[Bug 253813] Package Review: cjkunifonts (split from fonts-chinese)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Package Review: cjkunifonts (split from fonts-chinese) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253813 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 02:19 EST --- The CID files still need to be updated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253134] Review Request: jlint - Java program checker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jlint - Java program checker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253134 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 02:31 EST --- I have no objections to that, but as said, the 1.x author at least used to respond pretty quickly to mails so I suppose clarifying the license wouldn't take much more than just asking him. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 254209] 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/show_bug.cgi?id=254209
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 02:42 EST ---
* Please check which package owns %{_libdir}/%{name}/modules/
(currently no package)
hm...%{_libdir}/%{¬ame} is owned by current main package that imply its
subdirectory which's shipped provided by main package to be owned to same one.
* m4 files under %{_datadir}/aclocal/ usually should be in -devel
package
right, thanks for notice me this missing point.
* I don't know what software calls g-wrap modules, however usually
modules are dlopen'ed with the name '*.so', not '*.so.X'.
So I guess libgw-guile-*.so under %{_libdir}/%{name}/modules/
should be in main package, not in -devel subpackage.
do you also check this:
$ file libgw-guile-*.so
libgw-guile-gw-glib.so: symbolic link to `libgw-guile-gw-glib.so.0.0.0'
libgw-guile-standard.so: symbolic link to `libgw-guile-standard.so.0.0.0'
* Well, why should -devel subpackage have Requires: ORBit2-devel?
it seem that we did some mixed up things between g-wrap guile-gnome-platform
(which requires ORBit2-devel) cause, only guile-gnome-platform ships ORBit2's
stuffs.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 251864] Review Request: kpogre - PostgreSQL graphical frontend for KDE 3.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: kpogre - PostgreSQL graphical frontend for KDE 3.x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251864
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 02:57 EST ---
Hi,
(In reply to comment #2)
For a start, the source URL should be similar to:
Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Mock build fails with:
checking for KDE... configure: error:
in the prefix, you've chosen, are no KDE headers installed. This will fail.
So, check this please and use another prefix!
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.40521 (%prep)
Adding kdelibs-devel solves this, but rpmlint exposes some more problems:
E: kpogre standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share
W: kpogre dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/kpogre/common
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
W: kpogre symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/kpogre/common
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
E: kpogre standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/bin
E: kpogre standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/doc
E: kpogre standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/icons
- you try to own directories that you should not
W: kpogre invalid-license GPL
- The lists with the valid licenses is available at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-489bc5bbf14ecdb808316674e9fc465243cfa4f5
E: kpogre binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/kpogre ['/usr/lib64',
'/usr/lib64/qt-3.3/lib']
You should try to get rid of the rpath.
All are done.
Thanks for the review. I will post the new SRPM and the new spec file shortly.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 251864] Review Request: kpogre - PostgreSQL graphical frontend for KDE 3.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kpogre - PostgreSQL graphical frontend for KDE 3.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251864 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 03:04 EST --- New spec URL: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/kpogre/kpogre.spec New SRPM URL: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/kpogre/kpogre-1.5.4-2.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199154] Review Request: Slony-1 (postgresql-slony-engine)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Slony-1 (postgresql-slony-engine) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=199154 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 03:30 EST --- Hi, (In reply to comment #24) See configure file for this. You mean the PACKAGE_NAME? The tarball is slony1-1.2.10.tar.bz2, the upstream project is called Slony-I, and the first line of the README file says Slony-I. From the NamingGuidelines: When naming a package, the name should match the upstream tarball or project name from which this software came. Ok, I committed a bunch of fixes to Slony-I: http://lists.slony.info/pipermail/slony1-commit/2007-August/001953.html http://lists.slony.info/pipermail/slony1-commit/2007-August/001954.html http://lists.slony.info/pipermail/slony1-commit/2007-August/001955.html http://lists.slony.info/pipermail/slony1-commit/2007-August/001956.html http://lists.slony.info/pipermail/slony1-commit/2007-August/001957.html Missing yacc parser.y parser.c ? No idea what this means. yacc is provided by bison, and seems to be used by Slony-I: http://www.gnu.org/software/bison/ Ok, added as BR. - Since postgresql_autodoc is now available, maybe you can add it to the BuildRequires I don't think so. Is there anything that depends on autodoc? configure is searching for it, so I assume it is used. It is not a must... But ok, added it. Some people may skip doc builds. But doc is a separate package in Fedora, and people can just choose to not install it. I will make this change, since AFAIR RHEL 5, Fedora 6,7 and 8 does not have the NAMELEN problem. I won't push it to RHEL 4. Slony looks for /usr/local/pgsql/bin/pg_config first. If someone has a source installation of PostgreSQL, then the build will break This won't be a problem when the package is build on the Fedora buildservers. I understand that you want to maintain one upstream specfile for all versions of Red Hat and Fedora, but having a clean spec in Fedora makes things more easier in the long run. Yes, I want to maintain 1 spec file. If this is not a blocker, I would like to skip it. A few other comments: - Double BuildRequires for docbook-style-dsssl Good catch :) Removed. - Is %kerbdir still needed? If not, there's no need to change CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS and CFLAGS and a simple %configure will do. %kerbdir is broken in RHEL3, that's why we keep it. Yes, one spec file for all platforms :) rpmlint of postgresql-slony1-engine-docs: E: postgresql-slony1-engine-docs non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/doc/postgresql-slony1-engine-docs-1.2.10/support 0644 E: postgresql-slony1-engine-docs non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/doc/postgresql-slony1-engine-docs-1.2.10/adminguide 0644 E: postgresql-slony1-engine-docs non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/doc/postgresql-slony1-engine-docs-1.2.10 0644 E: postgresql-slony1-engine-docs non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/doc/postgresql-slony1-engine-docs-1.2.10/concept 0644 E: postgresql-slony1-engine-docs non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/doc/postgresql-slony1-engine-docs-1.2.10/howto 0644 E: postgresql-slony1-engine-docs non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/doc/postgresql-slony1-engine-docs- 1.2.10/implementation 0644 Some of them are fixed. However... 1.2.11 was already released, and I committed the changes after that :( That may mean that we will wait another release to test some of the changes. I will post the updated srpm and spec file shortly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 254209] 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/show_bug.cgi?id=254209
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 03:41 EST ---
(In reply to comment #9)
* Please check which package owns %{_libdir}/%{name}/modules/
(currently no package)
hm...%{_libdir}/%{name} is owned by current main package
Yes
that imply its
subdirectory which's shipped provided by main package to be owned
to same one.
It may be that I don't understand correctly what you want to say, however
if you write %dir foo/, the subdirectories of foo/ are not _automatically_
owned by any subpackages.
* I don't know what software calls g-wrap modules, however usually
modules are dlopen'ed with the name '*.so', not '*.so.X'.
