[Bug 207896] Review Request: astyle - Source code formatter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: astyle - Source code formatter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207896 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 02:14 EST --- (In reply to comment #12) General Review -- Well, If you want to do the review of this style, please make the summary of the review so that everyone (including submitter) can read your review easily. 2) NAMING GUIDELINES: *no underscores in name (since the source contains underscores you could use underscores if you wanted, do you want to? But the name astyle has no underscore.. I don't know what is the problem with the name of this pkgname? *no subpackages included - NEEDINFO -- It would probably be best to include the libs in another pkg. This can be left to how the submittter judges. -- astyle is licensed under the LGPL, not GPL *pkg from scratch matches minimal spec except %configure - NEEDINFO For this package this can be ignored IMO +1 for Ralf's comment *rpmlint - PASS Umm??? Don't pass (see below) *changelog - CHANGE -- should remove the last changelog comment about a different version Why? -- if another pkg exists with that version number then you should put the comments in its' spec file -- comment for initial version should match version of the pkg and still exist so history of the pkg is maintained Currently I don't understand what you want to say here -- mock produces the following during the debug ... cpio: astyle/built-in: No such file or directory Can be ingored *debuginfo pkgs - PASS Actually, don't pass (related with rpmlint - see below) *libraries - NEEDINFO -- I think this package might need to be split apart into a libraries pkg and a program pkg. IMO this is not needed for this package. *parallel make - NEEDINFO This is not needed for this package (g++ *.cpp meets the demand) 4) LICENSING: *need to correct the License: field - CHANGE * For rpmlint: --- E: astyle-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/astyle/src/astyle_main.cpp W: astyle-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/astyle/src/astyle.h E: astyle-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/astyle/src/ASEnhancer.cpp E: astyle-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/astyle/src/ASResource.cpp E: astyle-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/astyle/src/ASFormatter.cpp E: astyle-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/astyle/src/ASBeautifier.cpp - - All of these are permission issues. Please fix these. * Macros - /usr/bin/install - use macros for /usr/bin. * Documentation - Please check if install.html is needed for %doc. This seems to be needed for people who want to rebuild this package by themselves and does not seem to be needed for rpm users. -- 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 207896] Review Request: astyle - Source code formatter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: astyle - Source code formatter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207896 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 02:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) (In reply to comment #12) General Review -- Well, If you want to do the review of this style, please make the summary of the review so that everyone (including submitter) can read your review easily. FWIW: I find this style of review unreadable and not to be actually helpful. -- 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 244346] Review Request: mailutils - Collection of GNU mail-related utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: mailutils - Collection of GNU mail-related utilities
Alias: mailutils-review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244346
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 03:09 EST ---
%{_datadir}/locale/*/LC_MESSAGES/%{name}.mo
I see you used %find_lang but you didn't get the %files section right.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-8c605ebf8330f6d505f384e671986fa99a8f72ee
You also probably want it somewhere other than -doc, I would guess the base
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 212984] Review Request: hunspell-ar - Arabic word list/dictionaries for OpenOffice
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hunspell-ar - Arabic word list/dictionaries for OpenOffice https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212984 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC|[EMAIL PROTECTED] | OtherBugsDependingO|188268 |188265 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 03:35 EST --- ok, lost interest. -- 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 244355] Review Request: xapian - Information Retrieval 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: xapian - Information Retrieval Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244355 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 03:55 EST --- Done. http://dev.laptop.org/~marco/xapian-core-1.0.1-1.src.rpm http://dev.laptop.org/~marco/xapian-core.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 244355] Review Request: xapian - Information Retrieval 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: xapian - Information Retrieval Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244355 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 04:05 EST --- Review: + package builds in mock (F7 i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPMs. + source files match upstream. d9a88bf3cac06e9803d9d6080552ceeb xapian-core-1.0.1.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. - dist tag is NOT present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is small so no need of -doc subpackage. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no static libraries. + no .pc files are present. + -devel, -libs subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + scriptlets used. + xapian-core-devel Requires: /bin/sh libxapian.so.15 xapian-core = 1.0.1 xapian-core-libs = 1.0.1 + xapian-core-libs Provides: libxapian.so.15 + xapian-core-libs Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4) libxapian.so.15 libz.so.1 rtld(GNU_HASH) + Not a GUI app. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 244374] Review Request: xulrunner - XUL Runner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xulrunner - XUL Runner https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244374 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 04:08 EST --- also, missing %doc. You can Add LICENSE and LEGAL to %doc. -- 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 244374] Review Request: xulrunner - XUL Runner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xulrunner - XUL Runner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244374
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 04:23 EST ---
- MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).
Don't add static libraries files. If you want then
- MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
check files installed under %{_libdir}/xulrunner-%{version}%{prerelease}/sdk
Ok you can now update new package including all above suggested changes.
--
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 244355] Review Request: xapian - Information Retrieval 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: xapian - Information Retrieval Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244355 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 04:31 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: xapian-core Short Description: The Xapian Probabilistic Information Retrieval Library Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: OLPC-2 InitialCC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207202] Review Request: bes - Back-end server software framework for OPeNDAP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bes - Back-end server software framework for OPeNDAP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207202 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 04:32 EST --- Built 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 244374] Review Request: xulrunner - XUL Runner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xulrunner - XUL Runner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244374
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 04:42 EST ---
Don't add static libraries files. If you want then
- MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
check files installed under %{_libdir}/xulrunner-%{version}%{prerelease}/sdk
To clarify, these are not just static versions of the dynamic libraries. They
are required if you want to link against lixpcom.so, at compile time or at
runtime. That's why I thought I'd put them in the -devel package.
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/XPCOM_Glue
That said, should I use a -static package even in this case?
