[Bug 193960] Review Request: perl-Net-LibIDN
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Net-LibIDN https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193960 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 02:42 EST --- Restoring some comments lost due to the BZ crash: I suggested to Robert that we would work together to get 3 of his submission into the approved state and that I would then sponsor him, he responded with: --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 12:44 EST --- Yes, that sounds well. BTW, I've got updated all four packages on June, 9th to have a better rpmlint output. And as I'm new to the Fedora Extras stuff, just contact me, if there's something... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 169345] Review Request: SEC - Simple Event Correlator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: SEC - Simple Event Correlator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169345 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 02:49 EST --- Unfortunatly many comments were lost here due to the BZ crash. Summarising: -Chris Petersen lists forevermore net needs this for his work so he posted a much improved spec and srpm (Chris can you repost a link to these please). -I responded that that was very nice of him and that I understand he wanted some progress because he needed this for his work, but that this wasn't helping in getting Didier sponsored as Didier himself must show that he is able to create proper specs. -Some friendly discussion -End result, Didier was only interested (for now) in getting SEC into FE, Chris is going to get it into FE since he needs it to work and Didier well submit a new package review request with the FE_NEEDSPONSOR flag if / when he wants to contribute something else. As such I'm removing the FE_NEEDSPONSOR blocker since this is now a regular review (with Chris being the review submitter). Chris repeating myself: please repost the link to your latest SRPM and spec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177082] Review Request: wm-icons
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wm-icons https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177082 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 02:54 EST --- Everyone please reread this bug (and comment), I think (but I'm not sure) we had some progress which got lost due to the BZ crash, Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 169345] Review Request: SEC - Simple Event Correlator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: SEC - Simple Event Correlator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169345 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 02:57 EST --- wow, talk about loss of information SRPM: http://rpm.forevermore.net/sec/sec-2.3.3-4.src.rpm SPEC: http://rpm.forevermore.net/sec/sec.spec Still a few concerns from rpmlint, but I honestly don't know what the best way to fix them would be (or just leave things how they are). Haven't had a chance to bring any of it up in irc or on the mailing list. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193933] Review Request: freepops - free webmails to pop3 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: freepops - free webmails to pop3 daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193933 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 03:01 EST --- Trying to redo some of the Bugtriaging I had done which got lost because of the BZ crash. If I remember correctly, then the review submitter was interested in submitting packages not maintaing them as such he was advised to submit packages to f-e-l where an interested maintainer can then pick them up, and the bug was closed as wontfix. Closing as won't fix, please reopen if I remember incorrectly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177082] Review Request: wm-icons
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wm-icons https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177082 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 03:02 EST --- This is what I have: --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 07:04 EST --- I havn't had much time recently to much much of anything. If someone is willing to take over then that would be the best deal At which point you closed the bug I think. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193982] Review Request: osgal - Adapts OpenSceneGraph to use OpenAL++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: osgal - Adapts OpenSceneGraph to use OpenAL++ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193982 [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 192889] Review Request: openais standards based cluster 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: openais standards based cluster framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192889 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED OtherBugsDependingO||188267 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 03:09 EST --- My review from yesterday got lost with the bugzilla crash: Review == rpmlint output: E: openais non-readable /usr/sbin/ais-keygen 0700 E: openais non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/ais-keygen 0700 (required permissions) W: openais non-standard-dir-in-usr libexec (not *that* non-standard) W: openais incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/openais $prog (daemon and package name are incoherent upstream) W: openais-devel conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/ld.so.conf.d/openais-i686.conf (is anyone *really* going to edit this file anyway?) I don't believe any of these are blockers, or even need fixing. - package and spec file naming OK - package meets guidelines - license is BSD, matches spec, text included - spec file written in ENglish and is legible - sources match upstream - builds OK in mock for rawhide (i386) - buildreqs OK - no locale-specific data - shared libraries present in -devel package (only needed for devel) ldconfig is properly called in %post and %postun for the devel package - not relocatable - no directory ownership or permissions issues - no duplicate files - %clean section present and correct - macro usage is consistent - code, not content - documentation volume not excessive - docs don't affect runtime - header files properly located in -devel package - static libraries disabled - no pkgconfig file - -devel package has fully-versioned dependency on main package - no libtool archives included - not a GUI application, so no desktop file needed - scriptlets are sane Issues == - package is ExclusiveArch: i386 ppc x86_64 ppc64 Since this covers all current Fedora Core architectures, why is it present? - please correct confusing 0.76-1.6 changelog entry Once these are addressed, I'll be in a position where I'd be happy to approve this package if it was for Fedora Extras, However, I cannot approve Core packages, so someone else will need to do that. Post-review, it was noted that the package failed to build on x86_64 due to -fPIC being missing from CFLAGS, This was to be fixed by a patched Makefile. -- 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 177082] Review Request: wm-icons
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wm-icons https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177082 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 03:10 EST --- I believe so too, if someone else wants to package it its best to start with a fresh new review request, closing as wontfix. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194470] Review Request: php-magickwand
Please 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-magickwand https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194470 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 03:16 EST --- Restoring work lost due to the BZ crash. This package has had a full review, if I remember correctly the only MUST fix item were 3 rpmlint messages. One of the was related to rpath problems and turned out to only show on 64 bit archs. The fix for the rpath problem is to add: export PHP_RPATH=no before: %configure under: %setup Robert also posted a new version, available from: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/ Which I've just fully re-reviewed, all is good: Approved! Leaving the blockerbugs as is for now untill we've got 2 other packages sorted out and I'm going to sponsor you having a package blocking FE-ACCEPT without it being imported is going to make some scripts which do automated sanity checks on the whole review process unhappy. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194578] Review Request: wireshark
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wireshark https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194578 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 03:33 EST --- Question: - In Summary, why are we listing Red Hat Desktop integration? Surely we aren't talking about the Desktop product we sell? Is this not GENERIC gnome frontend? Why can't we just say 'Gnome integration' ? Think of the trademark problems. Needswork: - Missing BuildRequires on desktop-file-utils, automake, libtool rpmlint output: E: wireshark invalid-version 0.99.1pre1 W: wireshark incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.99.1pre1-1 0.99.1pre1-1.2 W: wireshark conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/pam.d/wireshark W: wireshark conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/security/console.apps/wireshark E: wireshark zero-length /usr/sbin/idl2wrs E: wireshark script-without-shellbang /usr/sbin/idl2wrs W: wireshark devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libwiretap.so W: wireshark devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libwireshark.so W: wireshark symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/tethereal /usr/sbin/tshark W: wireshark doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/wireshark-0.99.1pre1/doc/dfilter2pod.pl /usr/bin/perl -- 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 194578] Review Request: wireshark
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wireshark https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194578 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 03:34 EST --- I'm still not comfortable with this: %packagegnome Summary:Red Hat desktop integration for wireshark and wireshark-usermode Can you change it to %packagegnome Summary:Gnome desktop integration for wireshark and wireshark-usermode ? Other than that it looks good. -- 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 194578] Review Request: wireshark
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wireshark https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194578 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] BugsThisDependsOn||188267 OtherBugsDependingO|188265 | nThis|| -- 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 194578] Review Request: wireshark
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wireshark https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194578 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 03:36 EST --- I've reopened this bug due to the disk failure we had. The comment has been change, I hope the package is fine now. I really want to see it in FC6test1 .. -- 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 193929] Review Request: knetstats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: knetstats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193929
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 03:44 EST ---
Good job on restoring those lost comments!
