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: cachefilesd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200551
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 13:44 EST ---
The following changes were made to the spec file and srpm in:
http://people.redhat.com/steved/fscache/cachefilesd/0.3-2
diff -r1.8 cachefilesd.spec
3c3
Release:2%{?dist}
---
Release:3%{?dist}
8c8
Source0:cachefilesd-0.3.tar.bz2
---
Source0:
http://people.redhat.com/dhowells/cachefilesd/cachefilesd-0.3.tar.bz2
71c71
%config %{_sysconfdir}/rc.d/init.d/cachefilesd
---
%{_sysconfdir}/rc.d/init.d/cachefilesd
--
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 200937] New: Review Request: FreqTweak, realtime audio spectral manipulation ( Jack client)
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=200937 Summary: Review Request: FreqTweak, realtime audio spectral manipulation ( Jack client) 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://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/extras/freqtweak.spec SRPM URL: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/extras/freqtweak-0.6.1-4.src.rpm Description: FreqTweak is a tool for FFT-based realtime audio spectral manipulation and display. It provides several algorithms for processing audio data in the frequency domain and a highly interactive GUI to manipulate the associated filters for each. It also provides high-resolution spectral displays in the form of scrolling-raster spectragrams and energy vs frequency plots displaying both pre- and post-processed spectra. This is also a very good Jack demo application with realtime processing of inputs, just plug in a microphone, start Jack, start Freqtweak, connect all ports (for example using Qjackctl) and start having fun. -- Fernando -- 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 196591] Review Request: bitlbee
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: bitlbee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196591 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 14:04 EST --- Well, I still can't see why I should depend on gnutls when openssl is available per default. As from my understanding a bitlbee binary linking to openssl is not more or less probably illegal rather a wget binary linking to openssl (there are many examples more, just try a rpm -e --test openssl). Also said, bitlbee and wget are both licensed under GNU GPL and I absolutely can't see any difference between them. Or did Red Hat do some probably illegal things for Fedora Core? -- 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 200941] New: Review Request: SooperLooper, a realtime software looping sampler (Jack client)
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=200941 Summary: Review Request: SooperLooper, a realtime software looping sampler (Jack client) 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://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/extras/sooperlooper.spec SRPM URL: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/extras/sooperlooper-1.0.8-0.1.c.src.rpm Description: SooperLooper is a realtime software looping sampler in the spirit of Gibson's Echoplex Digital Pro. If used with a low-latency kernel and the proper audio buffer configuration it is capable of truly realtime live looping performance. Another very nice realtime audio processor from Planet CCRMA (needs Jack). -- Fernando -- 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 199834] Review Request: nip2 - interactive image processing 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: nip2 - interactive image processing system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199834 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 14:26 EST --- OK, I have done a mock build which works fine. So I can APPROVE your 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 200937] Review Request: FreqTweak, realtime audio spectral manipulation ( Jack client)
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: FreqTweak, realtime audio spectral manipulation ( Jack client) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200937 [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 200310] Review Request: pyicqt - ICQ 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: pyicqt - ICQ transport for Jabber servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200310 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 14:37 EST --- rpmlint dows complaints the following on the binary rpm: rpmlint pyicq-t-0.7-2.noarch.rpm E: pyicq-t obsolete-not-provided pyicqt W: pyicq-t incoherent-init-script-name pyicqt -- 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 196146] Review Request: mod_nss
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: mod_nss https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196146 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||200958 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 196591] Review Request: bitlbee
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: bitlbee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196591 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 16:02 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) Well, I still can't see why I should depend on gnutls when openssl is available per default. As from my understanding a bitlbee binary linking to openssl is not more or less probably illegal rather a wget binary linking to openssl (there are many examples more, just try a rpm -e --test openssl). Also said, bitlbee and wget are both licensed under GNU GPL and I absolutely can't see any difference between them. Or did Red Hat do some probably illegal things for Fedora Core? GPL software linking against OpenSSL should include an exception in the license to allow this. For instance, the wget README file, it says: In addition, as a special exception, the Free Software Foundation gives permission to link the code of its release of Wget with the OpenSSL project's OpenSSL library (or with modified versions of it that use the same license as the OpenSSL library), and distribute the linked executables. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of the code used other than OpenSSL. If you modify this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the file, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. -- 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 191200] Review Request: lvm2-cluster
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: lvm2-cluster https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191200 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 16:13 EST --- I get the shlib warning when building for x86_64. -- 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 196591] Review Request: bitlbee