--
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 243763] Review Request: subcommander - Graphical UI for subversion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: subcommander - Graphical UI for subversion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243763 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 04:44 EST --- Dunno why but mock build is giving me again and again No Spec file found in srpm: subcommander-1.2.2-3.fc7.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 243763] Review Request: subcommander - Graphical UI for subversion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: subcommander - Graphical UI for subversion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243763 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 04:45 EST --- and even downloaded SRPM is giving rpm -ivh subcommander-1.2.2-3.fc7.src.rpm Segmentation fault -- 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 235203] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235203 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-14 16:56 EST --- (In reply to comment #24) Ville, I'm getting the same error. obexftp problem? Maybe, dunno, or a generic Konqueror URL interpretation one. In earlier releases the magic URL for me was obex://[00:17:4b:19:26:83]:12/ - now I suppose it's obex2, the brackets are gone and a @bluetooth has been added before :12. But I found a workaround - URL escaping the colons before the @ to %3A allows me to access the phone again. So this URL works for me with beta3: obex2://[EMAIL PROTECTED]:12/ -- 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 244374] Review Request: xulrunner - XUL Runner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xulrunner - XUL Runner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244374
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 04:57 EST ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Don't add static libraries files. If you want then
- MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
check files installed under %{_libdir}/xulrunner-%{version}%{prerelease}/sdk
To clarify, these are not just static versions of the dynamic libraries. They
are required if you want to link against lixpcom.so, at compile time or at
runtime. That's why I thought I'd put them in the -devel package.
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/XPCOM_Glue
That said, should I use a -static package even in this case?
Its OK then. Let it be in -devel 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 243669] Review Request: pfqueue - Queue manager for the Postfix/Exim Mail Transport Agents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pfqueue - Queue manager for the Postfix/Exim Mail Transport Agents https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243669 [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 243831] Review Request: rsyslog - the enhanced syslogd for Linux and Unix
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rsyslog - the enhanced syslogd for Linux and Unix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243831 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 06:31 EST --- I have just release 1.13.4 which contains, among others, the fix for klogd signal handling. Download: http://www.rsyslog.com/Downloads-req-getit-lid-33.phtml Changelog: http://www.rsyslog.com/Article71.phtml -- 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 229321] Review Request :postgresql-pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server 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 :postgresql-pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229321 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 07:24 EST --- Well, since you're the pgpool maintainer, I can see no problem with 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 241903] Review Request: etherbat - Ethernet topology discovery
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: etherbat - Ethernet topology discovery https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241903 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 07:30 EST --- Imported and built in devel, thanks all! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207896] Review Request: astyle - Source code formatter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: astyle - Source code formatter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207896 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 07:49 EST --- General Review -- Well, If you want to do the review of this style, please make the summary of the review so that everyone (including submitter) can read your review easily. Hmmm... I thought I was being very thorough in my review. I followed every aspect of the review process to the T, but from now on will not post everything at once. 2) NAMING GUIDELINES: *no underscores in name (since the source contains underscores you could use underscores if you wanted, do you want to? But the name astyle has no underscore.. I don't know what is the problem with the name of this pkgname? There aren't any underscores in the name hence the comment no underscores in the name However, the source package has underscores so I simply stated she could, if she wanted, use them because it matches one of the listed exceptions to the rule. *no subpackages included - NEEDINFO -- It would probably be best to include the libs in another pkg. This can be left to how the submittter judges. Great! Thank you for answering my question, as I wasn't sure about this one. -- astyle is licensed under the LGPL, not GPL Yes. As I highlighted she needs to correct this portion. *pkg from scratch matches minimal spec except %configure - NEEDINFO For this package this can be ignored IMO +1 for Ralf's comment Great! I wasn't sure if there was a precedent for this and it's good to know something can be packaged in this manner. Thank you for the answer. *rpmlint - PASS Umm??? Don't pass (see below) This is very strange indeed b/c the rpmlint passes for me with flying colors. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpmlint /sw/BUILDING/RPMS/i386/astyle-1.20.2-2.fc7.i386.rpm [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpmlint --version rpmlint version 0.80 Copyright (C) 1999-2006 Frederic Lepied, Mandriva [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ I'm using F7 as a build host. *changelog - CHANGE -- should remove the last changelog comment about a different version Why? Why? Because it's stated in the guidelines that changelog comments should match the version of the pkg a person is packaging. If she wants to pkg a different version, she should have the comments for that version in its' spec file, and not in this one. -- if another pkg exists with that version number then you should put the comments in its' spec file -- comment for initial version should match version of the pkg and still exist so history of the pkg is maintained Currently I don't understand what you want to say here The changelog contains comments for another version of this program. It is potentially confusing for a maintainer to have two versions of a pkg mentioned in the same spec file. I thought each version of pkg should have it's own rpm and spec file, am I incorrect? What I asked her to do was to replace the comment with one for the proper version like so: * Thu Sep 21 2006 Mary Ellen Foster mefoster gmail com 1.20.2-1 - Initial package -- mock produces the following during the debug ... cpio: astyle/built-in: No such file or directory Can be ingored Great! Thanks for the info. *debuginfo pkgs - PASS Actually, don't pass (related with rpmlint - see below) Again, I had no problems with rpmlint. Am I doing something incorrectly? *libraries - NEEDINFO -- I think this package might need to be split apart into a libraries pkg and a program pkg. IMO this is not needed for this package. Great! Thanks for the info. Can you explain why a separate lib package isn't needed beyond what's in the documentation? *parallel make - NEEDINFO This is not needed for this package (g++ *.cpp meets the demand) So g++ will auto-optimize the job? Or do we not need it b/c they're individual source files already and will have their own job at compile time? 4) LICENSING: *need to correct the License: field - CHANGE Yes it needs to be set to License: LGPL. * For rpmlint: --- E: astyle-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/astyle/src/astyle_main.cpp W: astyle-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/astyle/src/astyle.h E: astyle-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/astyle/src/ASEnhancer.cpp E: astyle-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/astyle/src/ASResource.cpp E: astyle-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/astyle/src/ASFormatter.cpp E: astyle-debuginfo script-without-shebang
[Bug 244374] Review Request: xulrunner - XUL Runner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xulrunner - XUL Runner https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244374 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 07:51 EST --- Done. http://dev.laptop.org/~marco/xulrunner-1.9-2.a5pre.cvs20070519.1.src.rpm http://dev.laptop.org/~marco/xulrunner.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 241403] Review Request: qgis - A user friendly Open Source Geographic Information 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: qgis - A user friendly Open Source Geographic Information System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241403 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |net)| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 07:53 EST --- Sorry; I had been on vacation and just busy with other things. I'll be trying to get things going for F7 this week. -- 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 243831] Review Request: rsyslog - the enhanced syslogd for Linux and Unix
