[Bug 190878] Review Request: childplay_plugins - Plugins for childsplay (educational games for young children)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: childplay_plugins - Plugins for childsplay (educational games for young children) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190878 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 01:54 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) Since rawhide is borked right now I haven't been able to test mock builds, which is also how I verify the BR: on packages. I'll get to that as soon as rawhide is working again. You know you can use mock with an FC5 root rather than rawhide to do this, right? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191356] Review Request: python-clientform - Client-side HTML form handling
Please 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-clientform - Client-side HTML form handling https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191356 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189783] Review Request: e17: The enlightenment DR17 window manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: e17: The enlightenment DR17 window manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189783 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 02:37 EST --- Any progress on this package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 166427] Review Request: inform - Compiler for Z-machine story 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: inform - Compiler for Z-machine story files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166427 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 03:02 EST --- Hmm, Couldn't he make up a License (using an OSI one as starting point) which is fully OSI except that it doesn't allow changing the Inform language? Which then brings us to the next question, would such a License be open enough for Fedora? Otherwise you can always package it for the repo that must not be named. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191208] Review Request: The Ipe extensible drawing editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: The Ipe extensible drawing editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191208 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 03:07 EST --- Update, fix the Release tag: Spec URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/ipe.spec SRPM URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/ipe-6.0-0.1.pre26.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189268] Review Request: xscreensaver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xscreensaver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189268 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 03:07 EST --- Hello, Ray and Jamie; I intended to use xscreensaver-4.24-2 until the formal xscreensaver version 5 is released. The rpm versioned 4.99-XX by me is for the preparation and discussion to release version 5. However, I decided that I have to fix several bugs on 4.24-2 before moving xscreensaver to extras. I added the minimum fixes I thought to 4.24-2, removed rpmlint complaint and repackaged to 4.24-3 (4.24-4 and above is erased) , put on the same URL. I think this rpm (4.24-3) can be released in extras soon. Then What should I do? Ray, I have read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors, however, am I formally sponcered by you? If so, I will create fedora account and go ahead. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189268] Review Request: xscreensaver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xscreensaver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189268 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #128002|0 |1 is obsolete|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189268] Review Request: xscreensaver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xscreensaver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189268 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #128002|0 |1 is patch|| Attachment #128002|1 |0 is obsolete|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189268] Review Request: xscreensaver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xscreensaver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189268 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #128062|0 |1 is obsolete|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190876] Review Request: childplay
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: childplay https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190876 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 09:09 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) I just discovered that ownership of /usr/share/assetml is causing minor problems during the uninstall process. If you install a sound package, such as gcompris-sound-en, then try to uninstall childsplay, the unisntall fails with: $ sudo rpm -e childsplay childsplay_plugins error: Failed dependencies: /usr/share/assetml is needed by (installed) gcompris-sound-en-7.4-9.fc6.i386 This is because /usr/share/assetml is owned by childsplay, but not by gcompris-sounds. Either: 1) make the gcompris sound package own /usr/share/assetml 2) remove the ownership of /usr/share/assetml from childsplay 3) Remove all ownership of /usr/share/assetml from everything except libassetml and make all assetml sound packages (including childsplay) require libassetml. 4) Ignore the errors since it affects rpm but not yum. #3 could be modified so that there is a libassetml-fs package that provides /usr/share/assetml, which is required by gcompris-sound-*, childsplay, etc. This is intented behaviour, since you no longer have any need for gcompris-sound-en you should uninstall it as well. My idea behind this is as follows: -one or more applications can use assetml format data, they Provide /usr/share/assetml (In the case of childsplay directyl, because it has a build in (python) assetml parser, in the case of gcompris through libassetml whihc gcompris Requires). -assetml data packages Require: /usr/share/assetml -if all users of assetml data get uninstalled, then the assetml data packages must be uninstalled too, since they Require: /usr/share/assetml which then no longer is provided. -This having to remove assetml data packages when tehre are no more assetml data users is imho a feature not a bug :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189197] Review Request: gtk2hs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtk2hs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189197 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 09:13 EST --- I think you're right. But let's keep -mozembed separate since mozilla-devel is a very big dep. http://people.redhat.com/petersen/extras/gtk2hs.spec http://people.redhat.com/petersen/extras/gtk2hs-0.9.10-1.src.rpm (building now...) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 186892] Review Request: conntrack - Tool to manipulate netfilter connection tracking table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: conntrack - Tool to manipulate netfilter connection tracking table https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186892 Bug 186892 depends on bug 186811, which changed state. Bug 186811 Summary: Review Request: libnfnetlink - Netfilter netlink userspace library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186811 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188369 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 09:20 EST --- Thank's now it works. Must the file called ctapi-cyberjack-2.0.8-13.src.rpm or ctapi-cyberjack.src.rpm? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191088] Review Request: mlsutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mlsutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191088 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 09:54 EST --- Sorry about that moved them to: Spec URL: ftp://people.redhat.com/~dwalsh/SELinux/mlsutils.spec SRPM URL: ftp://people.redhat.com/~dwalsh/SELinux/mlsutils-1.1-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188138] Review Request: mod_auth_ntlm_winbind - NTLM authentication for the Apache web server using winbind daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mod_auth_ntlm_winbind - NTLM authentication for the Apache web server using winbind daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188138 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 09:57 EST --- Upgrade to the latest SVN (compatibility with Apache 2.2) New SPEC: http://dmitry.butskoy.name/mod_auth_ntlm_winbind/mod_auth_ntlm_winbind.spec New SRPM: http://dmitry.butskoy.name/mod_auth_ntlm_winbind/mod_auth_ntlm_winbind-20060510-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 186892] Review Request: conntrack - Tool to manipulate netfilter connection tracking table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: conntrack - Tool to manipulate netfilter connection tracking table https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186892 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 09:57 EST --- Since 186811 has been approved now, any objections to this package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190992] Review Request: gpar2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gpar2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190992 Bug 190992 depends on bug 190991, which changed state. Bug 190991 Summary: Review Request: libpar2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190991 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||DEFERRED Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188369 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 10:17 EST --- AFAIK the SRPM filename doesn't matter I just use the filename as generated by rpmbuild -bs -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191350] Review Request: perl-Spreadsheet-ParseExcel
Please 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-Spreadsheet-ParseExcel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191350 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 10:20 EST --- Yes, this is sufficient. However, until the actual sources indicate the license, I would make sure that the actual message from the author is available either in the package or attached to this bugzilla ticket so that there's no room for confusion. Are you still requesting that reviews be held off? I think it might be reasonable to disable thie additional functionality that requires the perl-Unicode-Map modifications until those are in. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190878] Review Request: childplay_plugins - Plugins for childsplay (educational games for young children)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: childplay_plugins - Plugins for childsplay
(educational games for young children)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190878
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #128837|0 |1
is obsolete||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 09:40 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=128885)
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128885action=view)
improved specfile
(In reply to comment #4)
MUSTFIX
===
* Source0: url points to the Sourceforge mirror selection page. Better
to use dl.sourceforge.net or hardcode a mirror so that tools like
spectool can be used to download the source files. (the same is true for
childsplay, which I failed to notice earlier)
Fixed
* 'yum remove childsplay childsplay_plugins' left two dangling directories
on the filesystem:
- /usr/share/childsplay/plugins
- /usr/share/childsplay/Data/icons
This is because yum removed childsplay before childsplay_plugins, and since
the directories weren't empty when childsplay was removed, and they weren't
owned by childsplay_plugins, they got left behind.
I've added:
Requires(postun): /usr/share/childsplay/plugins
Requires(postun): /usr/share/childsplay/Data/icons
Which should enforce proper uninstall order.
SHOULD
==
* Even though upstream uses an underscore in the name, I think it's better
to use a dash '-' here.
Won't fix, this means that %{name} can't be used in the Source URL, and that I
need to pass -n to %setup, etc. Now if upstreams name was really ugly I would
find that worth the trouble but for this I would rather be consistent with what
upstream uses.