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: bitlbee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196591 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 16:22 EST --- Yes, indeed. However, should OpenSSL be the default if there are alternatives that can be used and when the developers themselves recommend gnutls. Why go the path of legal grey area when there is a prefectly acceptable alternative? The configure scripts don't even detect for OpenSSL! It just assumes you are using OpenSSL if you do not specify gnutls or nss. You still haven't provided a techincal reason to use OpenSSL. Becuase they did too isn't really a reason. There is no need for this to depend on OpenSSL, its only blocking FE-LEGAL and holding up the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200551] Review Request: cachefilesd
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: cachefilesd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200551 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO_REPORTER --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 16:22 EST --- rpmlint is warning you that there is no standalone URL tag which might point to a project page. Your spec /srpm wasn't updated at your sight, but I'm applying the patches to it by hand. Hrm, somehow I missed this before: there is no actual cleaning of rpmbuildroot in %clean, please fix that. E: cachefilesd zero-length /usr/share/doc/cachefilesd-0.3/ChangeLog And would it kill ya to add URL: http://www.redhat.com or something similar? -- 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 200551] Review Request: cachefilesd
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: cachefilesd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200551 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 16:35 EST --- err... http://people.redhat.com/steved/fscache/cachefilesd/0.3-3 has the correct spec and srpm... adding a http://www.redhat.com URL would be fine... -- 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 199681] Review Request: slab
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: slab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199681 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 16:42 EST --- Ps thanks to the Docpath + X-Gnome-DocPath patch i made to support normal gnome (vs suse custom) help file paths, it seems to work to work well again (though you need to remove re-add the applet to make it take affect) However not everything has a document file associated with it, so the results arn't as overwelming as they could have been .. on my rawhide system (with quite a bit installed) i get: # grep DocPath *.desktop evince.desktop:X-GNOME-DocPath= gnome-cd.desktop:X-GNOME-DocPath=gnome-cd/gnome-cd.xml gnome-dictionary.desktop:X-GNOME-DocPath=gnome-dictionary/gnome-dictionary.xml gnome-eog.desktop:X-GNOME-DocPath=eog/eog.xml gnome-file-roller.desktop:X-GNOME-DocPath=file-roller/file-roller.xml gnome-gcalctool.desktop:X-GNOME-DocPath=gcalctool/gcalctool.xml gnome-gedit.desktop:X-GNOME-DocPath=gedit/gedit.xml gnome-search-tool.desktop:X-GNOME-DocPath=gnome-search-tool/gnome-search-tool.xml gnome-system-log.desktop:X-GNOME-DocPath=gnome-system-log/gnome-system-log.xml gnome-terminal.desktop:X-GNOME-DocPath=gnome-terminal/index.html gnome-volume-control.desktop:X-GNOME-DocPath=gst-mixer/gnome-volume-control.xml gthumb.desktop:X-GNOME-DocPath=gthumb/gthumb.xml rhythmbox.desktop:X-GNOME-DocPath=rhythmbox/rhythmbox.xml Still, its a start :-) Todo is still: - Replacing computer icon on panel with fedora one - make system-config-network .desktop file include it, main package doesnt have it (and is needed to make it called from main menu) - Add few more fedora standard places to places menu - Consider to keep 'autostart' menu's or patch them out.. - Hopefully enable recently-used, but depends on patches being included in panel/desktop - Still waiting reply from Jeremy on pirut/pup functionality, made package commands optional (instead of flat out removing them), if gconf key of those commands is empty, their not shown in the context menu ps if you don't see 'Search' in the main menu (as you reported Sundaram) then start 'beagled' and it will show up :-) Slab is actually quite smart about showing/hiding functionality based on whats available, i'm impressed by that :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184331] Review Request: K-3D - 3D modeling and rendering 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: K-3D - 3D modeling and rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184331 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 17:11 EST --- The devel package are files required to build or develop the package. These are headers, .so files and compiling documentation. This package requires a -devel 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 200772] Review Request: pyspi: Move from Extras to Core
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: pyspi: Move from Extras to Core https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200772 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 17:34 EST --- pyspi just built successfully into FC-devel. -- 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 200551] Review Request: cachefilesd
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: cachefilesd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200551 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 17:34 EST --- Still doesn't have the changes I mentioned above... -- 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 193240] Review Request: XaraLX - Vector/general purpose graphics utility
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: XaraLX - Vector/general purpose graphics utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193240 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 17:35 EST --- Looks good Paul. Menu entry shows up now too. APPROVED. Please remember to close this review request once imported and built. -- 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 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 17:36 EST --- static linking is highly frowned upon http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines for more info developer laziness is generally not considered a good enough reason. Looking at the sepc all those macros make the spec file confusing. Dont redefine name version and release. you need full urls to the upstream source tarball. I really sugegst reading the packaging guidelines and doing some work on 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 200600] Review Request: phpPgAdmin - web based PostgreSQL administration
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: phpPgAdmin - web based PostgreSQL administration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200600
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 17:41 EST ---
Some comments
Release:2
Needs %{?dist} on the end
Requires: webserver
Never heard of it! should this be httpd?