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rsyslog - the enhanced syslogd for Linux and Unix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243831 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 08:04 EST --- SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/pvrabec/rpms/rsyslog-1.13.4-1.src.rpm (comment #20) Jose, I think logrotate is able to handle this situation since F7. -- 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 207896] Review Request: astyle - Source code formatter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: astyle - Source code formatter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207896 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 08:12 EST --- (In reply to comment #15) General Review -- Well, If you want to do the review of this style, please make the summary of the review so that everyone (including submitter) can read your review easily. Hmmm... I thought I was being very thorough in my review. I followed every aspect of the review process to the T, but from now on will not post everything at once. Let me put it this way: I find this style of reviews WAY too verbose to be useful. Submitters and reviewers are drowning in irrelevant (and partially bogus) comments. I for one only see 2 remaining issues: - GPL - LGPL - Bogus permissions on source files. E: astyle-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/astyle/src/astyle_main.cpp W: astyle-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/astyle/src/astyle.h E: astyle-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/astyle/src/ASEnhancer.cpp E: astyle-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/astyle/src/ASResource.cpp E: astyle-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/astyle/src/ASFormatter.cpp E: astyle-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/astyle/src/ASBeautifier.cpp = Add chmod -x src/* to %prep All the rest is stylishness, not fixing anything. -- 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 207896] Review Request: astyle - Source code formatter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: astyle - Source code formatter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207896 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 08:46 EST --- (In reply to comment #16) (In reply to comment #15) General Review -- Well, If you want to do the review of this style, please make the summary of the review so that everyone (including submitter) can read your review easily. Hmmm... I thought I was being very thorough in my review. I followed every aspect of the review process to the T, but from now on will not post everything at once. Let me put it this way: I find this style of reviews WAY too verbose to be useful. Submitters and reviewers are drowning in irrelevant (and partially bogus) comments. I'm learning and appreciate the critique. In the future I will try to be more specific, and instead of listing out all of the checks I did, only list the ones that need changing; is that the style you are hinting at? :-) I for one only see 2 remaining issues: - GPL - LGPL Check. - Bogus permissions on source files. E: astyle-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/astyle/src/astyle_main.cpp W: astyle-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/astyle/src/astyle.h E: astyle-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/astyle/src/ASEnhancer.cpp E: astyle-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/astyle/src/ASResource.cpp E: astyle-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/astyle/src/ASFormatter.cpp E: astyle-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/astyle/src/ASBeautifier.cpp Again, I'm not getting this with rpmlint. Can you let me know what version of rpmlint you have please? and what version of Fedora/RHEL you're using to build? Thanks. = Add chmod -x src/* to %prep Check. All the rest is stylishness, not fixing anything. Ok. :-) Some of the points were raised for personal edification. :-) I will ask those in a different forum instead of through this review. The reason I asked them here in the first place was so everyone on this list could learn too. -- 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 226190] Merge Review: netatalk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: netatalk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226190 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 08:58 EST --- I agree with your patch. Maybe *.a libraries should be in devel package but as you say I can't explain why they are necessary so I think they are not. In my opinion, this patch is good at all. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 244355] Review Request: xapian-core - The Xapian Probabilistic Information Retrieval 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: xapian-core - The Xapian Probabilistic Information Retrieval Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244355 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: xapian -|Review Request: xapian-core |Information Retrieval |- The Xapian Probabilistic |Library |Information Retrieval ||Library -- 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 244373] Review Request: sugar-presence-service - Sugar presence service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: sugar-presence-service - Sugar presence service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244373
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 09:02 EST ---
I see that sugar owns %{_datadir}/sugar/, but I didn't verify that it owns
%{_datadir}/sugar/services/. If it doesn't then you'll need to make this package
own it. If it does then you'll need to make this package Require sugar.
This package should also require dbus for %{_datadir}/dbus-1/services/.
--
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 235293] Review Request: adminutil - Utility library for Fedora Directory Server 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: adminutil - Utility library for Fedora Directory Server administration Alias: adminutil https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235293 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 09:31 EST --- By submitter do you mean me? Is there any other information you need from 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 207896] Review Request: astyle - Source code formatter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: astyle - Source code formatter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207896 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 09:39 EST --- (In reply to comment #15) *rpmlint - PASS Umm??? Don't pass (see below) This is very strange indeed b/c the rpmlint passes for me with flying colors. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpmlint /sw/BUILDING/RPMS/i386/astyle-1.20.2-2.fc7.i386.rpm [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ Well, when you rebuild srpm (by rpmbuild or mock), you should also have debuginfo rpm. For this package, there should be astyle-debuginfo rpm. Also, we have to check rpmlint error for src.rpm and the _installed_ rpm. *changelog - CHANGE -- should remove the last changelog comment about a different version Why? Why? Because it's stated in the guidelines that changelog comments should match the version of the pkg a person is packaging. This is for the *newest* (i.e. top) entry of the %changelog. If she wants to pkg a different version, she should have the comments for that version in its' spec file, and not in this one. Well, please try rpm -q --changelog coreutils, for example. BTW as this is NEEDSPONSOR blocker, will someone going to sponsor the reviewer, Ralf, Kevin (and 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 235293] Review Request: adminutil - Utility library for Fedora Directory Server 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: adminutil - Utility library for Fedora Directory Server administration Alias: adminutil https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235293 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 09:42 EST --- (In reply to comment #37) By submitter do you mean me? Is there any other information you need from me? s|submitter|reviewer|, sorry... Again: I will unset the reviewer of this bug if no response is received from the current reviewer within 6 days. -- 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 244373] Review Request: sugar-presence-service - Sugar presence service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: sugar-presence-service - Sugar presence service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244373
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 09:45 EST ---
I see that sugar owns %{_datadir}/sugar/, but I didn't verify that it owns
%{_datadir}/sugar/services/. If it doesn't then you'll need to make this
package
own it. If it does then you'll need to make this package Require sugar.
