[Bug 204694] Review Request: zvbi - Raw VBI, Teletext and Closed Caption decoding 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: zvbi - Raw VBI, Teletext and Closed Caption decoding library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204694 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 02:13 EST --- rpmlint on binary rpm reported zvbi-0.2.22-1.fc6.i386.rpm I: zvbi checking W: zvbi no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/zvbid In your init script (/etc/rc.d/init.d/your_file), you don't have a 'reload' entry, which is necessary for good functionality. W: zvbi incoherent-init-script-name zvbid The init script name should be the same as the package name in lower case. all above warnings have their descriptions given about how to solve them so follow 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 204417] Review Request: telepathy-gabble - A Jabber/XMPP connection 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: telepathy-gabble - A Jabber/XMPP connection manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204417 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 02:40 EST --- Do you know 0.3.2 is out? I think it would be better to package that. 0.3.2 Requires a newer loudmouth version then we currently have, so maybe you can update that package as well. (The telepathy people told me they have lots of stability problems with the older ( 1.1.1) loudmouth version) Other then that I had a quick look at you specfile and it looks very good to me. I will try to do a review this evening (Europe) but if anyone beats me to it go right ahead since my mock currently isn't working so i am not sure yet i will be able to do 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 203662] Review Request: dx - Open source version of IBM's Visualization Data Explorer
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: dx - Open source version of IBM's Visualization Data Explorer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203662 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 04:18 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) Hm. Java parts are not supposed to build. I've intentionally commented out java BRs from the spec. This is not good enough for reproducible builds, as demonstrated in comment 8. If you intend to have the java parts not built, be explicit about it, eg. using an argument to ./configure, patch things, or as a last resort if everything else fails, try BuildConflicts. -- 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 204694] Review Request: zvbi - Raw VBI, Teletext and Closed Caption decoding 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: zvbi - Raw VBI, Teletext and Closed Caption decoding library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204694 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 08:14 EST --- you don't have a 'reload' entry, which is necessary for good functionality. And if the daemon doesn't support reload? (alias it to restart?) The init script name should be the same as the package name in lower case Not required, hence rpmlint marking this as a warning only, not an error. IMO, the script name should be the same as the daemon in question. -- 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 204694] Review Request: zvbi - Raw VBI, Teletext and Closed Caption decoding 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: zvbi - Raw VBI, Teletext and Closed Caption decoding library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204694 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 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 Alias: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 08:19 EST --- Created an attachment (id=135376) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=135376action=view) Patch for shared CGALQt lib With the attached patch you can modify the Makefile to produce a shared CGALQt lib. This works just fine and we have used this in production for more than a year. -- 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] 2006-09-01 08:21 EST --- oops. I hadnt seen this request, so i had started my own submission. Robert, please see bug 204884, where I made my package of bitlbee, having missed yours. I added one patch to fix an accept() call warning on x86_64. I also just used openssl since everyone has that installed. My configure also has some different arguments then yours. I am not sure why you need to make those perl calls. I didn't seem to need that. I used condrestart for xinetd, instead of just blindly starting it. I'll check your source rpm's xinetd file to see if you only bind to 127.0.0.1 as well, and install and compile it to see how it works on my system compared to the package I had made. Can bitlbee actually write to its config dir which you chown as daemon? I will do more testing for your package later today. It's time this package moves forward. As a seperate upstream bug, I think bitlbee's proxy use is not working, but that also needs more testing on my end. -- 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 204884] Review Request: bitlbee - An IRC to other chat networks gateway
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 - An IRC to other chat networks gateway https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204884 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 08:22 EST --- oops. indeed. I will verify with the other submission and ensure that one moves forward. Once that package is approved, I'll close 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 204694] Review Request: zvbi - Raw VBI, Teletext and Closed Caption decoding 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: zvbi - Raw VBI, Teletext and Closed Caption decoding
library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204694
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 08:28 EST ---
I can review this. At first glance, package looks clean, just a few items off
the top of my head so far:
1. in -devel: Change
Requires: zvbi = %{version}-%{release}
to the less error-prone:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
2. in %post/%postun fonts, change
/usr/bin/fc-cache %{_datadir}/fonts
to
/usr/bin/fc-cache %{_datadir}/fonts/%{name}
no need to tell fc-cache to reparse *all* of %_datadir/fonts, when we're only
interested in %_datadir/fonts/%name
3. -fonts: I'm pretty sure there's no real need for
Requires: fontconfig
Requires(post): /usr/bin/fc-cache
Requires(postun): /usr/bin/fc-cache
The pkg doesn't *really* need/use fontconfig, and the calls to fc-cache in
scriptlets are wrapped with:
if [ -x /usr/bin/fc-cache ]; then
...