%attr(644,root,root) %{_phppgadmindir}/lang/Makefile
A makefile? Sure about that?
%attr(755,root,root) %{_phppgadmindir}/lang/convert.awk
I suspect you'll need R: awk
Just comments.
--
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 200760] Review Request: dogtail
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: dogtail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200760 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 17:43 EST --- dogtail just built successfully into FC-devel. -- 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 196434] Review Request: ren
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: ren https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196434 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 17:50 EST --- OK, I can sponsor you.( just been made a sponsor) However, this is a fairly small and simple package. Do you plan to submit more packages to FE ? -- 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 200600] Review Request: phpPgAdmin - web based PostgreSQL administration
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: phpPgAdmin - web based PostgreSQL administration https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200600 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 17:52 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) Requires: webserver Never heard of it! should this be httpd? httpd (and others) provide webserver. (e.g. yum whatprovides webserver) -- 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 193240] Review Request: XaraLX - Vector/general purpose graphics utility
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: XaraLX - Vector/general purpose graphics utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193240 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 18:02 EST --- Thanks for that and such an easy review process! -- 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 198247] Review Request: libpng10
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: libpng10 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198247 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 18:26 EST --- Build on x86-64 now. Nice work fixing that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200600] Review Request: phpPgAdmin - web based PostgreSQL administration
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: phpPgAdmin - web based PostgreSQL administration https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200600 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 18:27 EST --- #5, true. However, given the spec file later specifies httpd, would this not be better off as requiring httpd so that no other webserver providing application is accepted? -- 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 200976] New: Review Request: cyphesis - WorldForge game server
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=200976 Summary: Review Request: cyphesis - WorldForge game server Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/cyphesis.spec SRPM URL: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/cyphesis-0.5.8-1.src.rpm Description: Cyphesis is a WorldForge server suitable running small games. It is also designed by be used as an AI subsystem in a network of distributed servers. It includes a terrain engine based on the Mercator library, a persistence system based on PostgreSQL, and an AI engine using goal trees implemented in Python. It is the server used in most current WorldForge games. This package includes a SELinux policy module following the draft policy guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SELinux/PolicyModules -- 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 194566] Review Request: 915resolution
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: 915resolution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194566
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 18:39 EST ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Bad
---
It really does need to be enclosed in a wrapper with an example script for use
in %{_sysconfdir} - as it stands, it's one of those applications that you
install and wonder why you did - at least with something in %{_sysconfdir}
users
will know what to do (or where to look!)
Fix the issue in BAD and I'm happy to approve it.
Is hdparm a service? They both perform the same sort of function -- run once at
boot to tweak various interface settings of a physical device.
If someone has installed this package, then either they know what they're doing
(and can find README.fedora), or they don't and this package shouldn't try to do
anything with their system. If they do, they're still going to have to
configure it based on the particulars of their hardware, so the amount of
user-work is the same either way. The package-supplied README is quite detailed
in the particulars of the proper use of the program.
A full-blown sysv-style service wrapper around would turn this very simple
package into a much more complex beast, with addtional scripts, documentation,
additional bits in the spec, etc, than it warrants. It introduces additional
complexity at a net of questionable benefit -- especially when we consider that
this package, while useful to those who need its functionality _now_, is
predestined to have a very limited lifespan.
--
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 200976] Review Request: cyphesis - WorldForge game 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: cyphesis - WorldForge game server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200976 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 18:47 EST --- Updated package that fixes a borked -init patch: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/cyphesis.spec http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/cyphesis-0.5.8-2.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 200976] Review Request: cyphesis - WorldForge game 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: cyphesis - WorldForge game server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200976 [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 200976] Review Request: cyphesis - WorldForge game 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: cyphesis - WorldForge game server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200976
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 18:51 EST ---
Before I start the review, can I ask...