I'm not really sure what to do here. Sugar install other services in
%{_datadir}/sugar/services/ so I guess it should own the dir. Though the
presence service should not require Sugar.
Maybe the sources should be fixed to install in
%{_datadir}/sugar-presence-service. CCing Dan about 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 240793] Review Request: libhdhomerun - tools for the Silicon Dust HDHomeRun
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libhdhomerun - tools for the Silicon Dust HDHomeRun https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240793 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 09:43 EST --- Okay, try these on for size: http://people.redhat.com/jwilson/packages/hdhomerun/hdhomerun-0.0-0.1.20070616.fc7.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/jwilson/packages/hdhomerun/hdhomerun.spec 8 * Mon Jun 18 2007 Jarod Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.0-0.1.20070616 - Update to 20070616 release - Don't install any of the header files and drop lib from the package name, since this really isn't a library -- 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 223422] Review Request: mrxvt - Multi-tabbed terminal emulator.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mrxvt - Multi-tabbed terminal emulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223422 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 10:02 EST --- One comment: * Umm.. actually the review style is difficult issue. Many reviewers use some check list styles of their own, and it may have the benefit that it may show what the reviewers actually checked. Some other reviewers complain if there is no check list written on the review. However, there are also opinitions that the long verbose list is the same as just a copy/paste and makes it difficult to watch. So while the check list can exist, especially by the time you get used to reviewing, you should put the summary *at the end* to show briefly what the submitter should fix. But the most good way is to try anyway!! Again, reviewing style is somewhat difficult issue and actually there was a discussion about reviewing style (Some said that there should be check lists, some said that it is not needed) Well, This package (mrxvt) is APPROVED by me Please follow the procedure written on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from Get a Fedora Account When you requested someone to sponsor you (in the procedure above), please make a note on this bug that you did so. If you want to push this package also on F-7, you also have to check: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT after the URL above. !! Well, recenctly Fedora package system changed a lot !! If you have some questions, please let me know. -- 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 207896] Review Request: astyle - Source code formatter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: astyle - Source code formatter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207896 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 10:03 EST --- (In reply to comment #18) (In reply to comment #15) *rpmlint - PASS Umm??? Don't pass (see below) This is very strange indeed b/c the rpmlint passes for me with flying colors. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpmlint /sw/BUILDING/RPMS/i386/astyle-1.20.2-2.fc7.i386.rpm [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ Well, when you rebuild srpm (by rpmbuild or mock), you should also have debuginfo rpm. For this package, there should be astyle-debuginfo rpm. Also, we have to check rpmlint error for src.rpm and the _installed_ rpm. So I need to run rpmlint not only on the primary rpm, but also on the debug rpms and etc. Thank you for clarifying. :-) *changelog - CHANGE -- should remove the last changelog comment about a different version Why? Why? Because it's stated in the guidelines that changelog comments should match the version of the pkg a person is packaging. This is for the *newest* (i.e. top) entry of the %changelog. Good to know. I was under the wrong impression that versioning needed to be consistent with the pkg: I stand corrected. Thank you. If she wants to pkg a different version, she should have the comments for that version in its' spec file, and not in this one. Well, please try rpm -q --changelog coreutils, for example. Good to know. Thank you. BTW as this is NEEDSPONSOR blocker, will someone going to sponsor the reviewer, Ralf, Kevin (and 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 244373] Review Request: sugar-presence-service - Sugar presence service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: sugar-presence-service - Sugar presence service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244373
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 10:07 EST ---
Yeah, installing it outside %{_datadir}/sugar sounds like the right thing to do
since it doesn't depend on sugar. %{_datadir}/sugar-presence-service sounds
good for 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 243763] Review Request: subcommander - Graphical UI for subversion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: subcommander - Graphical UI for subversion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243763 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 10:58 EST --- Spec: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/subcommander/subcommander.spec SRPM: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/subcommander/subcommander-1.2.2-4.src.rpm Sorry, Unfortunately I have got an uploading issue with by package which caused the reporting segmentation fault. Now I have uploaded a corrected version of the package. Sorry for any inconveniences -- 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 239939] Review Request: libgii - General Graphics Interface toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libgii - General Graphics Interface toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239939
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 11:02 EST ---
SRPMS:
http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/7/testing/libggi/libggi-2.2.2-5.kwizart.fc7.src.rpm
SPECS:
http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/7/testing/libggi/libggi.spec
Description: General Graphics Interface toolkit
I've disabled directfb because i think liggi is too old to support directfb
0.9.25 from FC-6 (and F-7 version 1.0 )
I've received the advices to uses X from upstream. (from irc)
glide3 plugin is also unable to build whereas it can find headers if
includedir/glide3 is added (might be very rare now...)