fi
--
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 204694] Review Request: zvbi - Raw VBI, Teletext and Closed Caption decoding 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: zvbi - Raw VBI, Teletext and Closed Caption decoding
library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204694
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 08:39 EST ---
Ammend item 2:
Only should change %post, I'd recommend:
/usr/bin/fc-cache -f %{_datadir}/fonts/%{name}
shouldn't change %postun, since %{_datadir}/fonts/%{name} no longer exists
--
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] 2006-09-01 08:41 EST --- I'll review your x86_64 patch and add when there's a reference to a upstream bug report having the patch also applied (and maybe reviewed by upstream). Regarding openssl vs. gnutls please read the comments above. I'm not interested in gnutls but to make Michael happy, I'm using it - for the same non-technical reason you provide, too. Using condrestart for xinetd is accepted and will be added. I'm only binding to 127.0.0.1 and the package itself works for me about a year as you can see from my changelog ;-) This also should answer the question regarding daemon; yes, bitlbee can write to /var/lib/bitlbee, because it's set in the xinetd file. You're simply doing exactly the same, but using the user nobody for. But it would be interesting to know whether daemon or nobody is better... I think, I'll push a new package when you've the testing completed and I got more input. -- 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 [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 199154] Review Request: Slony-1 (postgresql-slony-engine)
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: Slony-1 (postgresql-slony-engine) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199154 [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 200630] Review Request: postgresql_autodoc - PostgreSQL AutoDoc 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: postgresql_autodoc - PostgreSQL AutoDoc Utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200630 [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 202901] Review Request: pgFouine - PostgreSQL log analyzer
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: pgFouine - PostgreSQL log analyzer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202901 [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 193216] Review Request: qcwebcam
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: qcwebcam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193216 Bug 193216 depends on bug 193224, which changed state. Bug 193224 Summary: Review Request: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX -- 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 Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 08:56 EST --- I don't want to submit this package so want to close 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 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 Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX Bug 198331 depends on bug 198330, which changed state. Bug 198330 Summary: Review Request: spca5xx-kmod-common https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198330 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||CANTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 08:56 EST --- I don't want to submit this package so want to close 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 204417] Review Request: telepathy-gabble - A Jabber/XMPP connection 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: telepathy-gabble - A Jabber/XMPP connection manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204417 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 09:18 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) Do you know 0.3.2 is out? I think it would be better to package that. 0.3.2 Requires a newer loudmouth version then we currently have, so maybe you can update that package as well. (The telepathy people told me they have lots of stability problems with the older ( 1.1.1) loudmouth version) You are referring to the unstable release line for loudmouth, which I will not be updating to, since other packages (gossip, mugshot) depend upon loudmouth. -- 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 203217] Review Request: csound - music synthesis 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: csound - music synthesis system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203217 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 10:11 EST --- In that case, I'm happy :-) 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 204421] Review Request: kdetv - KDE application for watching TV
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: kdetv - KDE application for watching TV https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204421 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 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] 2006-09-01 10:22 EST --- (In reply to comment #26) Ok After seeing peoples getting sponserships within 2 days who claim to be newbies for this procedure, I think i did not deserved then to be Sponserer so i think its time to make Official reviewers burden less by closing this bug. I understand yur frustration at not being sponsored yet, despite being very active and doing everything asked of you, especially when you see other new contributors getting sponsored very quickly. Having already sponsored a few people, I've become very careful to make sure that I think any new contributor I sponsor now is fully aware of how how to work within Fedora Extras and not make too many mistakes (since I as their sponsor would end up having to fix them, which I've had to do in the past). As a result, it may be that the bar for being sponsored by me is higher than it would be for some other sponsors. Other issues for me include the fact that I've recently changed jobs and have less time to review submissions than I used to have (I've only done one review in the past couple of months I think). There's also the problem that I haven't got any means of testing either this or the qcwebcam submission. On the plus side, it looks like someone else may also be willing to sponsor you (Kevin in Bug #199254). You might refer Kevin to this ticket and the qcwebcam one as other examples of your work. Once you're sponsored, any contributor will then be able to review these submissions and it's more likely that someone with the right hardware will appear and be able to do that for you. So if I was you I'd reopen these tickets. They'll get in eventually, but that won't happen if the tickets are closed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204601] Review Request: geda-examples - Circuit examples for gEDA
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: geda-examples - Circuit examples for gEDA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204601
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 10:25 EST ---
This package is very simple and there exists little
problems or questions.