* Request that upstream include the GPL license file in the tarball as they
already do for the base childsplay package.
Will do.
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 10:21 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=128892)
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128892action=view)
improved specfile
(In reply to comment #4)
MUSTFIX
===
* Source0: url points to the Sourceforge mirror selection page. Better
to use dl.sourceforge.net or hardcode a mirror so that tools like
spectool can be used to download the source files. (the same is true for
childsplay, which I failed to notice earlier)
Fixed
* 'yum remove childsplay childsplay_plugins' left two dangling directories
on the filesystem:
- /usr/share/childsplay/plugins
- /usr/share/childsplay/Data/icons
This is because yum removed childsplay before childsplay_plugins, and since
the directories weren't empty when childsplay was removed, and they weren't
owned by childsplay_plugins, they got left behind.
I've added:
Requires(postun): /usr/share/childsplay/plugins
Requires(postun): /usr/share/childsplay/Data/icons
Which should enforce proper uninstall order. Unfortunatly this doesn't seem to
work any bright ideas?
SHOULD
==
* Even though upstream uses an underscore in the name, I think it's better
to use a dash '-' here.
Won't fix, this means that %{name} can't be used in the Source URL, and that I
need to pass -n to %setup, etc. Now if upstreams name was really ugly I would
find that worth the trouble but for this I would rather be consistent with what
upstream uses.
* Request that upstream include the GPL license file in the tarball as they
already do for the base childsplay package.
Will do.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 165314] Review Request: kismet -- A WLAN detector, sniffer and IDS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kismet -- A WLAN detector, sniffer and IDS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165314 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 10:23 EST --- (In reply to comment #20) *These: Requires(pre): %crontabdir Requires(postun): %crontabdir ... are required resp. the best current way to express: * the directory must exist before the package places files into it. Else, when the directory is a symlink (e.g. compare /etc/init.d) in the owning package, you will create oddities. * the package must be removed before the directory. Else, the directory can not be removed because it still contains files from 'kismet' and becomes orphaned. Therefore, a strict '%crontabdir - kismet' order on installation, and 'kismet - %crontabdir' order on uninstallation is required. A plain 'Requires:' does not *guarantees* such an order. I just hit a problem in a package of mine being reviewed where I have exactly this problem (package owning dir being removed before the packages which requires the dir is). So I tried fixing it, unfortunatly this doesn't seem to help, rpm bug? See: Bug #190878 . Any help much appreciated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191350] Review Request: perl-Spreadsheet-ParseExcel
Please 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-Spreadsheet-ParseExcel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191350 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 10:36 EST --- OK - I can put the actual message from the author as an attachment. I would like to hold off on actual review until the Japanese support is figured out, partly because I think it should be there, and partly because rpm autodeps will require the additional perl modules that are only needed if set up for Japanese support, so if the Japanese support isn't there then it has dependency bloat. -=- In the following attachment, I have altered the message to hide the private e-mail address the upstream author replied from. The public e-mail address (which is in the package source) is still there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191350] Review Request: perl-Spreadsheet-ParseExcel
Please 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-Spreadsheet-ParseExcel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191350 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 10:38 EST --- Created an attachment (id=128894) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128894action=view) e-mail reply from upstream regarding license -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188445] Review Request: bootconf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bootconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 10:45 EST --- I did not look at this very closely, though I should add that grubby (command line app) and booty (python library) already support multiple boot loaders. If you would like to create a GUI for booty, that sounds like a good thing, although I am not sure if grubby needs a replacement as it already works pretty darn well. It makes good sense, IMHO, to support multiple boot loaders, otherwise the app seems to collide a bit with grubconf. Per the grubconf page, grubconf seems to be being replaced by one of the Gnome system tools for boot configuration: http://www.gnome.org/projects/gst/screenshots/boot.jpg Which looks like an upgrade to what is in FC5 today. Administration/bootloader is fairly useless as it only lets you pick which bootloader to use. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191350] Review Request: perl-Spreadsheet-ParseExcel
Please 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-Spreadsheet-ParseExcel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191350 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 11:04 EST --- Ah geez - the license is there. It's in ParseExcel.pm You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public License or the Artistic License, as specified in the Perl README file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191389] New: Review Request: oooqs2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191389 Summary: Review Request: oooqs2 Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.ausil.us/packages/oooqs2.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ausil.us/packages/oooqs2-1.0-1.fc5.src.rpm Description: OpenOffice.org Quickstarter 2 is a small systray applet for KDE. It is designed to preload OOo in memory for faster startup -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187622] Review Request: cowbell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: cowbell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187622
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 11:31 EST ---
MD5Sums:
fcf32bcf60be2ca204519192eb26bacc cowbell-0.2.7.1.tar.gz
Good:
* Source URL is canonical
* Upstream source tarball verified
* Group Tag is from the official list
* Buildroot has all required elements
* All paths begin with macros
* All directories are owned by this or other packages
* All necessary BuildRequires listed.