So I guess libgw-guile-*.so under %{_libdir}/%{name}/modules/
should be in main package, not in -devel subpackage.
do you also check this:
$ file libgw-guile-*.so
libgw-guile-gw-glib.so: symbolic link to `libgw-guile-gw-glib.so.0.0.0'
libgw-guile-standard.so: symbolic link to `libgw-guile-standard.so.0.0.0'
Symlinks themselves are no problem, the problem is how these modules
are dlopened (with what name).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253813] Package Review: cjkunifonts (split from fonts-chinese)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Package Review: cjkunifonts (split from fonts-chinese) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253813 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 03:55 EST --- Here is the review: + rpmlint output: W: cjkunifonts-ukai symlink-should-be-relative /etc/X11/fontpath.d/cjkunifonts-ukai /usr/share/fonts/cjkunifonts-ukai W: cjkunifonts-ukai obsolete-not-provided ttfonts-zh_CN W: cjkunifonts-ukai obsolete-not-provided ttfonts-zh_TW W: cjkunifonts-uming symlink-should-be-relative /etc/X11/fontpath.d/cjkunifonts-uming /usr/share/fonts/cjkunifonts-uming W: cjkunifonts-uming obsolete-not-provided ttfonts-zh_CN W: cjkunifonts-uming obsolete-not-provided ttfonts-zh_TW IMO these can be waived. + package name follows upstream project name + spec filename matches package name + packages two Chinese truetype fonts currently part of fonts-chinese + Arphic Public License is listed on Licensing page + license with translations included + spec files is legible + source files agree with debian upstream: 465b1350911f086a2021c36e039f79c8 ttf-arphic-ukai_0.1.20060928.orig.tar.gz 4f2e5a4ba4cf3ac01518ea211a89fdc1 ttf-arphic-uming_0.1.20060928.orig.tar.gz + package is noarch and builds correctly + build deps listed + owns own dirs + filelist looks correct + consistent macro usage Need attention: - should not own ghostscript/conf.d/ which belongs to ghostscript - /usr/share/fonts/zh_*/TrueType/ seem to be empty in the rpm's - and already mentioned ghostscript conf paths -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 242416] Review Request: texlive - Binaries for the TeX formatting 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: texlive - Binaries for the TeX formatting system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=242416 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 04:43 EST --- (In reply to comment #46) (In reply to comment #45) The licenses issues are blockers, Yes, they are, but in the current state of TeXLive packages, which are now in functional state, we should focus on F8 inclusion, because feature freeze was yesterday and we can remove stuff with inappropriate licensing during the last testing period. If TeXLive is not included now into Fedora, there will be *no* TeXLive in it, making F8 terribly poor in comparison with other distros, such as Mandriva or SuSE, where texlive is already included. These license problems can really be resolved after inclusion. A package with license issues cannot be approved. Since here we have certainly the same issues in an already included package in Fedora (tetex), it would be acceptable, in my opinion, if you feel that we really are in a hurry. and I also think that the projects I list in Comment #20 under Separate projects - should not be shipped if they weren't part of tetex previously. Why? One of the criteria needed for TeXLive to be accepted is that it should substitute functionality of tetex, what it does, but why to limit the Fedora TeXLive only to a functionality in obsolete teTeX? This makes no sense to me. The point is not to reduce the functionalities in texlive, but do proper packaging. It is not appropriate to repackage a distribution when it consists of projects that have a clear independence. In general every project with a release distributed and a home page should have its own package. This is evident in the case of texlive because some parts are already out of date. So, to avoid obsoletes and complications, it seems to me that it would be better not to add those to texlive in the first place (and submit those packages separately). There are switches for all the utilities in the texlive configure to avoid building them. As I said above I think that it acceptable to let those that were in tetex slip in, but no more. If there was no tetex in fedora I think that shipping independent projects in texlive would be a blocker. I can add a virtual provides for those packages, but I don't think it's a good idea to remove the texlive- prefix as users should know it is not comming from, say xdvi upstream, but from TeXLive distribution so that it could differ from the official upstream of the projects as the problems users could face should be reportrd to TeXLive upstream. My idea was that having those packages from texlive should be only transitory, and to avoid obsoletes/provides and so on and so forth (there are already the tetex related obsoletes) it would be better not to use the texlive prefix in the first place. Especially when the version in texlive is the same than the up-upstream version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 249522] Review Request: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced 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: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249522 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 05:35 EST --- Personally, I'm against pushing this package to Fedora. SEPostgreSQL is not tested widely yet -- and it is thought as a replacement of original PostgreSQL. If people, who are already running their databases on PostgreSQL, wants to switch to SEPostgreSQL and if it is broken somewhere, it will harm the good reputation of PostgreSQL in terms of stability. If someone calls for a vote, I strongly object to adding this package to Fedora / EPEL. 0.02 cents. Regards, Devrim -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 242416] Review Request: texlive - Binaries for the TeX formatting 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: texlive - Binaries for the TeX formatting system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=242416 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 05:54 EST --- I have checked what was in tetex, this leads to: Independent projects, not in tetex: detex devnag dvi2tty afm2pl dvipdfmx Independent projects, in tetex: dvipdfm dvipng mendex Independent projects, in tetex, consisting of a whole subpackage: xdvik pxdvik -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239471] Review Request: httptunnel - Tunnels a data stream in HTTP requests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: httptunnel - Tunnels a data stream in HTTP requests https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=239471 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 05:57 EST --- GPL is not a valid license tag anymore: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#head-f21ae23bf2f278444e2c385463cfa74a502396b8 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241553] Review Request: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for rdiff-backup
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: safekeep - simple, centralized configuration for
rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241553
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 06:50 EST ---
I cannot download the current spec file:
$ curl -I
http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/safekeep/1.0.1-2/safekeep.spec
HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden
[...]
The srpm works. Here are some first observations:
- GPL is not a valid value for the license tag anymore:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#head-f21ae23bf2f278444e2c385463cfa74a502396b8
- Source0 should be:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
not _pr_downloads...
- the client subpackage seems to be empty, so imho you should rename the common
package to client and let the server package depend on the client. Also it seems
to be odd that the client package has a lot of Requires
- Afaik there is no need to package AUTHORS COPYING LICENSE multiple times,
packaging it in the client (common) package should be enough.
- does this Requires: safekeep-common = %{PACKAGE_VERSION} really work?
I cannot see where PACKAGE_VERSION is defined and the guidelines mention
%{version}-%{release} instead.
- every %files section has to start with a %defattr(...) line, but only the
%files section for common has one
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 249522] Review Request: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced 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: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249522 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 06:58 EST --- (In reply to comment #60) I can admit that any software contains bugs more or less. However, I cannot understand your opinion. In generally, if people who are already running their database on PostgreSQL, switch to SE-PostgreSQL and if it is broken somewhere, they will switch back it to the original PostgreSQL. No need to say, it will be a reputation of SE-PostgreSQL, not original one. In addition, getting merged into Fedora encourage widely test of SE-PostgreSQL. I think it should be merged to resolve your concern also. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 257181] Review Request: komparator - kompare/sync 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: komparator - kompare/sync files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=257181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228255] Review Request: grub2 - grub next generation tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: grub2 - grub next generation tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=228255
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 07:18 EST ---
- GPL is not a valid license tag anymore:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#head-f21ae23bf2f278444e2c385463cfa74a502396b8
- instead of /etc you should use %{_sysconfdir}
- maybe the file in /etc should be marked with %config, is it intended, that
they are not?