First review of geda-examples :
1. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines :
* Requires
* File and Directory Ownership
- Well, this package may be unuseful without geda-gschem,
however, does this package really require geda-gschem?
I mean that for example, xorg-x11-docs maybe unuseful without
xorg-x11 installed, however, xorg-x11-docs itself does not
require anything.
If the problem is only for the ownership of
%{_datadir}/gEDA/ (owned by geda-schem), this is a good
reason for geda-symbols to own %{_datadir}/gEDA/, too, and
the requirement for geda-gschem can be removed.
You can see for example that /usr/share/X11/ is owned by
several packages, e.g.
imake, libX11, xorg-x11-xsm, xorg-x11-apps, .
- Another thing is %{_datadir}/gEDA/examples . This is
also owned by geda-gschem. If you think that this package
(geda-examples) really requires geda-gschem, then the entry
of %dir %{gedaexampledir} can be removed.
Well, the problem of ownership of directories is complicated
when there are several packages which are mutually related.
2. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines :
= Nothing.
3. Other things I have noticed:
= Nothing.
--
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 204421] Review Request: kdetv - KDE application for watching TV
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: kdetv - KDE application for watching TV https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204421 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 10:29 EST --- Looks good, off-hand a few quickies: 0. Curious, why is this GPL/LPGL? 1. SHOULD: instead of manually deleting applnk, instead use desktop-file-install --delete-original 2. SHOULD: Since this isn't a .desktop provided by fedora, imo, you needn't use: desktop-file-install --vendor=fedora but instead use --vendor= -- 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 OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 |201449 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|163776, 177841, 198331 |201449 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] 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 | -- 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 193216] Review Request: qcwebcam
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: qcwebcam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193216 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 |201449 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 188974] Review Request: libGLw
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: libGLw https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188974 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 11:12 EST --- spot's update looks good. Per comment #13 item 1, and mharris' agreement in comment #18, please rename pkg back to mesa-libGLw, and I'll APPROVE this. -- 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 196843] Review Request: php-pear-Benchmark - PEAR: Framework to benchmark PHP scripts or function calls
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: php-pear-Benchmark - PEAR: Framework to benchmark PHP scripts or function calls Alias: php-pear-Benchmark https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196843 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|197974 | 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 197417] Review Request: php-pear-Validate - PEAR: Validation class
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: php-pear-Validate - PEAR: Validation class Alias: php-pear-Validate https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197417 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|197974 | 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 196827] Review Request: php-pear-Image-GraphViz - PEAR: Interface to ATT's GraphViz 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: php-pear-Image-GraphViz - PEAR: Interface to ATT's GraphViz tools Alias: pear-Image-GraphViz https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196827 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|197974 | 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 197419] Review Request: php-pear-Validate-Finance-CreditCard - PEAR: Validation class for Credit Cards
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: php-pear-Validate-Finance-CreditCard - PEAR: Validation class for Credit Cards Alias: Validate-Finance-CC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197419 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|197974 | 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 197411] Review Request: php-pear-Date - PEAR: Date and Time Zone Classes
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: php-pear-Date - PEAR: Date and Time Zone Classes Alias: php-pear-Date https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197411 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|197974 | 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 197420] Review Request: php-pear-Payment-Process - PEAR: Unified payment processor
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: php-pear-Payment-Process - PEAR: Unified payment processor Alias: pear-Payment-Process https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197420 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|197974 | 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 196837] Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit2-alpha - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests
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: php-pear-PHPUnit2-alpha - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests Alias: pear-PHPUnit2-alpha https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196837 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|197974 | 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 196824] Review Request: php-pear-Mail-Mime
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: php-pear-Mail-Mime Alias: php-pear-Mail-Mime https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196824 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|197974 | 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 190101] Review Request: php-pear-Log
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: php-pear-Log Alias: php-pear-Log https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190101 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|197974 | 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 196749] Review Request: php-pecl-xdebug - PECL package for debugging PHP scripts