About the review, I've taken a quick glance at:
Spec URL: http://beta.glwb.info/knetstats/knetstats.spec
And you don't properly update the icon cache, the correctway is:
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
if [ -x %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache ]; then
%{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
fi
And yes you need the gtk-update-icon-cache for KDE-apps too, because you want
the icon to show properly in the gnome applications menu.
About the dangling symlink, that dir is provided by kdelibs:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpm -qf /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
kdelibs-3.5.3-4.x86_64
Your package should automaticly require kdelibs because of .so dependencies, but
in this case you could explicitly Require it, or better perhaps you could add a:
Requires: /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
Please post a new version with these things fixed and then I'll do a full review
(and sponsor you once this package is 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 194578] Review Request: wireshark
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wireshark https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194578 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 03:44 EST --- *** Bug 194577 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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 192889] Review Request: openais standards based cluster 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: openais standards based cluster framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192889 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 04:27 EST --- The last few postings to bugzilla were lost. Here are some of the last changelog entries: * Tue Jun 13 2006 Steven Dake [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.76-1.8 - Add makefile override patch which fixes build with optflags on x86_64 arch. - Remove -DOPENAIS_LINUX from passed CFLAGS since it now works properly with makefile override patch. * Tue Jun 13 2006 Steven Dake [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.76-1.7 - Remove ExclusiveArch since all Fedora Core 6 arches have been tested. * Fri Jun 9 2006 Steven Dake [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.76-1.6 - Move condrestart to %%postun instead of %%post. - Call initscript directly as suggested by Jesse. * Thu Jun 8 2006 Steven Dake [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.76-1.5 - Changed BuildRoot tag to match convention specified in Fedora Wiki. - Removed /sbin/service dependency since it is pulled in from init packages. * Mon Jun 5 2006 Steven Dake [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.76-1.4 - Moved uid 102 to 39 since uids over 99 are not suitable for core at Bill's suggestion. * Mon Jun 5 2006 Steven Dake [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.76-1.3 - Allocated uid 102 from setup package for user add operation. - Added || : to initscript stuff so initscript bugs dont cause RPM transaction failures as per Paul's suggestion. - Added /sbin/services to post requires as per Paul's suggestion. - Removed ldconfig from the requires post for the main package as per Paul's suggestion. - Changed post devel scriptlet action as per Paul's suggestion. * Thu May 31 2006 Steven Dake [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.76-1.2 - Add user account for AIS applications and authentication. - Move /etc/ld.so.conf/openais-*.conf to devel package since it is only needed there. - Move ldconfig to devel package. - Execute condrestart on upgrade * Fri May 25 2006 Steven Dake [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.76-1.1 - Fix unowned dirs problem. - Correct make with optflags work properly. - Move plugins from /usr/lib/openais/lcrso to /usr/libexec/lcrso. The latest SRPM and specfile are located at: Spec URL: http://developer.osdl.org/dev/openais/SRPM/openais.spec SRPM URL: http://developer.osdl.org/dev/openais/SRPM/openais-0.76-1.8.src.rpm Jesse I believe the rpmlint errors were discussed in some of the thread that was lot in the bz crash but I agree with Paul's analysis in comment #40. I have tested that the rpm binaries build, install and work as expected on x86_64 WS4 and i386 FC5. Version 0.76 has been tested on both ppc and ppc64. I don't have other (ppc*) target arches with FC5 or rawhide to test the rpm build process. -- 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 194479] Review Request: php-idn
Please 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-idn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194479 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 07:51 EST --- When I updated bug #194470 to announce the fixed php-magickwand package, I also updated php-idn to match with all common things - unfortunately this was during the unrecoverable time of Bugzilla... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194560] Review Request: vnc-reflector
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vnc-reflector https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194560 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194051] Review Request: abcMIDI - ABC to/from MIDI conversion utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: abcMIDI - ABC to/from MIDI conversion utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194051 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 08:28 EST --- All comments are lost, so I am adding at least the final result = APPROVED Gerard, please close the bug again. MUST - no rpmlint output - package name OK - spec file name OK, is in English and is legible - package meets the Packaging Guidelines - license OK and is included - source matches upstream - compiles and builds at least on i386 - no BuildRequires needed - no localized files - no shared libs - no created directories and so no conflict with existing dirs - no duplicates files, permissions are set properly, uses %defattr - has %clean section - consistent use of macros - contains code - no large docs, %doc is not required during runtime - no need for devel subpackage - not a GUI application -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194560] Review Request: vnc-reflector
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vnc-reflector https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194560 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 08:29 EST --- Since I was bored, Chris strong-armed me into reviewing a package. ;-) First off, I've heard that you should use dl.sf.net for SourceForge-hosted downloads, as opposed to a particular mirror. You might want to do that. Since I'm fairly new to reviewing, I'm going to use the Review Guidelines as a checklist. I apologize for the verbosity. :-) 1. rpmlint returned nothing. We like that. 2. This adds functionality to vnc, and isn't particularly useful without it. Ergo, I think it meets the Naming Guideline for addon packages. 3. Spec filename is vnc-reflector.spec, check. 4. As far as I can tell, this package meets all of the requirements of the Packaging Guidelines. 5. Good: BSD license. 6. ...verified by upstream's site. 7. LICENSE included in %doc, good. 8. Looks like American English to me. 9. Spec seems quite clearly written. 10. Tarball MD5 matches upstream (c3f88bc62f228b335c25c07f9744ab0c). 11. Package builds fine on i386, ppc, and sparc (sorry, I don't have an x86_64 box). 12. n/a 13. BuildReqs look fairly sane. 14. n/a, I think. 15. n/a (no shared libs) 16. n/a 17. Owns its docs directory. 18. No duplicate files. 19. Permissions look good. 20. Has correct %clean section. 21. Macro use appears consistent. 22. Package contains code, not content. 23. n/a, very little documentation. 24. %doc files are non-critical. 25-30. n/a 31. I'm fairly certain its file ownership doesn't overlap with any other packages. 32-33. n/a 34. Built in Plague, actually. 35. I can't verify x86_64, but it should. 36. Connected to a VNC server through it. (And accidentally left it running for two hours with no problems.) Yay, it works! 37. n/a, no scriptlets. 38. n/a, no subpackages. Unless anyone can find anything I missed or screwed up, I think this package can be 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 194051] Review Request: abcMIDI - ABC to/from MIDI conversion utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: abcMIDI - ABC to/from MIDI conversion utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194051 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 194612] New: Review Request: pstoedit