- Why is this update-grub_lib in %{_libdir}/grub and not in %{_libdir}/grub2?
Also in case it is intentional, the directory %{_libdir}/grub/ is not owned by
any package afaics.
- I guess %{_libdir}/grub2/* should be just %{_libdir}/grub2/ because otherwise
the directory %{_libdir}/grub2/ is not owned by any package.
- /etc/grub.d/ is also not owned by the package but created
- /boot/grub2 should be /boot/grub2/ imho to make it more obvious that it is an
directory
- the conditionals in %files can be simplified because there is a
ExclusiveArch: i386 x86_64 ppc ppc64 tag and everything in the package for
ppc(64), is also in the package for i386 and x86_64, so this should produce the
same rpms:
/sbin/grub2-emu
/sbin/grub2-install
/bin/grub2-mkimage
/boot/grub2/
%ifarch i386 x86_64
/sbin/grub2-mkdevicemap
/sbin/grub2-probe
/sbin/grub2-setup
%endif
- What do you mean with this comment: #All apart of update-grub2 tool?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253858] Review Request: system-config-vsftpd - graphical utility for administrating vsftpd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: system-config-vsftpd - graphical utility for administrating vsftpd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253858 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 07:29 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: system-config-vsftpd Short Description: graphical utility for administrating VSFTPD Owners: mbarabas Branches: FC-6 F-7 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: no -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 258681] Review Request: bluez-firmware - Bluetooth firmware distributed by the BlueZ project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: bluez-firmware - Bluetooth firmware distributed by
the BlueZ project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=258681
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 07:37 EST ---
The source tag should point to a full URL, here it seems that
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/bluez/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz would be the
correct one.
Did you build this package once for a 64bit arch? There %{_lib} expands to
lib64, so maybe configure should be invoked wiht --libdir=/lib, because e.g. the
ipw2000 firmware is also everytime in /lib.
./configure --libdir=/%{_lib}
[...]
/lib/firmware/BCM-LEGAL.txt
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253434] Review Request: eclipse-rpm-editor - RPM Specfile editor for Eclipse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eclipse-rpm-editor - RPM Specfile editor for Eclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253434 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 07:43 EST --- I lower the version of rpmlint and backport the needed patch, Ville can you please take a look on because the original patch http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/changeset/1349?format=diffnew=1349 don't will apply on CheckSpec.py file. I have also patched the specfile so that you have less stuff todo to include it. http://alcapcom.fedorapeople.org/patches/rpmlint-0.80-rpmlint-on-specfiles.patch http://alcapcom.fedorapeople.org/patches/rpmlint.spec-backport-rpmlint-on-specfiles.patch Andrew the package is modify according with the review, FYI the package build on i386 arch and using mock on rawhide. Spec URL: http://alcapcom.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/eclipse-rpm-editor.spec SRPM URL: http://alcapcom.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/eclipse-rpm-editor-0.1.0-3.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 249522] Review Request: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced 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: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249522 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 08:14 EST --- Hi, (In reply to comment #61) (In reply to comment #60) In generally, if people who are already running their database on PostgreSQL, switch to SE-PostgreSQL and if it is broken somewhere, they will switch back it to the original PostgreSQL. Ouch! So you don't care about the downtime? :( In addition, getting merged into Fedora encourage widely test of SE-PostgreSQL. I think it should be merged to resolve your concern also. Fedora is *not* for testing packages, IMHO. Regards, Devrim -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 263121] New: Review Request: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries
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/show_bug.cgi?id=263121 Summary: Review Request: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries Product: Fedora Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/pharosc/pharosc.spec SRPM URL: http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/pharosc/pharosc-8.3-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries. There are five new open source standard cell libraries, the * vsclib, * wsclib, * vxlib, * vgalib and * rgalib. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 263121] Review Request: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell 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: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=263121 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 249522] Review Request: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced 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: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249522 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 08:21 EST --- (In reply to comment #60) Personally, I'm against pushing this package to Fedora. SEPostgreSQL is not tested widely yet -- and it is thought as a replacement of original PostgreSQL. i disagree that SE-PostgreSQL is thought of as a replacement of PostgreSQL. furthermore, that concern could be addressed with adding sufficient warning to SE-PostgreSQL's %description. If people, who are already running their databases on PostgreSQL, wants to switch to SEPostgreSQL and if it is broken somewhere, it will harm the good reputation of PostgreSQL in terms of stability. i think the reasonable conclusion is that SE-PostgreSQL is broken somewhere and to switch back to PostgreSQL. Fedora is on the leading edge of SELinux development, and thus is a perfect place to test this extension of PostgreSQL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 263181] New: Review Request: php-pecl-Svn - PHP Subversion Wrapper
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/show_bug.cgi?id=263181 Summary: Review Request: php-pecl-Svn - PHP Subversion Wrapper Product: Fedora Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://prelive.iconmobile.com/dev31/fedora-icm-repo/Fedora/7/SPECS/php-pecl-Svn.spec SRPM URL: http://prelive.iconmobile.com/dev31/fedora-icm-repo/Fedora/7/SRPMS/php-pecl-Svn-0.2-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: This extension implements PHP bindings for Subversion (SVN), a version control system, allowing PHP scripts to communicate with SVN repositories and working copies without direct command line calls to the svn executable. -- I am still searching for a sponsor but will release all my packages step by step so you can see I'm serious about contributing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 263181] Review Request: php-pecl-Svn - PHP Subversion Wrapper
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pecl-Svn - PHP Subversion Wrapper https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=263181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 249522] Review Request: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced 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: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249522 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 09:04 EST --- (In reply to comment #63) Rob, thanks for your comment. I also think your opinions are correct. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234612] Review Request: Ice - The Internet Communications Engine (Object middleware)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Ice - The Internet Communications Engine (Object middleware) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=234612 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 09:37 EST --- == LICENSE CHECK == For tar files except for rpmbuild Total files number 10434 * ICE_LICENSE3504 * Binary .class file (not used) 5612 * jpg/png/gif 153 * .depend 166 * .ice 54 * GPL 28 - Total 9517 Left917 I checked the left 917 files manually and they are all okay (some of them are demo files or so and are never used...) * However, as Ice accepts some exceptions for linage, please tag the license as GPLv2 with exceptions. Okay. == This package (ice) is APPROVED by me == Please follow the procedure according to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from Get a Fedora Account. At a point a mail should be sent to sponsor members which notifies that you need a sponsor (at the stage, please also write on this bug for confirmation that you requested for sponsorship) Then I will sponsor you. If you want to import this package into Fedora 7, you also have to look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT (after once you rebuilt this package on Fedora rebuilding system). If you have questions, please ask me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234612] Review Request: Ice - The Internet Communications Engine (Object middleware)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Ice - The Internet Communications Engine (Object middleware) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=234612 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 09:40 EST --- (In reply to comment #53) * However, as Ice accepts some exceptions for linage, please tag the license as GPLv2 with exceptions. s/linage/linkage/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239936] Review Request: oyranos - The Oyranos Colour