- Since i've added %{lib} and %{_libdir} to LDFLAGS i won't try to remove
/usr/lib anymore,
At this time this package is not supposed to be multilib ( example: config files
set .root: /usr/lib64/ggi). I think it this is mandatory to add it to some
exeptions list for this (with libgii 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 227500] Review Request: svnkit - Pure Java Subversion client library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: svnkit - Pure Java Subversion client library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227500 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 11:12 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) -- I'm getting different md5sums. Could you kindly just double check this as well. I downloaded the package again and the md5sums match, maybe your download was corrupted or some website problem occurred at that time Updates at http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/svnkit/svnkit-1.1.2-2.fc7.src.rpm http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/svnkit/svnkit.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 223422] Review Request: mrxvt - Multi-tabbed terminal emulator.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mrxvt - Multi-tabbed terminal emulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223422 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 11:29 EST --- Mamoru, Awesome! I made the request for sponsorship for cvsextras and fedorabugs in my account information. I will submit my certificate, join the mailing list and finish the rest of the procedure this evening. I will also look into bodhi. :-) I will also send you some clarification questions once I start my next package. -Adam -- 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 223422] Review Request: mrxvt - Multi-tabbed terminal emulator.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mrxvt - Multi-tabbed terminal emulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223422 [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 226196] Merge Review: perl-Newt (was: newt-perl)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl-Newt (was: newt-perl) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226196 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 11:59 EST --- Yes we can! -- 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 244373] Review Request: sugar-presence-service - Sugar presence service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sugar-presence-service - Sugar presence service https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244373 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 12:03 EST --- Fixed. http://dev.laptop.org/~marco/sugar-presence-service-0.65-1.gite335c3678f.1.src.rpm http://dev.laptop.org/~marco/sugar.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 244333] Review Request: GConf2-dbus - D-Bus port of GConf2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: GConf2-dbus - D-Bus port of GConf2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244333 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 12:38 EST --- CVS done. -- 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 207896] Review Request: astyle - Source code formatter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: astyle - Source code formatter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207896 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 12:38 EST --- (In reply to comment #19) BTW as this is NEEDSPONSOR blocker, will someone going to sponsor the reviewer, Ralf, Kevin (and me)? Erm, ... the submitter needs to be sponsored, not the reviewer :) Mary, do you have any other packages of yours to be reviewed? -- 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 241758] Review Request: xar - The eXtensible ARchiver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xar - The eXtensible ARchiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241758 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 12:39 EST --- xar-1.5-1.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 241758] Review Request: xar - The eXtensible ARchiver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xar - The eXtensible ARchiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241758 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |CLOSED Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA Fixed In Version||1.5-1.fc7 -- 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 236642] Review Request: Revisor - Revisor GUI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Revisor - Revisor GUI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236642 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 12:40 EST --- Co-maintainer added. -- 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 226294] Merge Review: php
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: php Alias: php https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226294 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 12:41 EST --- I can provide a patch, if such a merging update is possible in the nearest future... -- 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 241903] Review Request: etherbat - Ethernet topology discovery
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: etherbat - Ethernet topology discovery https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241903 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 12:42 EST --- etherbat-1.0.1-2.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 241903] Review Request: etherbat - Ethernet topology discovery
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: etherbat - Ethernet topology discovery https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241903 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |CLOSED Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA Fixed In Version||1.0.1-2.fc7 -- 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 210823] Review Request: wxsvg - C++ library to create, manipulate and render SVG files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wxsvg - C++ library to create, manipulate and render SVG files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210823 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 12:42 EST --- wxsvg-1.0-0.3.b7_3.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 210823] Review Request: wxsvg - C++ library to create, manipulate and render SVG files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wxsvg - C++ library to create, manipulate and render SVG files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210823 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |CLOSED Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA Fixed In Version||1.0-0.3.b7_3.fc7 -- 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 244377] Review Request: sugar-artwork - Artwork for Sugar look-and-feel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sugar-artwork - Artwork for Sugar look-and-feel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244377 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 12:44 EST --- CVS done. -- 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 244355] Review Request: xapian-core - The Xapian Probabilistic Information Retrieval 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: xapian-core - The Xapian Probabilistic Information Retrieval Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244355 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 12:46 EST --- CVS done. -- 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 239546] Review Request: mdsplib - METAR Decoder Software Package 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: mdsplib - METAR Decoder Software Package Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239546 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 12:42 EST --- mdsplib-0.11-3.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 244355] Review Request: xapian-core - The Xapian Probabilistic Information Retrieval 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: xapian-core - The Xapian Probabilistic Information Retrieval Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244355 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 12:53 EST --- Well, actually not. [EMAIL PROTECTED] isn't in the account system and so can't actually own packages. So something's screwed up here: either this package should have blocked FE-NEEDSPONSOR or some other address should be used as the owner of this package. Please let me know which is correct and if necessary I'll fix up the entries. As it is now the package exists but [EMAIL PROTECTED] won't be authorized to do anything with 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 207896] Review Request: astyle - Source code formatter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: astyle - Source code formatter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207896 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 12:58 EST --- (In reply to comment #20) (In reply to comment #19) BTW as this is NEEDSPONSOR blocker, will someone going to sponsor the reviewer, Ralf, Kevin (and me)? Erm, ... the submitter needs to be sponsored, not the reviewer :) Oops... -- 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 244355] Review Request: xapian-core - The Xapian Probabilistic Information Retrieval 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: xapian-core - The Xapian Probabilistic Information Retrieval Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244355 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 13:12 EST --- Ok, I need a sponsor. -- 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 244593] Review Request: postgresql-pgbouncer - Lightweight connection pooler 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: postgresql-pgbouncer - Lightweight connection pooler for PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244593 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 13:12 EST --- Created an attachment (id=157296) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=157296action=view) New .spec file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 244593] Review Request: postgresql-pgbouncer - Lightweight connection pooler 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: postgresql-pgbouncer - Lightweight connection pooler for PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244593 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 13:13 EST --- Created an attachment (id=157297) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=157297action=view) Signed source RPM file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 244702] New: Review Request: xzgv - A GTK+/Imlib-based picture viewer for X
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=244702 Summary: Review Request: xzgv - A GTK+/Imlib-based picture viewer for X Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://web.phys.ntnu.no/~terjeros/xzgv/xzgv.spec SRPM URL: http://web.phys.ntnu.no/~terjeros/xzgv/xzgv-0.8-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: A picture viewer for X, with a thumbnail-based file selector. It uses GTK+ and Imlib. Most file formats are supported, and the thumbnails used are compatible with xv, zgv, and the Gimp. -- 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 244704] New: Review Request: bontmia - Backup over network to multiple incremental archives
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=244704 Summary: Review Request: bontmia - Backup over network to multiple incremental archives Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://web.phys.ntnu.no/~terjeros/bontmia/bontmia.spec SRPM URL: http://web.phys.ntnu.no/~terjeros/bontmia/bontmia-0.14-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: A disk based backup system which provides a complete snapshot of backed up directories. Using a clever hardlink and rsync trick, the backup is fast and space efficient. -- 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 240793] Review Request: libhdhomerun - tools for the Silicon Dust HDHomeRun
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libhdhomerun - tools for the Silicon Dust HDHomeRun
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240793
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 13:33 EST ---
1 - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be
posted in the review.