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=194612 Summary: Review Request: pstoedit 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.poolshark.org/src/pstoedit.spec SRPM URL: http://www.poolshark.org/src/pstoedit-3.44-1.src.rpm Description: Translates PostScript and PDF graphics into other vector formats Pstoedit converts PostScript and PDF files to various vector graphic formats. The resulting files can be edited or imported into various drawing packages. Pstoedit comes with a large set of integrated format drivers. Misc notes : - The main goal of having pstoedit in Extras is for the benefit of inkscape. See bug 175257. - You'll notice the call to make doesn't use the _smp_flags macros. That's intentional, pstoedit's autoconf setup doesn't like parallel builds. Bug filed upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194612] Review Request: pstoedit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pstoedit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194612 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||175257 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 184450] Review Request: wcstools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wcstools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184450 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 08:37 EST --- All comment are lost, so I am moving this bug to the previous state. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192918] Review Request: kerry - Kerry Beagle is a KDE frontend for the Beagle desktop search
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kerry - Kerry Beagle is a KDE frontend for the Beagle desktop search https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192918 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 09:15 EST --- Imported and built. Closing. Thanks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184450] Review Request: wcstools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wcstools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184450 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 09:23 EST --- Great :( The current version of the packages is here: http://t-rex.fis.ucm.es/~spr/wcstools.spec http://t-rex.fis.ucm.es/~spr/wcstools-3.6.3-3.fc5.src.rpm I have fixed the most important problems with the code and asked upstream about the license. They say that the binaries should be GPL and the lib LGPL. They are also working on the warnings that appeared during the compilation -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177580] Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177580
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
BugsThisDependsOn||193957
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 09:28 EST ---
(recovering from bugzilla crash)
New spec, SRPM, and FC5 i386 RPM available here:
http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/lat/
* Mon Jun 12 2006 Paul Howarth [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1.0.5-2
- Spec file cleanups (#177580)
- No need to use update-desktop-database (no MIME type in desktop file)
- No need to remove .la files (artefact from old package)
- Own directories %{_datadir}/gnome/ %{_datadir}/gnome/help/ %{_datadir}/omf/
- Put icon in %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps directory rather than
%{_datadir}/pixmaps, and update icon cache post-install/removal
- Add doc files AUTHORS ChangeLog COPYING* README TODO
- Add missing buildreq gettext
- Remove redundant MONO_SHARED_DIR assignments in %%build and %%install
- Don't redefine %%{_libdir}, it's not needed
- Prevent creation of debuginfo package, which would be empty for a mono app
I've added a dependency for this bug of Bug #193957 (nant), where mono packaging
guidelines are being discussed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193957] Review Request: nant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177580 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 195015] New: Review Request: xpa
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=195015 Summary: Review Request: xpa 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://t-rex.fis.ucm.es/~spr/xpa.spec SRPM URL: http://t-rex.fis.ucm.es/~spr/xpa-2.1.6-2.fc5.src.rpm Description: The XPA messaging system provides seamless communication between many kinds of Unix programs, including X programs and Tcl/Tk programs. It also provides an easy way for users to communicate with these XPA-enabled programs by executing XPA client commands in the shell or by utilizing such commands in scripts. Because XPA works both at the programming level and the shell level, it is a powerful tool for unifying any analysis environment: users and programmers have great flexibility in choosing the best level or levels at which to access XPA services, and client access can be extended or modified easily at any time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195016] New: Review Request: xpa
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=195016 Summary: Review Request: xpa 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://t-rex.fis.ucm.es/~spr/xpa.spec SRPM URL: http://t-rex.fis.ucm.es/~spr/xpa-2.1.6-2.fc5.src.rpm Description: The XPA messaging system provides seamless communication between many kinds of Unix programs, including X programs and Tcl/Tk programs. It also provides an easy way for users to communicate with these XPA-enabled programs by executing XPA client commands in the shell or by utilizing such commands in scripts. Because XPA works both at the programming level and the shell level, it is a powerful tool for unifying any analysis environment: users and programmers have great flexibility in choosing the best level or levels at which to access XPA services, and client access can be extended or modified easily at any time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195016] Review Request: xpa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xpa https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195016 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 09:47 EST --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 195015 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194279] Review Request: kdeartwork: Additional artwork (themes, sound themes, ...) for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: kdeartwork: Additional artwork (themes, sound themes,
...) for KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194279
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:11 EST ---
To get this to build I had to remove %{_datadir}/apps/kfiresaver/ for some
reason its not getting built/installed
- add BuildRequires: gettext for translations
- User Interface/Desktop isn't a valid group name, unless its new to FC6?