Management System (CMS)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: oyranos - The Oyranos Colour Management System (CMS) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=239936 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 09:42 EST --- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 249522] Review Request: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced 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: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249522 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Component|4Suite |Package Review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 249522] Review Request: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced 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: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249522 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Component|Package Review |4Suite --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 09:44 EST --- Hi, (In reply to comment #63) i disagree that SE-PostgreSQL is thought of as a replacement of PostgreSQL. furthermore, that concern could be addressed with adding sufficient warning to SE-PostgreSQL's %description. How many people read the %description parts, guys? i think the reasonable conclusion is that SE-PostgreSQL is broken somewhere and to switch back to PostgreSQL. As I wrote before, this means a downtime , and usually There Is No Time For Downtime. Fedora is on the leading edge of SELinux development, and thus is a perfect place to test this extension of PostgreSQL. Fedora is not the place to test a replacement for PostgreSQL. We are talking about a database server guys, not a browser, or text editor, or such. Regards, Devrim -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253434] Review Request: eclipse-rpm-editor - RPM Specfile editor for Eclipse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eclipse-rpm-editor - RPM Specfile editor for Eclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253434 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 09:24 EST --- The plugin will still function without the patched rpmlint, though, right? If so, I'm willing to approve this. Otherwise, we can hold off until Ville gets time to look at the rpmlint situation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 249522] Review Request: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced 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: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249522 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 09:29 EST --- (In reply to comment #63) I agree with rob. People will think postgreSQL and SE-PostgreSQL is different. People who want postgreSQL usally installs usual postgreSQL. People who install SE-PostgreSQL will know SE-PostgreSQL have different feature. furthermore, that concern could be addressed with adding sufficient warning to SE-PostgreSQL's %description. I agree this too, to avoid misunderstanding. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 249522] Review Request: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced 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: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249522 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 10:18 EST --- (In reply to comment #66) It is not a generic situation to replace a significant working system by an unknown package, without enough evaluation and verification. Especially, if it is required to minimize its downtime. In addition, we are understanding that Fedora project positively fetch many advanced and experimental features. These experimences are leveraged in Red Hat Enterprise Linux and feedbacked to the later versions of Fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 254209] 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/show_bug.cgi?id=254209 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 11:14 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) Okay, after checked the dlname, modules are dlopen'ed with '*.so.X' dlname='libgw-guile-gw-glib.so.0' dlname='libgw-guile-standard.so.0' Would you tell me where these modules are dlopen'ed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 249365] Review Request: alpine - UW Alpine mail user agent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: alpine - UW Alpine mail user agent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249365 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 11:15 EST --- While this isn't waiting on me, I just thought I'd chime in and say that yes, I'm willing to co-maintain. :-) *moves on to other open bugs* -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 249522] Review Request: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced 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: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249522 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 11:19 EST --- I like to return the topic about package reviewing. At the point of Comment #57, I added Requires: tag with postgresql-server instead of Conflicts: tag, and several binaries are renamed with se prefix or .sepgsql postfix. %define _unpackaged_files_terminate_build 0 is removed, and all unnecessary files became to be removed during %install section. These fixes are reflecting to the above comments. Thanks, -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 249059] Review Request: wdaemon - hotplug helper for wacom x.org driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wdaemon - hotplug helper for wacom x.org driver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249059 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 11:42 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: wdaemon Short Description: x.org hotplug helper for Wacom tablets Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-6 F-7 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253858] Review Request: system-config-vsftpd - graphical utility for administrating vsftpd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: system-config-vsftpd - graphical utility for administrating vsftpd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253858 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 11:58 EST --- Random comments: - it crashes when you don't have vsftpd installed - any line of the sort: syslog = commands.getoutput( 'cat /var/log/messages''* | grep vsftpd' ) seems *very wrong* - help-about doesn't do anything -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 249059] Review Request: wdaemon - hotplug helper for wacom x.org driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wdaemon - hotplug helper for wacom x.org driver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249059 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 12:04 EST --- fixing the 'owners' field and the short description to match the BZ#'s -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 249059] Review Request: wdaemon - hotplug helper for wacom x.org driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wdaemon - hotplug helper for wacom x.org driver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249059 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 12:03 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: wdaemon Short Description: hotplug helper for wacom x.org driver Owners: arozansk Branches: FC-6 F-7 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234612] Review Request: Ice - The Internet Communications Engine (Object middleware)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: Ice - The Internet Communications Engine (Object
middleware)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=234612
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 12:13 EST ---
(In reply to comment #53)
I checked the left 917 files manually and they
are all okay (some of them are demo files or so
and are never used...)
Wow! I'm impressed ... thanks for that, and for accepting the package.
I made the license change. Meanwhile, I only just now noticed that I'd been
putting the Ruby stuff into a subdirectory where it didn't actually work, so I
fixed that.
On rereading the Ruby packaging guidelines, I also added Provides: Ruby(Ice) =
%{version} to the ruby package. (According to those guidelines, the package
must also apparently be called ruby-ice, not ice-ruby, but I don't really
want to do that.)
Don't know if you want to look over these changes too ...
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/mef/extras/ice-3.2.1-9.fc7.src.rpm
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/mef/extras/ice.spec
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234612] Review Request: Ice - The Internet Communications Engine (Object middleware)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: Ice - The Internet Communications Engine (Object
middleware)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=234612
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 12:39 EST ---
(In reply to comment #55)
On rereading the Ruby packaging guidelines, I also added Provides: Ruby(Ice) =
%{version} to the ruby package. (According to those guidelines, the package
must also apparently be called ruby-ice, not ice-ruby, but I don't
really
want to do that.)
Well, actually I don't know correctly what this part of Ruby packaging
guidelines tries to say.
IMO we can follow python module naming guideline:
-
Addon Packages (python modules)
Packages of python modules (thus they rely on python as a parent) use a slightly
different naming scheme. They should take into account the upstream name of the
python module. This makes a package name format of python-$NAME. When in doubt,
use the name of the module that you type to import it in a script.
--
For this package, the parent package of ice-ruby is surely
ice, so the name should be ice-ruby, not ruby-ice IMO. Also
I am not sure whether ice-ruby should provide ruby(Ice) = 1.8
(although it should be safe that ice-ruby provides it).