* All desired features are enabled
* Make succeeds even when %{_smp_mflags} is defined
* Files have appropriate permissions and owners
* Package installs and uninstalls cleanly on FC5
Bad:
* Missing scriptlets for GTK+ icon cache.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets#head-fc74f078205565f961f6d836b77c3428619c689d
* Missing Requires for mono-core gtk-sharp2
Minor:
* Why package the static lib? Pass the --disable-static flag to configure, and
remove '%{_libdir}/cowbell/libtaglibsharpglue.a' from your files.
* Unnecessary BR on gettext. This is included in the minimum build environment
in Mock.
* I would drop the ChangeLog from the docs, since the NEWS file basically
contains the same info.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190878] Review Request: childplay_plugins - Plugins for childsplay (educational games for young children)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: childplay_plugins - Plugins for childsplay (educational games for young children) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190878 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 11:40 EST --- Use of Requires(foo) to try to force package installation/erase order (as opposed to their real purpose, dependencies of the corresponding %foo _scriptlet_) is abuse. The real problem is bug 89500 which is reportedly fixed in rpm CVS; hopefully a fixed version will trickle down to FC soon. If you want the left-behind dirs problem worked around in the meantime, owning those dirs in all affected packages is one solution. Ignoring it is another; there are loads of packages in FC/FE that are affected and will be automatically fixed without any per-package kludges when the fixed rpm hits the distro repos. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188369 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188369 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 12:12 EST --- (In reply to comment #77) Thank's now it works. Must the file called ctapi-cyberjack-2.0.8-13FC5.src.rpm or ctapi-cyberjack-FC5.src.rpm simple ctapi-cyberjack.src.rpm ? I don't mean to offend, but I am surprised that by the end of this lengthy process you are asking basic questions like this. Please review the packaging guidelines and package naming guidelines carefully, as understanding them are very important to Fedora cvsextras membership. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines Warren, He was asking howot name the SRPM to pass to cvs-import.sh a bit strange question I must admit but nothing something that can be found in the guidelines AFAIK. Frank, I just saw on the cvs-commit that you committed changes to an FC-4 version, I hope your CVS branch request got handled that quickly, or did you do something else to get the other branches? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188369 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 12:20 EST --- All packages are build perfect for FC4 and FC5. Now the packages are waiting to be signed. The changes at the FC4 version are only the parts in the specfile that for FC4. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190101] Review Request: php-pear-Log
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Log https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190101 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 12:30 EST --- There are movement, see Bug #190066. The new php-pear-1.4.9 will allow us to progress. Description used, is the one provide upstream on the package.xml. I must agree it isn't very descriptive, but i don't know if it's a good idea to chance it. For %prep. This comment is from pear template.spec # XXX Source files location is missing here in pear cmd It mean pear is only use to build pearrc (source will be provide in %install) The Sanity check is use to check the job done by pear, because version 1.4.6 sometime left %[buildroot} relative path in .php file. Using pear-1.4.9 and --packagingroot (insteaed of -R) solve this problem. Of course i can remove it, but it could be useful for people who want to rebuild the RPM for another distro. %postun workaround ( ... || true) is for pear-1.4.6 which is unable to uninstall somme package. No problem with pear-1.4.9. This workaround is to avoid scriptlet (and uninstall) failure. In this case the package is uninstalled, but not unregistred in pear extension list. A solution could be to (Build)Requires pear 1.4.7 ??? Yes php-pear(PEAR) is provide by php-pear. php-pear-1.4.9 is in rawhide and in FC5-testing (see Bug #190252) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190101] Review Request: php-pear-Log
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Log https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190101 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 12:40 EST --- Description used, is the one provide upstream on the package.xml. I must agree it isn't very descriptive, but i don't know if it's a good idea to chance it. Upstream can be broken in many ways. We have to change the descriptions for Perl modules as well. Since the summary is the first thing the users will see, it must be as descriptive as possible in the 60 or so characters available. For %prep. This comment is from pear template.spec Do we have a pear template in fedora-rpmdevtools? I don't see one. [sanity check] Of course i can remove it, but it could be useful for people who want to rebuild the RPM for another distro. We don't usually worry about that, but my point is that rpmlint is our sanity checker and it's worth discussing whether it should be taught to check for things like that. Are you targeting FC4 with these packages? If not, we should just require the unbuggy php-pear version once it has been released. I'm still waiting for either a buildable rawhide or the updated php-pear package in FC5 to do a full review. If anyone can answer the question of whether the scriptlets need Requires(post) and Requires(postun) dependencies, please chip in. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190878] Review Request: childplay_plugins - Plugins for childsplay (educational games for young children)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: childplay_plugins - Plugins for childsplay (educational games for young children) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190878 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 12:40 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) childsplay Requires: childsplay_plugins and childsplay_plugins Requires: childsplay. Assuming rpm is indeed fixed todo proper erase ordening how do a specify that I want childsplay_plugins to be removed first? Ah, so you have a dependency loop, I didn't know that. It's possible that bug 89500 isn't probably going to change anything then. Preferred fix: get rid of the loop and use plain Requires. Other ideas that have worked at least sometime: http://rpm.org/max-rpm-snapshot/s1-rpm-depend-manual-dependencies.html#S3-RPM-DEPEND-FINE-GRAINED (...and owning the dirs in both packages is still an option...) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187266] Review Request: gprolog - GNU Prolog is a free Prolog compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gprolog - GNU Prolog is a free Prolog compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187266 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 12:41 EST --- I have create a new release of the RPMs. SPEC: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/gprolog/gprolog.spec SRPM: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/gprolog/gprolog-1.2.19-4.src.rpm Becouse I don't have a 64-bit engine, it will be nice, if anyone can doublecheck the use of the --libdir option suggested in comment #7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188369 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 12:54 EST --- Ups. Yes I have edit the wiki page. And ca.10 minirs later I have run cvs co ctapi-cyberjack ans all was fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188369 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 13:05 EST --- Good, that was a quick CVs branch, don't get used to it :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190878] Review Request: childplay_plugins - Plugins for childsplay (educational games for young children)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: childplay_plugins - Plugins for childsplay (educational games for young children) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #128885|0 |1 is obsolete|| Attachment #128892|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 13:06 EST --- Created an attachment (id=128902) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128902action=view) improved specfile Ah, so you have a dependency loop, I didn't know that. It's possible that bug 89500 isn't probably going to change anything then. Preferred fix: get rid of the loop and use plain Requires. Other ideas that have worked at least sometime: http://rpm.org/max-rpm-snapshot/s1-rpm-depend-manual-dependencies.html#S3-RPM-DEPEND-FINE-GRAINED (...and owning the dirs in both packages is still an option...) Quoting from the above URL: A plain Requires is enough to ensure proper installation order if there are no dependency loops present in the transaction. If dependency loops are present and cannot be avoided, packagers should strive to construct them in a way that the order of installation of the the this way interdependent packages does not matter. So owning dirs in both packages indeed seems the best idea, new -3 release doing just that attached. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188369 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 13:18 EST --- Thanks a lot for your patience with me:) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190101] Review Request: php-pear-Log
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Log https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190101 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 13:24 EST --- Do we have a pear template in fedora-rpmdevtools? I don't see one. /usr/share/pear/data/PEAR/template.spec provides by php-pear (old command : pear makerpm). or /usr/share/pear/data/PEAR_Command_Packaging/template.spec provides by php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging (Bug #185423, new command pear make-rpm-spec, soon in Extras). I think this template is not really suitable for Extras and could really by improve, but i'm not the packager for this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190878] Review Request: childplay_plugins - Plugins for childsplay (educational games for young children)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: childplay_plugins - Plugins for childsplay (educational games for young children) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190878 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 13:35 EST --- (Forgot the disclaimer: the fine grained deps max-rpm chapter was written by yours truly.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190878] Review Request: childplay_plugins - Plugins for childsplay (educational games for young children)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: childplay_plugins - Plugins for childsplay (educational games for young children) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190878 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 14:00 EST --- The multiple ownership of the dirs is fine with me. Removal of the packages no longer leaves dangling directories. All other MUST items fixed, and SHOULD items adequately addressed/explained. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191402] Review Request: mercurial-0.9