OK (rpmlint is silent)
2 - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
OK
3 - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in
the format %{name}.spec
OK
4 - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
OK - minor suggestion, use sed to manipulate the Makefile and drop
the BR on perl:
--- hdhomerun.spec 2007-06-18 08:40:19.0 -0500
+++ hdhomerun.spec.new 2007-06-18 07:14:12.0 -0500
@@ -9,7 +9,6 @@
URL: http://www.silicondust.com/
Source0:
http://download.silicondust.com/hdhomerun/libhdhomerun_%{releasedate}.tgz
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
-BuildRequires: perl
%description
libhdhomerun contains the configuration and firmware upgrade
@@ -20,7 +19,7 @@
# Fix up linefeeds, drop execute bit and don't strip binaries
%{__sed} -i 's/\r//' *
%{__chmod} -x *
-%{__perl} -pi -e 's/strip.*//g' Makefile
+%{__sed} -i -e '/strip/d' -e 's/C\(PP\)\?FLAGS .=/C\1FLAGS ?=/' Makefile
Another minor point (not a blocker), the source files are encoded with
ISO-8859-1, converting them to UTF-8 might be helpful. Not a big deal
because AFAIK it only affects the © symbol in the header:
for f in *; do
/usr/bin/iconv -f iso-8859-1 -t utf-8 --output $f.new $f mv $f.new $f
done
%build
export CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS
5 - MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible
license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the
legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
OK (LGPL)
6 - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license.
OK
7 - MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of
the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing
the text of the license(s) for the package must be included
in %doc.
OK
8 - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK
9 - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the
reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be
impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place
for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest ([WWW]
http://www.ioccc.org/).
OK
10 - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the
upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers
should use md5sum for this task.
OK
11 - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one supported architecture.
OK (F-7/i386)
12 - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work
on an architecture, then those architectures should be
listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed
in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla,
describing the reason that the package does not
compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number
should then be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have
bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should
put this description in the comment until the package is
approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the
long explanation with the bug number. (Extras Only) The bug
should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following
bugs to simplify tracking such issues...
OK (Unable to test PPC)
13 - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires,
except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of
Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires
is optional. Apply common sense.
OK
14 - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.
OK (no locale-specific files)
15 - MUST: If the package contains shared library files located in the
dynamic linker's default paths, that package must call
ldconfig in
[Bug 244355] Review Request: xapian-core - The Xapian Probabilistic Information Retrieval 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: xapian-core - The Xapian Probabilistic Information Retrieval Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244355 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 13:40 EST --- Please go ahead and apply for membership in the cvsextras group and I'll take care of it. I note that you already seem to be in the account system (ID mpg) but under a different email address, which will potentially cause all sorts of wonderful problems. -- 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 207896] Review Request: astyle - Source code formatter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: astyle - Source code formatter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207896 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 13:42 EST --- (In reply to comment #20) Mary, do you have any other packages of yours to be reviewed? Yes, and it's a bit bigger: I've also submitted Ice (object middleware). The review bug is here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234612 I'm slightly drowning in all of the recent comments, but I'll try to get a new astyle package out today or tomorrow. :) -- 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 242790] Review Request: telepathy-glib - glib binding for the Telepathy D-Bus protocol
Please 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-glib - glib binding for the Telepathy D-Bus protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=242790 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 227500] Review Request: svnkit - Pure Java Subversion client library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: svnkit - Pure Java Subversion client library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 14:14 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) I downloaded the package again and the md5sums match, maybe your download was corrupted or some website problem occurred at that time You are right. Don't know what happened there. Sorry about that. Everything else looks good. 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 242790] Review Request: telepathy-glib - glib binding for the Telepathy D-Bus protocol
Please 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-glib - glib binding for the Telepathy D-Bus
protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=242790
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 14:25 EST ---
Some rpmlint noise:
W: telepathy-glib mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 14)
This is not really a problem; fix it if you like.
W: telepathy-glib unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libtelepathy-glib.so.0.2.0 /lib64/libdbus-1.so.3
My understanding is that this is merely an inefficiency, and not a real one
at
that because dbus is going to be there in any case. So I don't think it's a
blocker.
W: telepathy-glib-devel no-documentation
W: telepathy-glib-unstable-static no-documentation
On their surface these are OK, but t does beg the question of whether
%{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/%{name}/ in the -devel subpackage should be %doc or
not.
There's a test suite included; I added a simple %check section:
%check
make check
and it seemed to run fine. Any reason not to run it?
Regarding the static library issue, I don't think that there's any reason to
believe that upstream won't drop the static library as soon as they have a
stable API.