Anyway please follow the procedure written on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234490] Review Request: VDrift - VDrift is a cross-platform, open source driving/drift racing simulation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: VDrift - VDrift is a cross-platform, open source driving/drift racing simulation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=234490 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 12:53 EST --- Nothing on the forum, and no new releases. Last I checked, they had some cars ready but no real progress, at least that I could see, on tracks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234490] Review Request: VDrift - VDrift is a cross-platform, open source driving/drift racing simulation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: VDrift - VDrift is a cross-platform, open source driving/drift racing simulation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=234490 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 13:01 EST --- Bummer. Have you tried pinging them? Can you get those cars from CVS? If we were to use whats available now, how many tracks would we have? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234490] Review Request: VDrift - VDrift is a cross-platform, open source driving/drift racing simulation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: VDrift - VDrift is a cross-platform, open source driving/drift racing simulation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=234490 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 13:09 EST --- I'll ping, and ask the cvs question. I'd do it now, but my forum account got locked out due to a fat-fingered password. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 251545] Review Request: setroubleshoot-plugins - analysis plugins for setroubleshoot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: setroubleshoot-plugins - analysis plugins for setroubleshoot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251545 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 13:26 EST --- setroubleshoot-plugins-1.10.1-1.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 258681] Review Request: bluez-firmware - Bluetooth firmware distributed by the BlueZ project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bluez-firmware - Bluetooth firmware distributed by the BlueZ project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=258681 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 13:26 EST --- Changed the spec to match your suggestions, thanks. New files: Spec URL: http://wwoods.fedorapeople.org/review/bluez-firmware.spec SRPM URL: http://wwoods.fedorapeople.org/review/bluez-firmware-1.2-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 254088] Review Request: b43-fwcutter - firmware cutter which outputs new format used by b43 drivers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: b43-fwcutter - firmware cutter which outputs new format used by b43 drivers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254088 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 13:26 EST --- b43-fwcutter-008-1.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 248692] Review Request: R-rlecuyer - R interface to RNG with multiple streams
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: R-rlecuyer - R interface to RNG with multiple streams https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=248692 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 13:49 EST --- There is the newest version with the correct license tag : SPEC http://www.pingoured.fr/public/RPM/R-rlecuyer/R-rlecuyer.spec SRPM http://www.pingoured.fr/public/RPM/R-rlecuyer/R-rlecuyer-0.1-2.fc6.src.rpm ++ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 248681] Review Request: R-affyio -Tools for parsing Affymetrix data 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: R-affyio -Tools for parsing Affymetrix data files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=248681 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 14:00 EST --- Changed the license tag SPEC http://www.pingoured.fr/public/RPM/R-affyio/R-affyio.spec SRPM http://www.pingoured.fr/public/RPM/R-affyio/R-affyio-1.4.1-2.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 248679] Review Request: R-hgu95av2probe - Probe sequence data for microarrays of type hgu95av2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: R-hgu95av2probe - Probe sequence data for microarrays of type hgu95av2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=248679 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 14:08 EST --- Changed the license tag SPEC http://www.pingoured.fr/public/RPM/R-hgu95av2probe/R-hgu95av2probe.spec SRPM http://www.pingoured.fr/public/RPM/R-hgu95av2probe/R-hgu95av2probe-1.16.3-2.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 248678] Review Request: R-BSgenome.Dmelanogaster.FlyBase.r51 - osophila melanogaster genome (FlyBase r5.1)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: R-BSgenome.Dmelanogaster.FlyBase.r51 - osophila melanogaster genome (FlyBase r5.1) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=248678 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 14:26 EST --- Changed in the license tag SPEC http://www.pingoured.fr/public/RPM/R-BSgenome.Dmelanogaster.FlyBase.r51/R-BSgenome.Dmelanogaster.FlyBase.r51.spec SRPM http://www.pingoured.fr/public/RPM/R-BSgenome.Dmelanogaster.FlyBase.r51/R-BSgenome.Dmelanogaster.FlyBase.r51-1.2.0-2.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247699] Review Request: R-BufferedMatrixMethods - Microarray Data related methods that utlize BufferedMatrix
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: R-BufferedMatrixMethods - Microarray Data related methods that utlize BufferedMatrix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=247699 Bug 247699 depends on bug 246539, which changed state. Bug 246539 Summary: Review Request: R-BufferedMatrix - A matrix data storage object held in temporary files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=246539 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||ERRATA --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 14:26 EST --- Changed in the license tag SPEC http://www.pingoured.fr/public/RPM/R-BufferedMatrixMethods/R-BufferedMatrixMethods.spec SRPM http://www.pingoured.fr/public/RPM/R-BufferedMatrixMethods/R-BufferedMatrixMethods-1.0.0-5.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 244237] Review Request: R-pls - Multivariate regression by PLSR and PCR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: R-pls - Multivariate regression by PLSR and PCR https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=244237 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 14:31 EST --- Changed in the license tag SPEC http://www.pingoured.fr/public/RPM/R-pls/R-pls.spec SRPM http://www.pingoured.fr/public/RPM/R-pls/R-pls-2.0-4.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 264641] New: Review Request: libconfig - simple library for manipulating structured configuration files
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/show_bug.cgi?id=264641 Summary: Review Request: libconfig - simple library for manipulating structured configuration files Product: Fedora Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://znark.com/fedora/libconfig.spec SRPM URL: http://znark.com/fedora/libconfig-1.1.3-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: libconfig is a simple library for manipulating structured configuration files. This file format is more compact and more readable than XML. And unlike XML, it is type-aware, so it is not necessary to do string parsing in application code. Libconfig is very compact — just 25K for the stripped C shared library (one-fifth the size of the expat XML parser library) and 39K for the stripped C++ shared library. This makes it well-suited for memory-constrained systems like handheld devices. The library includes bindings for both the C and C++ languages. It works on POSIX-compliant UNIX systems (GNU/Linux, Mac OS X, Solaris, FreeBSD) and Windows (2000, XP and later). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 248677] Review Request: R-BSgenome.Celegans.UCSC.ce2 - BSgenome.Celegans.UCSC.ce2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: R-BSgenome.Celegans.UCSC.ce2 - BSgenome.Celegans.UCSC.ce2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=248677 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 14:45 EST --- Changed the license tag SPEC http://www.pingoured.fr/public/RPM/R-BSgenome.Celegans.UCSC.ce2/R-BSgenome.Celegans.UCSC.ce2.spec SRPM http://www.pingoured.fr/public/RPM/R-BSgenome.Celegans.UCSC.ce2/R-BSgenome.Celegans.UCSC.ce2-1.2.0-2.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225365] Review Request: perl-File-Next - File-finding iterator
Please 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-File-Next - File-finding iterator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225365 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 14:53 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-File-Next New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225368] Review Request: ack - Grep-like text finder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ack - Grep-like text finder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225368 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 14:53 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: ack New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241079] Review Request: R-DynDoc-1.14.0 - Functions for dynamic documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: R-DynDoc-1.14.0 - Functions for dynamic documents https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241079 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 14:54 EST --- Changed the license tag SPEC http://www.pingoured.fr/public/RPM/R-Dyndoc/R-DynDoc.spec SRPM http://www.pingoured.fr/public/RPM/R-Dyndoc/R-DynDoc-1.14.0-5.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234490] Review Request: VDrift - VDrift is a cross-platform, open source driving/drift racing simulation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: VDrift - VDrift is a cross-platform, open source driving/drift racing simulation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=234490 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 15:45 EST --- From upstream: --- No new release yet, and no new GPL cars/tracks yet. We're working on something though. It will probably be a while yet before another release. --- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 249059] Review Request: wdaemon - hotplug helper for wacom x.org driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wdaemon - hotplug helper for wacom x.org driver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249059 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 15:59 EST --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225368] Review Request: ack - Grep-like text finder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ack - Grep-like text finder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225368 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225365] Review Request: perl-File-Next - File-finding iterator
Please 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-File-Next - File-finding iterator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225365 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253858] Review Request: system-config-vsftpd - graphical utility for administrating vsftpd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: system-config-vsftpd - graphical utility for administrating vsftpd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253858 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 251824] Review Request: maniadrive - 3D stunt driving game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: maniadrive - 3D stunt driving game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251824
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 16:18 EST ---
* rpmlint:
W: maniadrive no-documentation
W: maniadrive-track-editor no-documentation
W: raydium no-documentation
W: raydium-devel no-documentation
Acceptable as docs are in the data package. See additional rpmlint warnings
below.