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mercurial-0.9 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191402 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 14:05 EST --- Thanks. It would be nice if the spec file installed some docs. Unfortunately, the Mercurial man pages are generated using asciidoc, which isn't packaged. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191402] Review Request: mercurial-0.9
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mercurial-0.9 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191402 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 14:08 EST --- Do you know that mercurial-0.8 is already in Extras? Did the old owner give up? Re-review is not bad, but just want to make sure you talk to the existing owner. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191402] Review Request: mercurial-0.9
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mercurial-0.9 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191402 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 14:12 EST --- No, I didn't know that! I tried to check, must have made a mistake. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 186327] Review Request: tcltls
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tcltls https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186327 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 14:44 EST --- Wart, thank you for your comments and for teaching me stuff. I knew about those 2 things to get sponsored. It just seems i picked a really bad time to start this packaging stuff, since at the moment I am really busy with work/school and my computer is not playing nicely (time for replacement, but no money). Work is calming down a bit (I hope) so I think I will be able to do some reviews (making comments) soon. Sander -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191402] Review Request: mercurial-0.9
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mercurial-0.9 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191402 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 15:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) Thanks. It would be nice if the spec file installed some docs. Unfortunately, the Mercurial man pages are generated using asciidoc, which isn't packaged. asciidoc has been in Extras for some time actually. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191110] Review Request: perl-Devel-Cover - Code coverage metrics for Perl
Please 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-Devel-Cover - Code coverage metrics for Perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191110 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190878] Review Request: childplay_plugins - Plugins for childsplay (educational games for young children)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: childplay_plugins - Plugins for childsplay (educational games for young children) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 15:49 EST --- Imported Build. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190876] Review Request: childplay
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: childplay https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190876 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Bug 190876 depends on bug 190878, which changed state. Bug 190878 Summary: Review Request: childplay_plugins - Plugins for childsplay (educational games for young children) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190878 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 15:49 EST --- Imported Build. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190876] Review Request: childplay
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: childplay https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190876 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Bug 190876 depends on bug 190878, which changed state. Bug 190878 Summary: Review Request: childplay_plugins - Plugins for childsplay (educational games for young children) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190878 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 15:49 EST --- Imported Build. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191040] Review Request: fedora-package-config-apt - Configuration files for the apt package manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: fedora-package-config-apt - Configuration files for
the apt package manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191040
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 15:56 EST ---
Issues:
- Shouldn't the package be noarch?
- Missing dependency on apt (similar issue seems to exist in the corresponding
smart package too, by the way)
Cosmetics:
- Summary and %description could mention Fedora even though it's in %{name},
and %description could be expanded a bit.