Review:
* source files match upstream:
b65afe985035b2fe88aeda82bb012fb9c40babbcd78b0043c03e32a943625014
telepathy-glib-0.5.13.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
? rpmlint has one questionable issue (%doc for gtk-doc directory)
* final provides and requires are sane:
telepathy-glib-0.5.13-2.fc8.x86_64.rpm
libtelepathy-glib.so.0()(64bit)
telepathy-glib = 0.5.13-2.fc8
=
/sbin/ldconfig
libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit)
libdbus-glib-1.so.2()(64bit)
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libtelepathy-glib.so.0()(64bit)
telepathy-glib-devel-0.5.13-2.fc8.x86_64.rpm
telepathy-glib-devel = 0.5.13-2.fc8
=
dbus-devel
dbus-glib-devel
libtelepathy-glib.so.0()(64bit)
pkgconfig
telepathy-filesystem
telepathy-glib = 0.5.13-2.fc8
telepathy-glib-unstable-static-0.5.13-2.fc8.x86_64.rpm
telepathy-glib-unstable-static = 0.5.13-2.fc8
=
pkgconfig
telepathy-glib = 0.5.13-2.fc8
telepathy-glib-devel = 0.5.13-2.fc8
X %check is not present, but there seems to be a runnable test suite.
* no shared libraries present; ldconfig called as necessary.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets OK (ldconfig)
* code, not content.
* documentation is in -devel subpackage and isn't excessively large.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in -devel (or -static-unstable) package.
* pkgconfig files present in -devel or -static* packages; pkgconfig dependency
is there.
* static library is in -static* package.
* no libtool .la files.
--
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 233425] Review Request: mecab-java - Java binding for MeCab
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: mecab-java - Java binding for MeCab
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233425
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 14:25 EST ---
[ OK ] Tested Arch with Mock: x86_64 (F-7 and FC-6)
[ OK ] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ OK ] Spec file name match the base package %{name}
[ OK ] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[ OK ] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one
[ OK ] Buildroot is correct
[ OK ] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[ OK ] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL, LGPL, BSD,
[ OK ] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ OK ] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[ OK ] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, and aren't
redundant.
[ OK ] The spec file handles locales properly.
[ ? ] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[ OK ] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ OK ] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[ OK ] Permissions on files are set properly.
[ OK ] Package has a %clean section.
[ Ok ] Package consistently uses macros.
[ OK ] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[ OK ] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ?/NONE ] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[ Ok ] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[ NONE ] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a
GUI
application.
[ OK ] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
== Rpmlint output: ==
[ OK ] From SRPM package: silent
[ ? ] From rpm package:
W: mecab-java no-soname /usr/lib64/libMeCab.so
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227500] Review Request: svnkit - Pure Java Subversion client library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: svnkit - Pure Java Subversion client library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|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 226294] Merge Review: php
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: php Alias: php https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226294 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 14:31 EST --- Dmitry: yes please! -- 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 244355] Review Request: xapian-core - The Xapian Probabilistic Information Retrieval 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: xapian-core - The Xapian Probabilistic Information Retrieval Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244355 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 14:32 EST --- Everything's taken care of 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 222347] Review Request: g-wrap - A tool for creating Scheme interfaces to C libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: g-wrap - A tool for creating Scheme interfaces to C libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222347 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 14:45 EST --- Can this ticket be closed 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 239158] Review Request: perl-Net-Write - A portable interface to open and send raw data to network
Please 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-Net-Write - A portable interface to open and send raw data to network Alias: perl-Net-Write https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239158 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 14:48 EST --- Please don't forget to close this ticket once the package has been 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 235501] Review Request: jsdoc - Produces javadoc-style documentation from JavaScript sourcefiles
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jsdoc - Produces javadoc-style documentation from JavaScript sourcefiles https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235501 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 14:48 EST --- ping ? This package has some delay review, so i will -- 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 242790] Review Request: telepathy-glib - glib binding for the Telepathy D-Bus protocol
Please 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-glib - glib binding for the Telepathy D-Bus protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=242790 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 14:50 EST --- Spec URL: http://spotbox.dyn.dhs.org/telepathy-glib.spec SRPM URL: http://spotbox.dyn.dhs.org/telepathy-glib-0.5.13-3.fc7.src.rpm * Mon Jun 18 2007 Brian Pepple [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.5.13-3 - Add check section to run test suite. - Mark gtk-docs as docs. -- 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 222347] Review Request: g-wrap - A tool for creating Scheme interfaces to C libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: g-wrap - A tool for creating Scheme interfaces to C libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222347 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version||1.9.6-12 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 14:51 EST --- Sure. -- 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 242790] Review Request: telepathy-glib - glib binding for the Telepathy D-Bus protocol
Please 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-glib - glib binding for the Telepathy D-Bus protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=242790 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 15:03 EST --- OK, looks good to me. The test suite passes with no issues: PASS: test-handle-set PASS: test-heap PASS: test-intset Testing tp_strdiff... ... OK Testing tp_g_ptr_array_contains... ... OK Testing tp_escape_as_identifier... ... OK PASS: test-util PASS: test-internal-debug == All 5 tests passed == 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 240333] Review Request: perl-SQL-Translator - Manipulate structured data definitions (SQL and more)
Please 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-SQL-Translator - Manipulate structured data definitions (SQL and more) Alias: perl-SQL-Translator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240333 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 15:12 EST --- I see no record of perl-Text-RecordParser being built for rawhide, just F7. I can build it if you've no time. I'm still completely confused by the ParseExcel thing, though. -- 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 244377] Review Request: sugar-artwork - Artwork for Sugar look-and-feel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sugar-artwork - Artwork for Sugar look-and-feel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244377 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 15:23 EST --- Damn, I should have noticed before branching this package, but it violates the naming guidelines and now that it's in, fixing it isn't going to be possible. According to the naming guidelines, the name should be: sugar-artwork-0.33-0.3.(date)git5aef11739b -- 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 244377] Review Request: sugar-artwork - Artwork for Sugar look-and-feel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sugar-artwork - Artwork for Sugar look-and-feel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244377 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 15:28 EST --- Can you point me to the naming guidelines please? So that I get the other packages right at least... Isn't fixing it just matter of changing the release number? -- 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 240333] Review Request: perl-SQL-Translator - Manipulate structured data definitions (SQL and more)