* Package named correctly: Yes
* Patches named correctly: Yes
* Spec file named correctly: Yes
* Licence(s) acceptable: Yes
* Licence field matches: Yes
* Licence file installed: No
* Spec file in American English: Yes
* Source matches upstream: Yes
* Locales use %find_lang: N/A
* Contains %clean: Yes
* %install contain rm -rf %{buildroot} or similar: Yes
* Specfile legible: Yes
* Compiles and builds ok: NO () See below
* Calls ldconfig in %post/%postun for shlibs: Yes
* Owns directories it creates: Yes
* Duplicate files: No
* Permissions set correctly: Yes
* Consistent macro use: Yes
* Separate -doc needed (for large docs): No
* %doc affects runtime: No
* Headers and libs in -devel: Yes
* .pc files in -devel: N/A
* .so in -devel: Yes
* -devel requires base: Yes
* Contains .la files: No
* Owns files it didn't create: No
* .desktop files included and installed correctly: Yes
* Filenames valid UTF8: Yes
1. The following BRs were added in order to get it to compile:
zlib-devel
curl-devel
libxml2-devel
They might not be strictly needed though, if you see point 4.
2. The description for Raydium reads poorly and has several spelling mistakes.
A suggested corrected version is below.
Raydium is a game engine. It provides a set of functions which allow quick and
flexible games creation. There are a lot of other 3D/game engines (and some
are very complete, such as Ogre, Crystal Space, etc). Raydium does not try to
be as complex as these engines, but on the contrary is aiming at quick and
simple development.
3. Is this file useful to the end user? If so, would it be better placed in the
doc directory? It could give the rayphp location at the top for context. I'm not
familiar enough with the software to say either way.
/usr/share/raydium/rayphp/README
4. Additional rpmlint warnings.
W: raydium undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libraydium-1.2.so sapi_globals
...
...
W: raydium unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libraydium-1.2.so
libphp5-5.2.3.so
W: raydium unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libraydium-1.2.so
/usr/lib/libvorbis.so.0
W: raydium unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libraydium-1.2.so
/usr/lib/libogg.so.0
W: raydium unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libraydium-1.2.so
/lib/libresolv.so.2
W: raydium unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libraydium-1.2.so
/lib/libcrypt.so.1
W: raydium unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libraydium-1.2.so
/lib/libz.so.1
W: raydium unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libraydium-1.2.so
/usr/lib/libcurl.so.4
W: raydium unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libraydium-1.2.so
/usr/lib/libxml2.so.2
Obviously not a blocker, but you might want to check if these can be cleaned up
easily enough.
5. I read a packaging doc on the wiki that recommended against using macros in
patch names, but of course I can't find it now. :)
6. I think raydium-devel may need dependencies on
freealut-devel
libvorbis-devel
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 255361] Review Request: cbios - A third party BIOS compatible with the MSX BIOS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cbios - A third party BIOS compatible with the MSX BIOS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=255361 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 255381] Review Request: openmsx - An emulator for the MSX home computer 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: openmsx - An emulator for the MSX home computer system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=255381 Bug 255381 depends on bug 255361, which changed state. Bug 255361 Summary: Review Request: cbios - A third party BIOS compatible with the MSX BIOS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=255361 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 265381] New: Review Request: python-GnuPGInterface - A Python module to interface with GnuPG
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/show_bug.cgi?id=265381 Summary: Review Request: python-GnuPGInterface - A Python module to interface with GnuPG Product: Fedora Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/python-GnuPGInterface.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/python-GnuPGInterface-0.3.2-1.src.rpm Description: GnuPGInterface is a Python module to interface with GnuPG. It concentrates on interacting with GnuPG via filehandles, providing access to control GnuPG via versatile and extensible means. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 251826] Review Request: maniadrive-music - Replacement soundtrack for the non free ManiaDrive soundtrack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: maniadrive-music - Replacement soundtrack for the non free ManiaDrive soundtrack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251826 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 16:59 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) 1. I think the license field should be: CC-BY and Free Art and GPL+ I couldn't find anything that refers to a specific GPL version and according to the licensing page, GPL is not a valid short form. Agreed. 2. According to the guidelines: 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. So I have doubts that the text of the licenses should be included in the README. I see, well for the CC licenses, atleast a link to the webpage with the shortform must be included, as the CC licenses have this clause: * For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page. I thought it would be better to just include the shortform, for offline reference. More in general I think the guideline you quote doesn't apply here, as that is meant for packages where upstream distributes the sources in bundled form, like tar or zip file. In this case there is a direct link on the music site webpage to the .ogg file and on this same page a link to the license, so in a sense the license and music files are bundled too, just like when they are in a zip file, but now one needs to do some more work to get both parts of the bundle. In the end either way is fine with me though, so if you think its better to rip out the license texts and only provide links to the relevant CC license short forms, then I'll do that. So please let me know which one it will be and then I'll prepare a new release. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 265381] Review Request: python-GnuPGInterface - A Python module to interface with GnuPG
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-GnuPGInterface - A Python module to interface with GnuPG https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=265381 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 17:04 EST --- This package is required to update duplicity to 0.4.3, because it's a new run-time dependency. As Mike is interested in duplicity 0.4.3, he is maybe interested in reviewing this requirement, too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 251826] Review Request: maniadrive-music - Replacement soundtrack for the non free ManiaDrive soundtrack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: maniadrive-music - Replacement soundtrack for the non free ManiaDrive soundtrack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251826 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 17:18 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) I thought it would be better to just include the shortform, for offline reference. It actually occurred to me after the posting, that inclusion of the license might be a clause so I read it and noticed the recommendation to link to the license but that only served to muddy things further :-) In the end either way is fine with me though, so if you think its better to rip out the license texts and only provide links to the relevant CC license short forms, then I'll do that. So please let me know which one it will be and then I'll prepare a new release. Well I think you made a valid point regarding the bundling of the license, ie the content and the license are available as direct links and coupled with the fact I didn't have strong convictions either way, only doubts, I think it's fine to leave as-is. Assuming the license field is fixed before import, the package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 251824] Review Request: maniadrive - 3D stunt driving game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: maniadrive - 3D stunt driving game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251824 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 251825] Review Request: maniadrive-data - Data files for maniadrive, a 3D stunt driving game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: maniadrive-data - Data files for maniadrive, a 3D stunt driving game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251825 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 255381] Review Request: openmsx - An emulator for the MSX home computer 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: openmsx - An emulator for the MSX home computer system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=255381 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225667] Merge Review: cryptsetup-luks
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: cryptsetup-luks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225667 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 17:31 EST --- FYI: 1. URL has changed to http://luks.endorphin.org/ 2. License is GPLv2 3. ChangeLog needs to be recoded to UTF-8 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 265661] New: Review Request: python-boto - A simple lightweight interface to Amazon Web Services