%{_datadir}/%{name}/rulesets/*/*.py
%{_datadir}/%{name}/rulesets/*/*.pyc
%ghost %{_datadir}/%{name}/rulesets/*/*.pyo
There are lots of these. Would it not be better for the package to just own
those %{_datadir}/%{name}/rulesets - this would negate the need for the multiple
datadirs
Unless I've misunderstood things that is.
--
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 200976] Review Request: cyphesis - WorldForge game 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: cyphesis - WorldForge game server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200976
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 18:53 EST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Before I start the review, can I ask...
%{_datadir}/%{name}/rulesets/*/*.py
%{_datadir}/%{name}/rulesets/*/*.pyc
%ghost %{_datadir}/%{name}/rulesets/*/*.pyo
There are lots of these. Would it not be better for the package to just own
those %{_datadir}/%{name}/rulesets - this would negate the need for the
multiple
datadirs
Unless I've misunderstood things that is.
Yes, that would make things simpler. But you might have missed that the *.pyo
files are marked as %ghost. AFAIK, when you have nested directories with python
files like this, you have to list each one individually in order to properly
%ghost the .pyo files. But if you know of a shorthand to accomplish the same
thing, I'd love to hear 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 196529] Review Request: gtkdatabox
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: gtkdatabox https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196529 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 18:55 EST --- Sorry I don't have FC5 on my machine right now. When I get the time later this week I'll get a build system up and running in VMWare. I will then add the ldconfig lines to my devel package as 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 200976] Review Request: cyphesis - WorldForge game 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: cyphesis - WorldForge game server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200976 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 19:00 EST --- Can you not just claim the directorys and then add a series of %ghost files? It would certainly make things easier on the eye... -- 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 194566] Review Request: 915resolution
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: 915resolution https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194566 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 19:05 EST --- Okay. The considered opinion of others is that as it stands, it would be simple enough to create a script, but it isn't needed. On that basis... APPROVED Don't forget to close this bug and set the resolve bug to 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 200976] Review Request: cyphesis - WorldForge game 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: cyphesis - WorldForge game server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200976 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 19:16 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) Can you not just claim the directorys and then add a series of %ghost files? It would certainly make things easier on the eye... You learn something new every day. :) Yes, that does seem to work without producing any rpmlint warnings. Here's an updated package with a cleaned up %files section: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/cyphesis-0.5.8-3.src.rpm http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/cyphesis.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 192049] Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player
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: gnash - GNU Flash player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192049 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 19:19 EST --- Another problem: it crashes the whole GNOME (i.e panel and terminal) on my FC5 AMD64 box when you enter the following URL (so don't click it blindly!): B I G F A T W A R N I N G THIS WILL KILL YOUR GNOME SESSION DON'T SAY YOU WEREN'T WARNED! http://www.cafepress.com/cp/search/search.aspx?cfpt=118%3AHq=B5x=0y=0cfpt2=copt=source=searchBox -- 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 200600] Review Request: phpPgAdmin - web based PostgreSQL administration
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: phpPgAdmin - web based PostgreSQL administration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200600
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 19:23 EST ---
Hi,
(In reply to comment #5)
Release: 2
Needs %{?dist} on the end
Thanks! Fixed.
Requires: webserver
Never heard of it! should this be httpd?
Skipping this per comments above.
%attr(644,root,root) %{_phppgadmindir}/lang/Makefile
A makefile? Sure about that?
Yeah. It is the Makefile for language utility that ships with phpPgAdmin.
(thought a bit more before submitting this comment...) It **may** be enough to
ship lang/recoded/ dir; however I'm inclined to ship source lang files and make
people correct and compile their languages easily. Let's leave that like this.
%attr(755,root,root) %{_phppgadmindir}/lang/convert.awk
I suspect you'll need R: awk
Thanks, added.