- Upstream spelling is APT-RPM, that could be used in summary and description
too
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187266] Review Request: gprolog - GNU Prolog is a free Prolog compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gprolog - GNU Prolog is a free Prolog compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187266 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 16:08 EST --- The build completes in mock on FC5, x86_64. However, things don't look right in the built package: lrwxrwxrwx1 rootroot 33 May 11 15:10 /usr/bin/gprolog - ../lib/gprolog-1.2.19/bin/gprolog -rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 864648 May 11 15:10 /usr/lib64/gprolog-1.2.19/bin/gprolog That link seems to be dangling. The same for all of the links in the gprolog-compiler package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187266] Review Request: gprolog - GNU Prolog is a free Prolog compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gprolog - GNU Prolog is a free Prolog compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187266 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 16:59 EST --- I didn't want to urge you to split off the compiler package. In fact after looking at it, I would say it would be better not to do it. As for the case of x86_64, I think we should let the build be in /usr/lib. Otherwise it may mean patching Makefiles to use the correct path (possibly the %prefix/lib dir is hardcoded somewhere. If it is easy to fix, do it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191040] Review Request: fedora-package-config-apt - Configuration files for the apt package manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fedora-package-config-apt - Configuration files for the apt package manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191040 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 17:01 EST --- Fixed in Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~athimm/fedorasubmit/fedora-package-config-apt.spec * Thu May 11 2006 Axel Thimm [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 5.89-3 - Apply comments from review #191040c3 (by Ville). - Fix summary and description - Config files are arch-independent, so we should become noarch - Create versioned dependency on apt (make sure it's repo-md capable) This creates a circular dependency which should not impose any issues. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187622] Review Request: cowbell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cowbell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187622 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 18:05 EST --- Changes in response to the review in comment #10 look good. * rpmlint is clean. +1 PUBLISH -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188445] Review Request: bootconf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bootconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 18:19 EST --- bootconf is not a multiple bootloader configuration tool. bootconf is a configuration tool for the kernel boot command line: enable/disable rhgb boot; enable/disable quiet boot; enable/disable VESA framebuffer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189197] Review Request: gtk2hs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtk2hs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189197 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 18:54 EST --- Built fine, but needed to fix a couple more requires: http://people.redhat.com/petersen/extras/gtk2hs.spec http://people.redhat.com/petersen/extras/gtk2hs-0.9.10-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 179040] Review Request: socat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 21:58 EST --- Some more packages only put configure.in/configure.ac in their development (CVS) tree, and just put the configure script and not the autoconf/automake in. Sometimes this is done to prevent dependancies on autoconfig/automake. I don't think it is a big issue for building this package. permissions on the debug rpm files after install is 644 for files and 755 for directories. So everyone can read everything. What is exactly going wrong? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 179040] Review Request: socat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-12 00:16 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) Some more packages only put configure.in/configure.ac in their development (CVS) tree, and just put the configure script and not the autoconf/automake in. Yes, there exist a broken packages and incompetent maintainers. Sometimes this is done to prevent dependancies on autoconfig/automake. I don't think it is a big issue for building this package. I consider this as blocker for 2 reasons: 1. LEGAL This configure script is clearly autoconf generated. The package claims to be GPL'ed but ships incomplete sources. I.e. I consider this package not to be GPL compliant and not to be OSI complaint. 2. TECHNICAL 2.1 It is hardly possible to fix/maintain packages with incomplete sources. You might know where the source file might be located, but will the person to adapt this package to FC8 in 2 years still know? 2.2 A package being maintained upstream this way, justifies strong doubts on the code's quality. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191239] Review Request: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191239
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-12 00:28 EST ---
not a full review yet but some points you need to improve:
- Package does not follow Fedora's package naming guildlines
(wiki: PackageNamingGuidelines)
release should be 1, 2, 3, not 2.0
- BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils is missing
%define desktop_vendor planetccrma
- desktop_vendor is fedora :)
- add to desktop-file-install: --add-category X-Fedora
# distros with 2.4.x kernels should use jackstart as the default
%{?fc1:%define usejackstart 1}
%{?rh9:%define usejackstart 1}
- this define can go since extras doesn't go that far back
-just use rm istead of %__rm macro
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