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/show_bug.cgi?id=265661 Summary: Review Request: python-boto - A simple lightweight interface to Amazon Web Services Product: Fedora Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/python-boto.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/python-boto-0.9b-1.src.rpm Description: Boto is a Python package that provides interfaces to Amazon Web Services. It supports S3 (Simple Storage Service), SQS (Simple Queue Service) via the REST API's provided by those services and EC2 (Elastic Compute Cloud) via the Query API. The goal of boto is to provide a very simple, easy to use, lightweight wrapper around the Amazon services. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225667] Merge Review: cryptsetup-luks
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: cryptsetup-luks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225667 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 17:57 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) 1. URL has changed to http://luks.endorphin.org/ 2. License is GPLv2 3. ChangeLog needs to be recoded to UTF-8 changed in cvs for devel -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 265661] Review Request: python-boto - A simple lightweight interface to Amazon Web Services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-boto - A simple lightweight interface to Amazon Web Services https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=265661 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 17:53 EST --- This package is required to update duplicity to 0.4.3, because it's a new run-time dependency. As Mike is interested in duplicity 0.4.3, he is maybe interested in reviewing this requirement, too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 265661] Review Request: python-boto - A simple lightweight interface to Amazon Web Services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-boto - A simple lightweight interface to Amazon Web Services https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=265661 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||265701 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 265381] Review Request: python-GnuPGInterface - A Python module to interface with GnuPG
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-GnuPGInterface - A Python module to interface with GnuPG https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=265381 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||265701 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 263121] Review Request: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell 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: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell
Libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=263121
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 18:04 EST ---
[ OK ] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ OK ] Spec file name must match the base package.
[ OK ] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[ OK ] Package successfully to build into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
[ CHECK ] Tested on: Mock [FC-devel]
[ OK ] Package is not relocatable.
[ OK ] Buildroot is correct
[ OK ] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license.
[ OK ] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[ OK ] License type: LGPL
[ OK ] The source package includes the text of the license(s).
[ OK ] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ SKIP ] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[ OK ] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
[ OK ] The spec file handles locales properly.
[ SKIP ] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[ Ok ] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ OK ] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ 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 ] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[ CHECK ] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ SKIP] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[ SKIP ] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[ SKIP ] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[ SKIP ] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[ CHECK ] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[ OK ] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[ SKIP ] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file.
[ OK ] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
# Quick comment
* some files which're installed in subpackage (such as README, templates/)
should be marked as %doc
* Just add a quick comment in %build stage even if there's no build action.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 242416] Review Request: texlive - Binaries for the TeX formatting 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: texlive - Binaries for the TeX formatting system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=242416
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 18:26 EST ---
I think that the descriptions could be ameliorated.
They are too detailed in my opinion, and at the same time
they don't cover what is really in the package. Moreover
some packages that are to be installed as dependencies
don't need to have such a verbose description. I propose
the following, mainly taken from the existing descriptions
of course, these are just suggestions:
%description
TeX Live is an easy way to get up and running with TeX.
It provides a comprehensive TeX system. The texlive package
contains many binaries and scripts, including tex.
Usually, TeX is used in conjunction with a higher level formatting
package like LaTeX or PlainTeX, since TeX by itself is not very
user-friendly.
Install texlive if you want to use the TeX text formatting system. Consider
to install texlive-latex (a higher level formatting package which provides
an easier-to-use interface for TeX).
The TeX documentation is located in the texlive-doc package.
%description afm
texlive-afm provides afm2tfm, a converter for PostScript font metric
files.
%description dvips
Dvips converts .dvi files to PostScript(TM) format.
%description fonts
This package contains programs required to generate font files
for the TeX system. The kpathsea related programs are also
in this package, they are needed in order to find out a file
in the TeX file tree.
%description latex
LaTeX is a front end for the TeX text formatting system. Easier to
use than TeX. LaTeX is essentially a set of TeX macros which provide
convenient, predefined document formats for users. It also allows to
compile LaTeX files directly to PDF format.
The TeX documentation is located in the texlive-doc package.
%description xdvi
Xdvi allows you to preview .dvi files on an X Window System.
It seems to me that not removing t1lib is wrong, since
reautoconf has already been done:
# t1lib: use t1lib.ac and withenable.ac if reautoconf
Why not use the external autoconf-2.13?
Most the Requires should certainly be %{version}-%{release}
That way, if there is a fix that needs to be in 2 dependent
subpackages and if the user updates only one of the 2,
the other will be dragged in. Obviously not true for the
*-errata subpackages, but at least for all the subpackages from
the same source package.
There is an Obsoletes for tetex-tex4ht remaining.
There are BuildRequires within subpackages. This is not
wrong, but in my opinion it is easier to follow if all
the BuildRequires are in the beginning.
You should remove
--add-category Application \
disdvi should certainly be in dviutils (if at all in texlive)
and I guess it is the same for dvipng.
maybe xelatex would better be in texlive-latex?
files/directories installed in usr/share/texmf/texconfig
are not usefull (except for tcfmgr*), they are only
useful when using the dialog from texlive.
usr/share/texmf/web2c/*.pool are also in texlive-texmf.
and mf.pool is in 2 packages.
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_texmf_var}
is redundant
Maybe xetex and context related binaries (and similar in texmf)
could be in separate packages, but it is not completely obvious
either. What could be interesting, however, would be to group
the utilities that are context related and those that are
xetex related.
Maybe you could use my patch from Comment #28?
The timestamps are not kept during install. In general doing
make INSTALL='install -p' is sufficient but in that case it
may need some testing.
Also in the explicit install call of noarch files, you could
add -p, like in
install -p -m 644 COPYRIGHT ChangeLog %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/texmf/doc/mendexk
after the iconv you can use
touch -r COPYRIGHT.jis %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/texmf/doc/mendexk/COPYRIGHT.jis
I don't think keeping the timestamps that are not easily kept
would be a blocker for the review.
Maybe
%dir %{_texmf_var}
could be added too?
I haven't checked texlive-texmf*, but I think that there should
be something like
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/texmf
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/texmf/web2c
and maybe, if you feel like going through
%verify(not md5 size mtime) %config(missingok,noreplace)
for the config files that also are in /usr/share/texmf
It also seems to me that mktex.opt should be in
%{_sysconfdir}/texmf/web2c %config(noreplace).