Regards, Devrim
--
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 196434] Review Request: ren
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: ren https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196434 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 19:47 EST --- Actually my first submission was ssmtp. Please be as kind as to check https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188400 I have adopted ren because the original submitter preferred to abandon rather then make a few [simple] modifications and it was a pity to loose his work. And since we use it anyway at my workplace... -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 20:07 EST --- I'm still interested, and have read most of what was advised. I want to propose a new version with the upstream 2.0.9 version which should arrive RSN. I'll amend this bug report as soon as it's available. -- 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 188400] Review Request: ssmtp
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: ssmtp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO||163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 20:10 EST --- Ok, I will review this one also. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 20:51 EST --- Truncated 'l' on bytefx-data-mysq for some reason. Also, need to Requires mono-nunit. Not building on rawhide at the moment due to Missing Dependency: mozilla is needed by package gecko-sharp2, but builds on FC5 x86_64, and runs hello world sucessfully. update-mime-database is noisy. The test redirects to /dev/null but the actual call does not. This will confuse users and tools. Recommend something like http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets which are one line, and silent. Also from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets, add the update-desktop=database entry. No SMP flags or note as to why they would not be a good idea. -- 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 200551] Review Request: cachefilesd
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: cachefilesd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200551 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 21:54 EST --- Maded the following changed to the spec that can be found in http://people.redhat.com/steved/fscache/cachefilesd/0.3-3 diff -r1.9 cachefilesd.spec 6a7,8 URL: http://www.redhat.com 56a59 rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -- 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 192052] Review Request: bitgtkmm (Gtkmm widgets for the bit 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: bitgtkmm (Gtkmm widgets for the bit library) Alias: bitgtkmm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192052 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 23:50 EST --- Unhappy with the *.so things in the %files and %files devel The -devel package includes a .pc file, which is useless without pkgconfig, ergo the -devel package should Require: pkgconfig Fixed in the first build. -- 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 192052] Review Request: bitgtkmm (Gtkmm widgets for the bit 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: bitgtkmm (Gtkmm widgets for the bit library) Alias: bitgtkmm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192052 [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 200666] Review Request: theora-exp - Experimental theora decoder
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: theora-exp - Experimental theora decoder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200666 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 23:54 EST --- You missed libtheora-devel to be included in BR. Otherwise package looks ok(SPEC is correct and rpmlint is silent for nondevel RPM) after i add libtheora-devel to BR. Mockbuild then gave me many warnings which are itelsf explanatory about how to remove 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 183439] Review Request: papyrus (Canvas drawing library based on cairo/cairomm)
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: papyrus (Canvas drawing library based on cairo/cairomm) Alias: papyrus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183439 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-02 00:03 EST --- Spec Name or Url: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/papyrus.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/fedora/5/srpms/papyrus-0.2.2-1.src.rpm New spec: new release (adds checks for boost smart pointers if tr1 isn't found) and adds pkgconfig to requires of devel package. Also, cairomm is rebuilt against cairo, and pending release. Hopefully that will take care of the linkage issue. If it doesn't, I'll talk with the cairomm devs. -- 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 200492] Review Request: perl-Gtk2-Sexy
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: perl-Gtk2-Sexy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200492 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-02 00:09 EST --- +Import to CVS +Add to owners.list +Bump release, build for devel +devel build succeeds +Request branching (FC-4, FC-5) +Close bug Thanks for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200700] Review Request: clipsmm - A C++ interface to the CLIPS 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: clipsmm - A C++ interface to the CLIPS library Alias: clipsmm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200700 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-02 00:18 EST --- Spec URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/clipsmm.spec SRPM URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/fedora/5/srpms/clipsmm-0.0.5-1.src.rpm This one's a lot cleaner, mainly because the srpm wasn't the one I intended (it wasn't built from the spec I posted, which had the right BR). The issue with the autoconf-generated config.h is also fixed in both clips and clipsmm, and neither one has #defines that will step on each other or any other autoconf 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 200937] Review Request: FreqTweak, realtime audio spectral manipulation ( Jack client)
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: FreqTweak, realtime audio spectral manipulation ( Jack client) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200937 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||188941 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-02 00:18 EST --- I get the following on FC5 during the build process: /usr/lib/libwx_gtk2-2.4.so: undefined reference to `pango_x_get_context' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[2]: *** [freqtweak] Error 1 I think this is due to bugzilla # 188941. -- 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 200662] Review Request: lostirc
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: lostirc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200662
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-02 00:29 EST ---
== Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored ==
Mock build for rawhide i386 is successfull with some warnings for source code
* MUST Items:
- dist tag is present.
- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- The spec file name matching the base package lostirc, in the
format lostirc.spec.
- This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- The spec file for the package is legible.
- The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license GPL.
X This package dont have any License file.
- The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct (501cd56bc0740d599540fb415718b939
lostirc-0.4.6.tar.gz)
- This package successfully compiled and built into binary rpms for i386
architecture.
- This package did not containd any ExcludeArch.
- This package owns all directories that it creates.
- This package did not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
- This package have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
- This package used macros.
- Document files are included.
- Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives.