- Under setup the %{?beta} tag is used, is this intentional?
- Do any of these apps require .desktop files?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187846] Review Request: pam_keyring
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pam_keyring https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187846 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:16 EST --- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192958] Review Request: ejabberd - A distributed, fault-tolerant Jabber/XMPP server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ejabberd - A distributed, fault-tolerant Jabber/XMPP server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192958 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:18 EST --- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-09 03:09 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) (In reply to comment #5) are errors like this from rpmlint: E: ejabberd invalid-soname /usr/lib64/ejabberd-1.1.1/priv/lib/expat_erl.so expat_erl.so where before I was merely getting warnings. Unless someone can show a functional problem I'd prefer to ignore those warnings and move on. Indeed rpmlint wants the soname to be of the form liblibname.so.major. I also think that this isn't worth the trouble and should be ignored. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 175623] Review Request: yaz - Z39.50/SRW/SRU programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: yaz - Z39.50/SRW/SRU programs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175623 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|fedora-extras- | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | CC||fedora-package- ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:19 EST --- Adding back my comment that was lost in the crash: --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 16:44 EST --- icon, are you still interested in packaging this? I have to say, the description is terribly non-descriptive. Even the upstream website doesn't fother to say what Z39.50 is. Perhaps adding the following (cribbed from wikipedia) would help a bit: Z39.50 is a client server protocol for searching and retrieving information from remote computer databases. This does, however, properly build in mock (x86_64, development). If icon is still interested and updates to the current version (2.1.20), I could go ahead with a review of this. BTW, this package has rpath problems on x86_64. This seems to be fixed by the usual technique of addingg BR: libtool and then adding LIBTOOL=/usr/bin/libtool on the make line. I have no idea if this breaks anything. There seems to be an included test suite but no %check section in the spec. -- 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 174021] Review Request: aplus-fsf - Advanced APL Interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aplus-fsf - Advanced APL Interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174021 [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 174021] Review Request: aplus-fsf - Advanced APL Interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aplus-fsf - Advanced APL Interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174021 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:22 EST --- Adding back in the review that was lost in the crash: --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 00:19 EST --- This review assumes you switch the dist tag around as necessary to build. I find it rather odd that the upstream tarfile is ends in .tar.gz but isn't actually compressed. I'm surprised rpmbuild handled that, but it did. You include the COPYING file as %doc, but it just refers to the LICENSE file which you don't package. I suggest packaging LICENSE and dropping COPYING. There's not really any reason to include a copy of COPYING (or LICENSE) in every subpackage although it doesn't hurt. If you want to do so, include LICENSE instead of COPYING as above. Your %post script for the truetype fonts calls ttmkfdir, but you only require it for postun. It seems to me that the fonts-truetype-apl subpackage should have the same list of requirements for both post and postun, since it calls the same programs. You drop a file into /usr/share/X11/app-defaults without owning that directory, yet none of your dependencies will create it for you. (In fact, currently the libX11.so dependency will pull in nx if the libX11 package isn't already installed, although that's not a problem this package should try to solve.) I think it's best to own that directory. By the way, just what is that app-default file for? I understand it specifies and alternate set of key mappings for xterm, but how would it get used? Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. X license is open source-compatible; text of license included upstream but not packaged. * source files match upstream: 2366264664c0b352b907b411af48e5aa aplus-fsf-4.20-2.tar.gz 2366264664c0b352b907b411af48e5aa aplus-fsf-4.20-2.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: aplus-fsf-4.20.2-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm libAplusGUI-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libIPC-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSGUI-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSIPC-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSTypes-4.20.2.so()(64bit) liba-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libadap-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxb-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxc-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxs-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxsys-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libesf-4.20.2.so()(64bit) aplus-fsf = 4.20.2-2.fc6 = /sbin/ldconfig fonts-apl libAplusGUI-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libIPC-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSGUI-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSIPC-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSTypes-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) liba-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libadap-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxb-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxc-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxs-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxsys-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libesf-4.20.2.so()(64bit) aplus-fsf-devel-4.20.2-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm aplus-fsf-devel = 4.20.2-2.fc6 = aplus-fsf = 4.20.2 libAplusGUI-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libIPC-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSGUI-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSIPC-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSTypes-4.20.2.so()(64bit) liba-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libadap-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxb-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxc-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxs-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxsys-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libesf-4.20.2.so()(64bit) aplus-fsf-el-4.20.2-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm aplus-fsf-el = 4.20.2-2.fc6 = aplus-fsf xemacs fonts-truetype-apl-4.20.2-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm fonts-apl fonts-truetype-apl = 4.20.2-2.fc6 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/mkfontdir chkfontpath fontconfig ttmkfdir fonts-x11-apl-4.20.2-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm fonts-apl fonts-x11-apl = 4.20.2-2.fc6 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/mkfontdir chkfontpath fontconfig * shared libraries are present; ldconfig is called properly. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream (that I could find). ? many scriptlets present; I'm not sure about the dependencies. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers present, in -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry 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: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:23 EST --- Adding back in several comments that were lost in the crash: --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-09 03:21 EST --- I remember reading that shared libraries with ghc were either not possible or problematic, probably this applies to curry too. In any case, the only point I would really consider is splitting out the _g library. It would be possible too patch cyc and cymake to check for the library (when invoked using --debug) and bail out with an error when it is not present. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry 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: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:24 EST --- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-09 10:56 EST --- I split off a curry-debugger package which only contains libcurry_g.a I patche cyc so that when invoked with --debug with the debugger package installed, it will give an error and a hint that the curry-debugger package should be installed. http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/curry-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 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry 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: curry - Münster Curry compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:25 EST ---
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 14:41 EST ---
Hmmm. You shouldn't use PreReq:; use Requires: instead. This solves the
following:
W: curry prereq-use curry = %{version}-%{release}
Other than that I'm happy with the package. An additional couple of ignorable
rpmlint warnings popped up for the -debugger package:
W: curry-debugger no-documentation
W: curry-debugger devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/curry/libcurry_g.a
but these are no big deal.
Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
* source files match upstream:
ae56a087dd6e174cc865e701657876a0 curry-0.9.10.tar.gz
ae56a087dd6e174cc865e701657876a0 curry-0.9.10.tar.gz-srpm
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
O rpmlint has some ignorable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
curry-0.9.10-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm
curry = 0.9.10-2.fc6
=
/bin/sh
gcc
libgmp.so.3()(64bit)
curry-debugger-0.9.10-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm
curry-debugger = 0.9.10-2.fc6
=
curry = 0.9.10-2.fc6
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
O plenty of headers, but this is a compiler.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
O static libraries, but this is a compiler and there's no reasonable way to
eliminate them.
* not a GUI app.
APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry 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: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:27 EST --- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 15:16 EST --- Re: useless debuginfo: from the install-dir target in Makefile.in: $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) -s cycc $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/curry $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) -s cymk $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/curry $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) -s newer $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/curry Those -s's look suspicious. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry 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: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:28 EST --- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 15:30 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) Re: useless debuginfo: from the install-dir target in Makefile.in: $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) -s cycc $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/curry $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) -s cymk $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/curry $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) -s newer $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/curry Those -s's look suspicious. Yep, I am patching them away. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry 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: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:29 EST --- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 16:25 EST --- I reverted to the non-split version and added a patch to disable stripping: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/curry-0.9.10-2.src.rpm However, I doubt that that debuginfo package is really useful, after all it is written mostly in Haskell, only the runtime library is C. There are no C files in the debuginfo package. There are only .debug versions of the binaries. Should I still import? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry 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: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:30 EST --- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 17:18 EST --- I think it's fine as is; at least now you can install the -debuginfo package and get symbols if the compiler coredumps. (You might argue that nobody would bother, but then we'd just turn off debuginfo generation on most other packages as well.) I think it's fine for you to go ahead and import at this point. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191605] Review Request: lineak-defaultplugin - default actions for lineakd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lineak-defaultplugin - default actions for lineakd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191605 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: lineak- |lineak_defaultplugin - |defaultplugin - default |default actions for lineakd |actions for lineakd -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191606] Review Request: lineak-kdeplugins - KDE-based actions for lineakd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lineak-kdeplugins - KDE-based actions for lineakd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191606 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: lineak- |lineak_kdeplugins - KDE-|kdeplugins - KDE-based |based actions for lineakd |actions for lineakd -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191607] Review Request: lineak-xosdplugin - Onscreen display support for lineakd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lineak-xosdplugin - Onscreen display support for lineakd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191607 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: lineak- |lineak_xosdplugin - Onscreen|xosdplugin - Onscreen |display support for lineakd |display support for lineakd -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194305] Review Request: gtypist - GNU typing tutor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtypist - GNU typing tutor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194305 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:35 EST --- Adding back in comments lost in the crash: --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 02:51 EST --- Builds fine in mock (x86_64, development). rpmlint complains: W: emacs-gtypist no-documentation Can be ignored. E: gtypist info-dir-file /usr/share/info/dir You must not package this file; it will conflict with what's already on the system. The call to install-info in %post will update the system info directory. You should not use %makeinstall; see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0dbcfbdd2fcb7791dd002 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194305] Review Request: gtypist - GNU typing tutor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtypist - GNU typing tutor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194305 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:35 EST --- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 00:58 EST --- Spec URL: http://gtypist.zing.fastmail.fm/gtypist.spec SRPM URL: http://gtypist.zing.fastmail.fm/gtypist-2.7-3.src.rpm * Mon Jun 12 2006 Zing [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2.7-3 - do not use makeinstall macro - rm info dir file from buildroot? Could you explain the /usr/share/info/dir error? I don't see that in my i386 builds; Is it a x86-64 build error? Is the above the correct fix? Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185531] Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:36 EST --- I'll commit the changes as soon bugzilla database will be repaired -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:37 EST --- A large number of comments were lost in the crash. I don't want to miss something by attempting to summarize them, so I'll add them back in verbatim. Sorry for the spam. --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 00:17 EST --- Well, that took longer than I anticipated. I found that the requires filtering in the spec wasn't working at all. Plus, it looks like it was attempting to filter out more than necessary. I found that if I just filter out the perl(globals.pl) bit, everything looks sane. Also, the .cvsignore files are still being packaged; the statement in %build to delete them is looking for directories named .cvsignore, not files. Finally, this needs to live under /usr/share, not /var/www, which is a simple edit of the first line plus the httpd.conf file. I'll attach the specfile I used to build; with this there are only the two no-documentation warnings from rpmlint can be ignored. Care to look it over and push a fresh package for a final review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194279] Review Request: kdeartwork: Additional artwork (themes, sound themes, ...) for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: kdeartwork: Additional artwork (themes, sound themes,
...) for KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194279
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:41 EST ---
Re: comment #2:
To get this to build I had to remove %{_datadir}/apps/kfiresaver/ for some
reason its not getting built/installed
Probably due to qt bug #193741
I could probably workaround that here, for now, by adding
BR: libGL-devel libGLU-devel
- add BuildRequires: gettext for translations
AFAICT, there are no translations here (those bits are in kde-i18n-* pkgs), so
gettext ought not be needed.
- User Interface/Desktop isn't a valid group name, unless its new to FC6?
That's what Core's kdeartwork package uses. Do you have a better suggested
value?
- Under setup the %{?beta} tag is used, is this intentional?
I define the beta macro when/if there are any alpha/beta/preleleases done by
kde. %{?beta} evaluates to %{nil} when undefined. I could probably remove
that, since it's hardly used anymore.
- Do any of these apps require .desktop files?