Same for mktexdir.opt
vfontmap.sample should certainly be in a doc directory.
You could add a proper shebang to texmfstart, or add a
Requires: ruby
The split between texlive-fonts and texlive is not very
obvious to me. For example kpsewhere is in texlive while
most of the kpe* programs are in -fonts. Also programs
like pfb2pfa tftopl mptopdf and omega related font programs
are in texlive while
[Bug 242416] Review Request: texlive - Binaries for the TeX formatting 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: texlive - Binaries for the TeX formatting system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=242416
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 18:38 EST ---
Also i think that it would be better to install the file
xdvi48x48.png in
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/xdvi.png
use in the .desktop file
Icon=xdvi
And run the appropriate pre/post scripts.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 240497] Review Request: R-multtest 1.14.0 - Resampling-based multiple hypothesis testing 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: R-multtest 1.14.0 - Resampling-based multiple hypothesis testing library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=240497 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 18:35 EST --- Changed the license tag SPEC http://www.pingoured.fr/public/RPM/R-multtest/R-multtest.spec SRPM http://www.pingoured.fr/public/RPM/R-multtest/R-multtest-1.14.0-6.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 249522] Review Request: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced 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: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249522 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 18:39 EST --- Looks pretty good. What about the port? Is that still the same as postgresql server? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 263121] Review Request: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell 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: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=263121 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 18:42 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) # Quick comment * some files which're installed in subpackage (such as README, templates/) should be marked as %doc Actually it is simple to say but it complicates usage as README and templates may come from different folders from the same subpackage. Each folder entails a particular set of files and images. The latter forms a what so called technology. Moving files from right to left will mix up technology descriptions. I believe it's a bad idea to add it as %doc * Just add a quick comment in %build stage even if there's no build action. I thought having marked the package as noarch made it explicit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 265841] New: Review Request: blcr - Berkeley Lab Checkpoint/Restart for Linux
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/show_bug.cgi?id=265841
Summary: Review Request: blcr - Berkeley Lab Checkpoint/Restart
for Linux
Product: Fedora
Version: devel
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Spec URL: https://nbecker.dyndns.org/RPM/blcr-0.6.0_b7-2.spec
SRPM URL: https://nbecker.dyndns.org/RPM/blcr-0.6.0_b7-2.src.rpm
Description: Berkeley Lab Checkpoint/Restart for Linux (BLCR)
This package implements system-level checkpointing of scientific applications
in a manner suitable for implementing preemption, migration and fault recovery
by a batch scheduler.
BLCR includes documented interfaces for a cooperating applications or
libraries to implement extensions to the checkpoint system, such as
consistent checkpointing of distributed MPI applications.
Using this package with an appropriate MPI implementation, the vast majority
of scientific applications which use MPI for communucation on Linux clusters
are checkpointable without any modifications to the application source code.
You must also install the %{name}-libs package and a %{name}-modules_* package
matching your kernel version.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 254091] Review Request: libsvm - A Library for Support Vector Machines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libsvm - A Library for Support Vector Machines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254091 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 249522] Review Request: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced 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: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249522 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 19:44 EST --- (In reply to comment #70) Looks pretty good. What about the port? Is that still the same as postgresql server? Yes. We have to stop postgresql server before running sepostgresql, and vice versa. I think it should be same in default, because we have to update widespread database applications to connect sepostgresql if it use an alternative port. In addition, it can be overwritten with /etc/sysconfig/sepostgresql, if necessary. Thanks, -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253813] Package Review: cjkunifonts (split from fonts-chinese)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Package Review: cjkunifonts (split from fonts-chinese) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253813 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 19:59 EST --- CID files had been updated. The symlinks shouldn't with 'ghost' to be loaded to system from temp dir. http://cchance.fedorapeople.org/20070829_cjkunifonts/cjkunifonts.spec http://cchance.fedorapeople.org/20070829_cjkunifonts/cjkunifonts-0.1.20060928-2.fc8.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 266001] New: Review Request: webunit - Python web testing framework
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/show_bug.cgi?id=266001 Summary: Review Request: webunit - Python web testing framework Product: Fedora Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit.spec SRPM URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/webunit-0.4-1.src.rpm Description: A framework for performing client-side tests of web applications, based on PyUnit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 266001] Review Request: webunit - Python web testing framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: webunit - Python web testing framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=266001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225667] Merge Review: cryptsetup-luks
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: cryptsetup-luks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225667
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 22:11 EST ---
Sorry again for the delay.
Minor nitpick: any reason for not using %{?_smp_mflags} on your make ?
Do you plan to rename this over to cryptsetup?
I see no further blockers, so this package is APPROVED.
Feel free to close this rawhide.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253813] Package Review: cjkunifonts (split from fonts-chinese)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Package Review: cjkunifonts (split from fonts-chinese)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253813
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 22:56 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=180241)
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=180241action=view)
cjkunifonts.spec-5.patch
The changelog entries for each revision should document the changes too:
- drop requires for scriptlets
- %{cidmapdir} is owned by ghostscript
(The package is looking good now. I think we're nearly there.:)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253469] Review Request: opyum - Offline package installation and update tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: opyum - Offline package installation and update tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253469 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 23:57 EST --- ok let it be as it is BR: python Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPMs. + source files match upstream. 299873e5d0b4d762a261edb6b9bc62e6 opyum-0.0.2.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 present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + no -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. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + gtk-update-icon-cache scriptlets are used. + Desktop files handled correctly. + Requires: /bin/bash /usr/bin/python hicolor-icon-theme pirut = 1.3.11 + GUI APP. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 265661] Review Request: python-boto - A simple lightweight interface to Amazon Web Services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-boto - A simple lightweight interface to Amazon Web Services https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=265661 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-30 00:10 EST --- I see python egg errors when I try to build this page locally: error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/boto-0.9b-py2.5.egg-info/PKG-INFO /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/boto-0.9b-py2.5.egg-info/SOURCES.txt /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/boto-0.9b-py2.5.egg-info/dependency_links.txt /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/boto-0.9b-py2.5.egg-info/top_level.txt I was trying it w/rpmbuild - I'll give it a whirl with mock in a second, too. I take it you didn't see this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 265661] Review Request: python-boto - A simple lightweight interface to Amazon Web Services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-boto - A simple lightweight interface to Amazon Web Services https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=265661 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-30 00:24 EST --- Ah, looks like it is something hosed locally for me. It builds in mock just fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253813] Package Review: cjkunifonts (split from fonts-chinese)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Package Review: cjkunifonts (split from fonts-chinese) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253813 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-30 00:50 EST --- http://cchance.fedorapeople.org/20070829_cjkunifonts/cjkunifonts.spec http://cchance.fedorapeople.org/20070829_cjkunifonts/cjkunifonts-0.1.20060928-3.fc8.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253813] Package Review: cjkunifonts (split from fonts-chinese)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Package Review: cjkunifonts (split from fonts-chinese) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253813 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-30 01:37 EST --- Thanks, Caius! Looks good to me now. :) Package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