Please 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-SQL-Translator - Manipulate structured data definitions (SQL and more) Alias: perl-SQL-Translator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240333 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 15:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) I see no record of perl-Text-RecordParser being built for rawhide, just F7. I can build it if you've no time. I'm still completely confused by the ParseExcel thing, though. I believe this caused by not following the upstream version number: upstream : Spreadsheet-ParseExcel-0.32 RPM package: perl-Spreadsheet-ParseExcel-0.3200 Look at the provides list $ rpm -qp --provides perl-Spreadsheet-ParseExcel-0.3200-1.fc8.i386.rpm perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel) = 0.32 ... perl-Spreadsheet-ParseExcel = 0.3200-1.fc8 It provides perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel) = 0.32 and not perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel) = 0.3200. And 0.32 is less than 0.2622. PS - There several perl packages that have started changing the upstream version in order to avoid bumping the epoch. jpo -- 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 244355] Review Request: xapian-core - The Xapian Probabilistic Information Retrieval 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: xapian-core - The Xapian Probabilistic Information Retrieval Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244355 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 15:49 EST --- Closing as RAWHIDE for lack of a better resolution. -- 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 244356] Review Request: xapian-bindings - Bindings for Xapian
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xapian-bindings - Bindings for Xapian https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244356 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 15:56 EST --- Updated to 1.0.1 http://dev.laptop.org/~marco/xapian-bindings.spec http://dev.laptop.org/~marco/xapian-bindings-1.0.1-1.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 244377] Review Request: sugar-artwork - Artwork for Sugar look-and-feel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sugar-artwork - Artwork for Sugar look-and-feel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244377 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 15:57 EST --- The naming guidelines are at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines Note that there's a pending draft to allow the commit ID after the git bit. The fix is just a change of the release number, but the proper release number is less than the one in use. You could always just remove the first 0. from the one from the guidelines and add it in the next time upstream increments the 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 242790] Review Request: telepathy-glib - glib binding for the Telepathy D-Bus protocol
Please 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-glib - glib binding for the Telepathy D-Bus protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=242790 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- 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 244371] Review Request: sugar - OLPC desktop environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sugar - OLPC desktop environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244371 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 16:34 EST --- gstreamer-plugins-base 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 244377] Review Request: sugar-artwork - Artwork for Sugar look-and-feel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sugar-artwork - Artwork for Sugar look-and-feel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244377 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 16:37 EST --- OK, I'll do that then. -- 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 242790] Review Request: telepathy-glib - glib binding for the Telepathy D-Bus protocol
Please 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-glib - glib binding for the Telepathy D-Bus protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=242790 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 16:56 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: telepathy-glib Short Description: GLib bindings for Telepathy Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: F-7,OLPC-2 InitialCC: Tibbs, 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 225522] Review Request: cinepaint - CinePaint is a tool for manipulating 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: cinepaint - CinePaint is a tool for manipulating images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225522 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 16:58 EST --- Created an attachment (id=157327) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=157327action=view) build.log F-7 x86_64 0.22.0-6 -- 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 225522] Review Request: cinepaint - CinePaint is a tool for manipulating 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: cinepaint - CinePaint is a tool for manipulating images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225522 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 17:09 EST --- Spec URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/cinepaint/cinepaint.spec SRPM URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/cinepaint/cinepaint-0.22.0-6.kwizart.fc7.src.rpm Description: CinePaint is a tool for manipulating images Ok this seems to work! No more rpath nor chrpath... As I understood, there is a need to relink icc_examin from a step of the libtool process. Now autoconf is called only if not i386 or ppc because it uses some hardcoded prefix/lib path for pkgconfig and python_arch. This seems better to uses autoconf on everything exept i386 and ppc -- 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 226576] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-amd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-amd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226576 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 226578] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-ark
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-ark https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226578 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 226579] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-ast
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-ast https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226579 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 226580] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-ati
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-ati https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226580 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 226576] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-amd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-amd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226576 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 17:31 EST --- Oops, I took this but it looks like one of the few packages you didn't update today. Did you plan to push any fixes for 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 239158] Review Request: perl-Net-Write - A portable interface to open and send raw data to network
Please 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-Net-Write - A portable interface to open and send raw data to network Alias: perl-Net-Write https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239158 [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 239162] Review Request: perl-Net-Packet - A framework to easily send and receive frames from layer 2 to la yer 7
Please 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-Net-Packet - A framework to easily send and receive frames from layer 2 to la yer 7 Alias: perl-Net-Packet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239162 Bug 239162 depends on bug 239158, which changed state. Bug 239158 Summary: Review Request: perl-Net-Write - A portable interface to open and send raw data to network https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239158 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 226578] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-ark
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-ark https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226578 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-18 17:49 EST --- This is a bit odd: E: xorg-x11-drv-ark zero-length /usr/share/hwdata/videoaliases/ark.xinf Is this supposed to contain anything? Also, con't forget to double percent signs in the changelog: W: xorg-x11-drv-ark macro-in-%changelog ix86 A couple of other complaints that are not problematic: W: xorg-x11-drv-ark no-documentation W: xorg-x11-drv-ark mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 5, tab: line 3) I'm not going to list out the full review checklist here; there are just too many of these to get through and these packages are tiny (two files) anyway. -- 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