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: php-pecl-xdebug - PECL package for debugging PHP scripts Alias: php-pecl-xdebug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196749 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|197974 | 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 196793] Review Request: php-pear-MDB2 - PEAR: Database Abstraction Layer
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: php-pear-MDB2 - PEAR: Database Abstraction Layer Alias: php-pear-MDB2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196793 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|197974 | 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 204954] New: Review Request: libofa - Open Fingerprint Architecture library
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=204954 Summary: Review Request: libofa - Open Fingerprint Architecture library 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://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/libofa.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/libofa-0.9.3-1.src.rpm Description: Currently, MusicDNS and the Open Fingerprint Architecture are being used to: * identify duplicate tracks, even when the metadata is different, MusicIP identifies the master recording. * fix metadata * find out more about tracks by connecting to MusicBrainz -- 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 204955] New: Review Request: digikamimageplugins-doc - Documentation for digiKamimageplugins
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=204955 Summary: Review Request: digikamimageplugins-doc - Documentation for digiKamimageplugins 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://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/digikamimageplugins-doc.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/digikamimageplugins-doc-0.8.2-1.src.rpm Description: Documentation for digiKamimageplugins. -- 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 204954] Review Request: libofa - Open Fingerprint Architecture 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: libofa - Open Fingerprint Architecture library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204954 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 13:44 EST --- This is a (new) dependency for libtunepimp-0.5.x -- 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 204177] Review Request: digikam-doc - digiKam and Showfoto documentation
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: digikam-doc - digiKam and Showfoto documentation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204177 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 13:46 EST --- FYI, digikamimageplugins-doc bug #204955 Marcin or Paul, maybe one of you would be interested in reviewing? :) -- 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 204417] Review Request: telepathy-gabble - A Jabber/XMPP connection 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: telepathy-gabble - A Jabber/XMPP connection manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204417 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 13:51 EST --- GOOD - package meets naming and packaging guidelines. - specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. - dist tag is present. - build root is correct. - license field matches the actual license. - license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. - source files match upstream: feb6766c1d2f984f1f37ffc8889e6faa - BuildRequires are proper. - package builds in mock (x86_64). - rpmlint is silent. - final provides and requires are sane: telepathy-gabble-0.3.1-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm telepathy-gabble = 0.3.1-1.fc6 = libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit) libdbus-glib-1.so.2()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libloudmouth-1.so.0()(64bit) telepathy-gabble-debuginfo-0.3.1-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm telepathy-gabble-debuginfo = 0.3.1-1.fc6 = - 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. - 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. - not a web app. MINOR: Not the latest version is being packaged, but that is ok in this case. If you do want to package the latest version (0.3.2) you can use --disable-loudmouth-versioning In both cases (if i understand correctly) there might be some crashing due to connection errors, but this will be fixed when the unstable branch of loudmouth is released as stable. 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 200064] Review Request: libpano12 : Library and tools for manipulating panoramic images
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: libpano12 : Library and tools for manipulating panoramic images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200064 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 14:50 EST --- Hey Bruno. I see you have applied for sponsorship... You might want to take a look at: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored It's hard for sponsors to know you are ready based on just one package. Do you have more to submit to give a better idea? Or if you can add comments to other reviews that will show that you understand the guidelines... -- 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 177232] Review Request: regionset - reads/sets the region code of DVD drives
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: regionset - reads/sets the region code of DVD drives https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177232 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 14:52 EST --- Imported and built for devel. 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 204561] Review Request: python-pyspf - Sender Policy Framework library 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-pyspf - Sender Policy Framework library for Python. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204561 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 15:09 EST --- The package was 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 204560] Review Request: python-pydns - Another Pyhon DNS 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: python-pydns - Another Pyhon DNS library. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204560 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 15:10 EST --- The package was 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 204561] Review Request: python-pyspf - Sender Policy Framework library 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-pyspf - Sender Policy Framework library for Python. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204561 Bug 204561 depends on bug 204560, which changed state. Bug 204560 Summary: Review Request: python-pydns - Another Pyhon DNS library. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204560 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204694] Review Request: zvbi - Raw VBI, Teletext and Closed Caption decoding 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: zvbi - Raw VBI, Teletext and Closed Caption decoding library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204694 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 15:40 EST --- Here's the latest version incorporating the three fixes from above. Spec URL: http://dribble.org.uk/reviews/zvbi.spec SRPM URL: http://dribble.org.uk/reviews/zvbi-0.2.22-2.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 204975] New: Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision
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=204975 Summary: Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision 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://bugbear.blackfish.org.uk/~bruno/apt/SPECS/vigra.spec SRPM URL: http://bugbear.blackfish.org.uk/~bruno/apt/fedora/linux/5/x86_64/SRPMS.panorama/vigra-1.4.0-1.src.rpm Description: VIGRA stands for Vision with Generic Algorithms. It's a novel computer vision library that puts its main emphasis on customizable algorithms and data structures. By using template techniques similar to those in the C++ Standard Template Library, you can easily adapt any VIGRA component to the needs of your application, without thereby giving up execution speed. Note 1: I've been maintaining this and other packages in a 3rd party repository which I'd like to migrate to Extras, so I need a sponsor. Note 2: vigra is a dependency for the lprof package. Note 3: This library gets statically linked to libtiff/jpeg/png. I'd appreciate pointers for getting it to link dynamically. -- 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 200064] Review Request: libpano12 : Library and tools for manipulating panoramic images
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: libpano12 : Library and tools for manipulating panoramic images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200064 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 16:07 EST --- (In reply to comment #19) Do you have more to submit to give a better idea? Yes lots: http://bugbear.blackfish.org.uk/~bruno/apt/fedora/linux/5/x86_64/SRPMS.panorama/ I've created another review request for vigra: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204975 -- 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 204421] Review Request: kdetv - KDE application for watching TV
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: kdetv - KDE application for watching TV https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204421 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 16:40 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) 0. Curious, why is this GPL/LPGL? Included in the original archive are the two license files COPYING (GPL) and COPYING.LIB (LGPL) so I thought, perhaps incorrectly that kdetv's libs were LGPL but kdetv is itself GPL. :-) 1. SHOULD: instead of manually deleting applnk, instead use desktop-file-install --delete-original Thanks, I've fixed this. 2. SHOULD: Since this isn't a .desktop provided by fedora, imo, you needn't use: desktop-file-install --vendor=fedora but instead use --vendor= I've fixed this also, the latest version should be listed below, thanks :) http://dribble.org.uk/reviews/kdetv.spec http://dribble.org.uk/reviews/kdetv-0.8.9-3.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 169345] Review Request: SEC - Simple Event Correlator
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: SEC - Simple Event Correlator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169345 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 17:04 EST --- The package has been created and added to CVS. I apparently can't resolve the ticket, so someone else will have to close it 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 169345] Review Request: SEC - Simple Event Correlator
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: SEC - Simple Event Correlator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169345 [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 169345] Review Request: SEC - Simple Event Correlator
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: SEC - Simple Event Correlator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169345 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 17:20 EST --- build successfull for devel... closing this bug for Chris. -- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163776 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 18:04 EST --- I no longer have time to review this. Sorry, putting back out in the wild. Hopefully its picked up soon. -- 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 201873] Review Request: wmix - Dockapp mixer
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: wmix - Dockapp mixer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201873
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 19:28 EST ---
Hi Patrice,
I'm going to review this now. I apologize for the delay.
* Since you're pretty much doing the whole installation process manually, why
don't you just copy the 'wmix' binary to %{_bindir} and avoid the use of make
install? (There's nothing wrong with your current approach, though).
REVIEW (wmix-3.1-1)
+ rpmlint shows no error.
+ package meets the naming guidelines.
+ spec-file is properly named.
+ package meets the packaging guidelines.
+ package license is open-source compatible (GPL).
+ license field matches the actual license.
+ license file included in %doc.
+ spec file is written in english.
+ spec file is legible.
+ source files match upstream:
62f6e86f7558f193e081dc29444a6699 wmix-3.1.tar.gz
+ package successfully compiled, built and tested on i386 (rawhide).
+ all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ package doesn't need to use %find_lang (no locales present).
+ package doesn't contain shared libraries.
+ package isn't relocatable.
+ package owns all directories that it creates.
+ no duplicate files in %files.
+ file permissions are properly set.