X Desktop files installed twice. You can solve this problem by passing
option --delete-original to desktop-install-file
Also,
* Source URL is present and working.
* BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* I did not test package functionality.
--
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 200700] Review Request: clipsmm - A C++ interface to the CLIPS 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: clipsmm - A C++ interface to the CLIPS library Alias: clipsmm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200700 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-02 00:42 EST --- Mock build was successfull for rawhide i386 rpmlint is silent -- 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 183322] Review Request: conexus (network and serial I/O library with Gtkmm widgets)
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: conexus (network and serial I/O library with Gtkmm widgets) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183322 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-02 00:46 EST --- Spec Name or Url: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/conexus.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/fedora/5/srpms/conexus-0.2.2-1.src.rpm - Added pkgconfig to Requires - New release -- 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 197740] Review Request: dircproxy - IRC proxy 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: dircproxy - IRC proxy server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197740 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-02 00:56 EST --- Jarod -- As I start going through the review, any reason to not build this with ssl support? It would seem that enabling it is as easy as appending --enable-ssl to %configure, and add openssl-devel as a br. -- 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 197740] Review Request: dircproxy - IRC proxy 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: dircproxy - IRC proxy server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197740 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 200941] Review Request: SooperLooper, a realtime software looping sampler (Jack client)
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: SooperLooper, a realtime software looping sampler (Jack client) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200941 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-02 01:07 EST --- Hi Fernando -- I tried building this on FC5 and got... Making all in src make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/sooperlooper-1.0.8c/src' cd .. /bin/sh /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/sooperlooper-1.0.8c/missing --run automake-1.9 --foreign src/Makefile configure.ac:27: version mismatch. This is Automake 1.9.6, configure.ac:27: but the definition used by this AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE configure.ac:27: comes from Automake 1.9.4. You should recreate configure.ac:27: aclocal.m4 with aclocal and run automake again. make[2]: *** [Makefile.in] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/sooperlooper-1.0.8c/src' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/sooperlooper-1.0.8c' make: *** [all] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.96186 (%build) Do you not see this? AG -- 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 197649] Review Request: gnustep-make - GNUstep makefile package
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: gnustep-make - GNUstep makefile package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197649 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-02 01:15 EST --- Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~athimm/fedorasubmit/gnustep-make/gnustep-make.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~athimm/fedorasubmit/gnustep-make/gnustep-make-1.12.0-5.at.src.rpm Teach gnustep-make some FHS. Also removes the /usr/local/.../GNUstep special handling. -- 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 199681] Review Request: slab
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: slab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199681 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-02 01:31 EST --- As Chris Chabot has worked a lot on this package, i would like to give up maintainership of this package to him. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201000] New: Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 Summary: Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit 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.atrpms.net/~athimm/fedorasubmit/libFoundation/libFoundation.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~athimm/fedorasubmit/libFoundation/libFoundation-1.1.3-8.at.src.rpm Description: libFoundation is a free and almost complete implementation of Foundation Kit as defined by the OpenStep specifications, plus more classes that come with the newest releases of OPENSTEP 4.x and Rhapsody. Expected rpmlint output: W: libFoundation invalid-license libFoundation license W: libFoundation-devel no-documentation -- 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 197649] Review Request: gnustep-make - GNUstep makefile package
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: gnustep-make - GNUstep makefile package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197649 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201000 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 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||197649 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200941] Review Request: SooperLooper, a realtime software looping sampler (Jack client)
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: SooperLooper, a realtime software looping sampler
(Jack client)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200941
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-02 01:48 EST ---
== Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored ==
Mock build for rawhide i386 is successfull with errors.
Maybe you try adding autoconf in BR
* MUST Items:
- dist tag is present.
- rpmlint is silent
- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- The spec file name matching the base package sooperlooper, in the
format sooperlooper.spec.
- This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- The spec file for the package is legible.
- The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license GPL.
X This package dont have any License file.
- The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct (9b34c7cb8fc6daa4c7a9c17004680dac
sooperlooper-1.0.8c.tar.gz)
- This package successfully compiled and built into binary rpms for i386
architecture.
- This package did not contain any ExcludeArch.
- This package owns all directories that it creates.
- This package did not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
- This package have a %clean section, which contains %{__rm} -rf
%{buildroot}.
- This package used macros.
- Document files are included.
- Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives.
- Desktop file installed correclty.
Also,
* Source URL is present and working.
* BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* I did not test package functionality
However i have question, when i saw build.log i found configure was called
nearly 5 times. What kind of this configuration script?
--
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