Apps no, screensaver's yes, in %%_datadir/applnk/System/Screensavers/
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:42 EST --- Note that I no longer have the attachment mentioned in the previous comment, so I cannot upload it again. --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 00:58 EST --- (In reply to comment #24) Finally, this needs to live under /usr/share, not /var/www, which is a simple edit of the first line plus the httpd.conf file. Will SELinux actually allow Apache to execute CGIs that live in /usr/share? Particularly ones that need to write to directories? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 01:22 EST --- I suggest you peruse the gallery2 review, which deals with this issue: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181599 My understanding is that selinux will allow apache to run things out of /usr/share as long as the appropriate selinux boolean is set. And if it didn't, we'd need to work with the selinux folks to get the necessary bits in. It's simply not permissible for us to put things in /var/www. Now, what does bugzilla need to write? I thought it was entirely database driven. Obviously it can't write to /usr/share, so we have to use another location. The gallery2 package uses a directory under /srv for this, but it does take selinux bits. The bug for that is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183140 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 01:37 EST --- It has to write to the data/ directory and various subdirectories under that. The data directory is created by checksetup.pl. You can change where Bugzilla expects the data directory to be by editing the $datadir variable in Bugzilla/Config.pm. Why can't we put something in /var/www? It's where we normally put Bugzilla. Also note that Bugzilla requires *either* DBD::Pg or DBD::mysql, but it doesn't need both. I'm not sure how to handle that in RPM. The automatic deps will probably pick up both. --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 11:37 EST --- (In reply to comment #28) Why can't we put something in /var/www? It's where we normally put Bugzilla. The naive answer is because the packaging guidelines indicate that it's not the proper place; see the end of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines. The point is that once this is in Extras it's essentially a system component, and the system shouldn't install important pieces of itself into /var. Also note that Bugzilla requires *either* DBD::Pg or DBD::mysql, but it doesn't need both. I'm not sure how to handle that in RPM. The automatic deps will probably pick up both. RPM has no way to indicate this kind of either-or requirement; it's probably simpler to just install both unless we can somehow make two subpackages, bugzilla-postgres and bugzilla-mysql that provide bugzilla-db and pull in the necessary Perl modules for each specific database. I doubt it's worth it. --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 19:00 EST --- (In reply to comment #29) RPM has no way to indicate this kind of either-or requirement; it's probably simpler to just install both unless we can somehow make two subpackages, bugzilla-postgres and bugzilla-mysql that provide bugzilla-db and pull in the necessary Perl modules for each specific database. I doubt it's worth it. Okay. The problem is that those perl modules also pull in the databases themselves. So installing Bugzilla will now always install both postgresql and mysql. --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 19:18 EST --- Surely it only pulls in the client libraries? I can see no evidence that it will actually pull in the database servers; that would be nuts. Admittedly the mysql client libraries are a bit large (5MB) but that could be seen as a packaging bug since it contains the client command line interface as well. (perl-DBD-MySQL just wants libmysqlclient.) The Postgres client libs are only 500K. In any case, I'm not sure it would be acceptable to filter the perl-DBD dependencies and require that the end user know that they need to install one or the other. I guess it depends on whether or not then can be warned at setup time; if that's possible then it would be reasonable to do so. This isn't exactly and install-and-go package so I think it's acceptable to have them go back and pull in another package. --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 19:22 EST --- (In reply to comment #31) This isn't exactly and install-and-go package so I think it's acceptable to have them go back and pull in another package. If they only pull in the client libraries, it's okay to have both of the perl modules
[Bug 192577] Review Request: perl-OpenFrame
Please 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-OpenFrame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:43 EST --- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 00:16 EST --- I take it there's been no progress, which is too bad. The author still seems to be active and the Openframe author posted a blog just a couple of weeks ago. Unfortunately I just can't find anything that would work as a blanket license for this package other than a statement that everything in the upstream SVN repository is released under an OSI-approved license. --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 15:06 EST --- I saw the mention of the OSI-approved license thing on their web site, but that seems to be as specific as they get. Maybe I'll get lucky and someone authoritative will be at YAPC in a couple of weeks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191014] Review Request: ganymed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ganymed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191014 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED], ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:44 EST --- I have a complete archive; I will be making the status changes and adding the comments back 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 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:47 EST --- I'm rolling a new package now which installs into /var/lib/bugzilla ; sorry for the delay in response, I've been on vacation for a while and am still getting caught up. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194481] Review Request: eggdrop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eggdrop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194481 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED], ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:50 EST --- Looks like this came in right before the last backup before the disk crash. I'm re-adding the CCs I saw added to this bug; I'm quite interested in seeing this package get into Extras (I maintain a copy on the side). To summarize what happened (to any roving sponsors), Christopher Stone suggested a few changes, and Robert applied them. I suspect you'd be well-off removing the Requires: line, as it's technically redundant. Rpmbuild should (and, ultimately, is) able to resolve what the end package's dependencies are. I spun a test built without it and the resultant package depended on (among others): libdns.so.21 (which is provided by bind-lib) libtcl8.4.so (tcl) libz.so.1 (zlib) Anything else I see...nothing non-trivial. I'd personally change line 37 to # Move modules into /usr/lib* for honesty's sake. ;-) Not a full review, but then, I'm not a sponsor (sorry). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194519] Review Request: q - Equational programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: q - Equational programming language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194519 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:52 EST --- Adding back the commends and reapplying the status changes lost in the crash: --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 15:49 EST --- This is really a packaging of RC2, correct? I think it would be good to indicate that in the version. According to the naming guidelines, you should use q-7.1-0.1.rc2. and increment the second 1 for each RPM release until 7.1 is released, at which you can call it q-7.1-1. Unfortunately I'm having trouble building in mock: gcc -DYEAR=\2006\ -DSYSINFO=\x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu\ -DQPATH=\.:/usr/share/q/lib:/usr/lib64/q\ -DQEXEC=\/usr/bin/q\ -DLIBTOOL=\/usr/lib64/q/libtool\ -DCC=\gcc\ -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buf fer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -o qcc qcc-qcc.o qcc-qbase.o qcc-sys.o qcc-getopt.o qcc-getopt1.o -lgmp -lcrypt -lutil -lnsl -lm PATH=.:/usr/kerberos/sbin:/usr/kerberos/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin QPATH=../stdlib:../modules/clib:../modules/clib ./q ./qcwrap.q ./qcwrap.q def: error loading module Warning: 268 unresolved external symbols ! File def, line 297: Value mismatch in definition make[2]: *** [qcwrap.c] Error 2 Finally, with so many modules packaged, this package is probably giong to have a monster dependency list. Is it possible to split the packaging a bit? Or are you not building all of the modules listed in the %descsription? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 17:00 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) This is really a packaging of RC2, correct? I think it would be good to indicate that in the version. According to the naming guidelines, you should use q-7.1-0.1.rc2. and increment the second 1 for each RPM release until 7.1 is released, at which you can call it q-7.1-1. Ok. Unfortunately I'm having trouble building in mock: gcc -DYEAR=\2006\ -DSYSINFO=\x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu\ -DQPATH=\.:/usr/share/q/lib:/usr/lib64/q\ -DQEXEC=\/usr/bin/q\ -DLIBTOOL=\/usr/lib64/q/libtool\ -DCC=\gcc\ -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buf fer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -o qcc qcc-qcc.o qcc-qbase.o qcc-sys.o qcc-getopt.o qcc-getopt1.o -lgmp -lcrypt -lutil -lnsl -lm PATH=.:/usr/kerberos/sbin:/usr/kerberos/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin QPATH=../stdlib:../modules/clib:../modules/clib ./q ./qcwrap.q ./qcwrap.q def: error loading module Warning: 268 unresolved external symbols ! File def, line 297: Value mismatch in definition make[2]: *** [qcwrap.c] Error 2 Maybe this is due to the bundled libtool. Is there policy how to replace this with the fedora libtool during building? Finally, with so many modules packaged, this package is probably giong to have a monster dependency list. Is it possible to split the packaging a bit? Or are you not building all of the modules listed in the %descsription? Not all modules are built, e.g., dx and ggi are not built. The description needs to be modified to only included the bundled ones. I am reluctant to make separate packages. Users normally expect the advertised functionality and do not want to search for optional packages. --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 17:22 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) Maybe this is due to the bundled libtool. Is there policy how to replace this with the fedora libtool during building? I've used make LIBTOOL=/usr/bin/libtool. Be sure to add a BR: libtool. I am reluctant to make separate packages. Users normally expect the advertised functionality and do not want to search for optional packages. The problem is that normally users don't expect the installation a little language compiler to pull in a web server. (Note that since I don't have a built version, I'm only guessing that the apache module would pull in apache; I can't really comment fairly until I see the final dependency list.) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 17:28 EST --- By the way, just defining LIBTOOL on the make line doesn't work; it redefines it. --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 17:42 EST --- This happens on x86_64, right? On i386 there is not such problem. In the
[Bug 174866] Review Request: polypaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: polypaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174866 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:54 EST --- Adding back the comments and status changes that were lost in the crash. Note that I might not have copies of the new review tickets that were opened since I wasn't CC'd; could whoever did those add them back? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 16:29 EST --- I am interested in this simply because I'd like to see some action on all of the old review tickets. However, I'm not sure if this is spot's ticket or Pierre's ticket. Perhaps one of you could review the other's package, or if spot wishes to drop his review request, this could be closed NOTABUG and Pierre could open a new review request with his package. BTW, 0.9.1 seems to be out now. --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 20:34 EST --- I'm fine either way. The packages I've been putting up are based on spot's anyway. I have a new RPM ready for 0.9.1 as well as for some Polypaudio utils. I've been holding off on them until I saw some activity here. --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 15:19 EST --- Pierre: Go ahead and open a new review request for this package. --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-13 09:27 EST --- New request opened as bug 194957. (Note that the new request bug number is incorrect due to being lost in the crash.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193846] Review Request: ganglia - Ganglia Distributed Monitoring 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: ganglia - Ganglia Distributed Monitoring System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193846 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:58 EST --- Looks like this is indeed the package from hell; Mozilla dies and eats my review and then bugzilla dies and eats the re-review. I'll try to get it done today to shrink the window for additional screwage. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194559] Review Request: perl-Event
Please 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-Event https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194559 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:59 EST --- Let's try this again... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194481] Review Request: eggdrop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eggdrop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194481 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 11:05 EST --- Thanks, your suggestions were also applied as they are reasonable. Any non-x86_32 rpmlint outputs (especially of x86_64) would be very interesting to me, to see whether there are any rpath issues. On x86_32, I've got no rpmlint outputs any longer... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194279] Review Request: kdeartwork: Additional artwork (themes, sound themes, ...) for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdeartwork: Additional artwork (themes, sound themes, ...) for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194279 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 11:07 EST --- Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kdeartwork.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.testing/kdeartwork-3.5.3-4.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Jun 14 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 3.5.3-4 - BR: libGL-devel libGLU-devel (workaround qt bug #193741) - Group: System Environment/Desktop - Amusements/Graphics - drop unused %%?beta 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
[Bug 184450] Review Request: wcstools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wcstools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184450 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 11:12 EST --- the URL is http://t-rex.fis.ucm.es/~spr/wcstools-3.6.4-3.fc5.src.rpm :-) And I think that everything is cleared and so I will prepare formal review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194612] Review Request: pstoedit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pstoedit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194612 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 11:14 EST --- It would be nice for xfig too. Not a a blocker but did you consider packaging plotutils, since it is especially advertized in the readme that it gives much more output formats. I am seriously considering packaging ming, and then you'll be able to enable swf support but it may be approved before that. From my reading of configure.ac, it seems that you miss Buildrequires: gd-devel gd-devel requires libpng-devel and zlib-devel, but I think that it makes sense to keep the BR on libpng-devel. There is a BR (and a Requires) on ghostscript missing (for gs). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] New: Review Request: polypaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 Summary: Review Request: polypaudio: Improved Linux sound server Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/polypaudio/polypaudio.spec SRPM URL: http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/polypaudio/polypaudio-0.9.1-1.src.rpm Description: Polypaudio is a sound server for Linux and other Unix like operating systems. It is intended to be an improved drop-in replacement for the Enlightened Sound Daemon (ESOUND). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174866] Review Request: polypaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: polypaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174866 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 11:21 EST --- New request opened as bug 195221. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195222] New: Review Request: paman: Management tool for Polypaudio
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=195222 Summary: Review Request: paman: Management tool for Polypaudio 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://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/polypaudio/paman.spec SRPM URL: http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/polypaudio/paman-0.9.1-1.src.rpm Description: Polypaudio Manager (paman) is a simple GTK frontend for the Polypaudio sound server. With paman you may browser most of Polypaudio's internals. There is support for changing volume of sinks and sink outputs. You're able to play samples from the sample cache. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194374] Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194374 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 11:22 EST --- With the bugzilla outage, I'll copy and paste the other comments here: --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 11:14 EST --- # TODO: decide a good location for a world-writable --enable-highscore-dir=DIR Maybe /var/games? Some distros are already using it. BTW, I'm doing some experiences with this package regarding the subpackage approach we discussed in IRC other day (nickname Eitch). I'll follow this bug to let you know about something. --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 11:17 EST --- Hugo, if you're willing to maintain kdegames, I'm all for the subpackage approach... (: --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 11:55 EST --- Hi Rex! I don't know if I can maintain it (yet) but I'm doing this for research first. I'll try to make a clean spec with the subpackage approach and present people with it. Then we'll see if it's worthy to maintain using one of the methods :) I think that with these big packages, it will be good to have one or more co-maintainers too, even not using the subpackages approach. As I'm in KDE SIG, count on me to help you on this, like testing, reviewing and such :) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 12:00 EST --- I certainly agree with the co-maintainer and/or (kde)team maintainership approach... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195223] New: Review Request: pavucontrol: Volume control for Polypaudio