+ package has a %clean section containing rm -rf %{buildroot}.
+ package uses macros consistently.
+ package contains code, not content.
+ no -doc subpackage needed.
+ %docs don't affect application runtime.
+ package doesn't contain headers, static libraries or pkgconfig files (no devel
package).
+ package doesn't own directories owned by other packages.
+ package builds fine in mock (fedora-development-i386-core).
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 204423] Review Request: libstroke - A stroke interface 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: libstroke - A stroke interface library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204423 [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 204598] Review Request: geda-gschem - Electronics schematics editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda-gschem - Electronics schematics editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204598 Bug 204598 depends on bug 204423, which changed state. Bug 204423 Summary: Review Request: libstroke - A stroke interface library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204423 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 178922] Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX
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: asterisk - The Open Source PBX https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178922 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 19:47 EST --- We should build without -DZAPTEL_OPTIMIZATIONS. The timing stuff can be done with POSIX timers instead, and then I think the use of the zaptel devices is restricted to chan_zap and app_meetme. We should include app_conference. Since we're unlikely to ship zaptel kernel modules until/unless they're merged upstream, we need to make 100% sure they're _optional_ for our build of Asterisk. -- 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 204263] Review Request: geda-symbols - Electronic symbols for gEDA
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: geda-symbols - Electronic symbols for gEDA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204263
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution||NEXTRELEASE
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 19:59 EST ---
# geda-symbols is the Owner of the following directories
#%dir %{_datadir}/gEDA
#%dir %{_datadir}/gEDA/bitmap
#%dir %{_datadir}/gEDA/docs
#%dir %{_datadir}/gEDA/docs/man
#%dir %{_datadir}/gEDA/examples
#%dir %{_datadir}/gEDA/scheme
fixed.
--
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 204598] Review Request: geda-gschem - Electronics schematics editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda-gschem - Electronics schematics editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204598 Bug 204598 depends on bug 204263, which changed state. Bug 204263 Summary: Review Request: geda-symbols - Electronic symbols for gEDA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204263 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204605] Review Request: geda-gsymcheck - Symbol checker for electronics schematics editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda-gsymcheck - Symbol checker for electronics schematics editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204605 Bug 204605 depends on bug 204263, which changed state. Bug 204263 Summary: Review Request: geda-symbols - Electronic symbols for gEDA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204263 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 178922] Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX
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: asterisk - The Open Source PBX https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178922 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 20:04 EST --- Start of POSIX timer stuff here: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/2005-May/012906.html pselect() does work 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 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] 2006-09-02 01:09 EST --- Can this bug be closed now? There is a NetworkManager-openvpn bugzilla component 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 195871] Review Request: obmenu
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: obmenu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195871 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 01:23 EST --- Thanks for the preliminary review, Kevin. (In reply to comment #3) Issues: 1. The new improved python guidelines require not ghosting, but including the .pyo files. Can you make that change? Fixed in 1.0-2. 2. You don't use python_sitearch, so might skip defining it at the top. I don't think this is really much of a problem per se, but I have removed it in 1.0-2 as suggested. 3. Should this package have a desktop file? See: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop Added in 1.0-2. 4. If I install this package and try and run it, I get: Error: /home/kevin/.config/openbox/menu.xml not found Should this package then 'Require: openbox' ? Or otherwise require a menu.xml file? Well, the openbox package does not create a menu.xml file of any sorts in the user's home directory. However, I'd very much prefer *not* to dink around with stuff inside of /home as part of a package. For the time being, I've packaged a README.Fedora file (as %doc) that contains instructions on copying the default menu to your home directory. I've also sent an email upstream about this (and included the text of that in the README.Fedora file). Does this suffice? :) URLs for 1.0-2 are as follows: Spec: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/obmenu.spec SRPM: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/obmenu-1.0-2.src.rpm Thanks for your time and 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 188542] Review Request: hylafax
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: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 01:53 EST --- Adding FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 01:53 EST --- (In reply to comment #28) And i don't understand why you are taking resposibility to comment here. I thinks its THL's responsibility to answer here. I request Thorsten Leemhuis to comment here as it looks its assigned to him. Thorsten's address was the default one assigned to new review requests ([EMAIL PROTECTED] is now used for this purpose). Having a buig assigned to that address means that nobody has yet decided to formally review a package, that's 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