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=195223 Summary: Review Request: pavucontrol: Volume control for Polypaudio 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://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/polypaudio/pavucontrol.spec SRPM URL: http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/polypaudio/pavucontrol-0.9.1-1.src.rpm Description: Polypaudio Volume Control (pavucontrol) is a simple GTK based volume control tool (mixer) for the Polypaudio sound server. In contrast to classic mixer tools this one allows you to control both the volume of hardware devices and of each playback stream separately. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194612] Review Request: pstoedit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pstoedit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194612 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 11:24 EST --- pstoedit overwrite CXXFLAGS. This should be reported upstream and in the meantime, the best solution seems to me to be a patch for configure that removes the line 22593 (line 398 in configure.ac for upstream) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195222] Review Request: paman: Management tool for Polypaudio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: paman: Management tool for Polypaudio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195222 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|195221 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: polypaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: polypaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||195223 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 195223] Review Request: pavucontrol: Volume control for Polypaudio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pavucontrol: Volume control for Polypaudio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195223 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||195221 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195222] Review Request: paman: Management tool for Polypaudio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: paman: Management tool for Polypaudio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195222 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||195221 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: polypaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: polypaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||195222 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 189010] Review Request: pybaz - Python library bindings for the GNU Arch/Bazaar RCS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pybaz - Python library bindings for the GNU Arch/Bazaar RCS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189010 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 11:28 EST --- Heh, my previous comment must have been lost. Oh well. Thanks for you patience in reviewing this package, life has been pretty busy and shepharding troublesome packges through review has had to take a lower priority than usual. I've added make check to the %check section and fixed the earlier epydoc by patching the script that gets run with make doc to skip documenting the 'logging.Logger' instance that caused error. This causes an epydoc warning at the end of make doc, but as logging is a standard library anyway, this isn't much of a problem. New files are at: http://shahms.mesd.k12.or.us/packages/pybaz.spec http://shahms.mesd.k12.or.us/packages/pybaz-1.4-0.2.20060602arch.patch1.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 175623] Review Request: yaz - Z39.50/SRW/SRU programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: yaz - Z39.50/SRW/SRU programs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175623 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 11:31 EST --- Yep, I'm still alive. I'll take a look at it briefly. -- 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 194374] Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194374 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 11:32 EST --- About the highscore dir, we could use --enable-setgid and give the executables a setgid and ownership to root.games. This way, users can write in the score files under /var/games (which can be specified with the --enable-highscore-dir=/var/games). When the --enable-highscore-dir is used, the make install creates some .score files (ie kbounce.scores) and stores it in the directory configured (ie /var/games). These files needs to be owned by user root, group games, and permissions with 0664. This way the games executables that are setgid to games group can access and change them. This is the way used in many currently games in FE. Examples that I'm seeing here right now: powermanga and nethack-vultures. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194563] Review Request: conman - the console 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: conman - the console manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194563 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 11:38 EST --- The upstream initscript is an unholy mess that tries to support multiple distributions, so I plan to create a stripped-down RH/FC-only version, but otherwise, the package is ready for review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194481] Review Request: eggdrop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eggdrop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194481 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 11:56 EST --- The binary packages on ppc and sparc have no rpmlint output. I was going to tell you about the rpmlint output from the debuginfo RPMs, but it looks like you added src/mod/transfer.mod/*.c to your chmod -x line, which should resolve that. One step ahead of me on that. :-) Throwing the current incarnation into my Plague system... *taps foot for a while* ...done. No rpmlint errors. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194560] Review Request: vnc-reflector
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vnc-reflector https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194560 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 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 194374] Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194374 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 12:17 EST --- If you decide to do use setgid, then you will need to look at each setgid executable and make sure that it drops setgid privileges immediately after opening the high score file, which should be the first thing done in main(). This could be a tedious task and require quite a bit of patching for the 30+ games in this package, unless upstream has already been careful to do 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 190345] Review Request: vdr-femon - DVB frontend status monitor plugin for VDR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vdr-femon - DVB frontend status monitor plugin for VDR https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190345 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 12:18 EST --- http://cachalot.mine.nu/5/SRPMS/vdr-femon-1.0.1-1.src.rpm * Mon Jun 12 2006 Ville Skyttä ville.skytta at iki.fi - 1.0.1-1 - 1.0.1, build for VDR 1.4.1. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190343] Review Request: VDR - Video Disk Recorder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: VDR - Video Disk Recorder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190343 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 12:19 EST --- http://cachalot.mine.nu/5/SRPMS/vdr-1.4.1-1.src.rpm * Mon Jun 12 2006 Ville Skyttä ville.skytta at iki.fi - 1.4.1-1 - 1.4.1, liemikuutio 1.6. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194374] Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194374 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 12:21 EST --- For purposes of this review (and to keep things simple for the near-future), I won't consider enabling the highscore/setgid bits. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195255] New: Review Request: manaworld - 2D mmorpg game
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=195255 Summary: Review Request: manaworld - 2D mmorpg game Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/manaworld.spec SRPM URL: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/manaworld-0.0.19-1.src.rpm Description: The Mana World (TMW) is a serious effort to create an innovative free and open source MMORPG. TMW uses 2D graphics and aims to create a large and diverse interactive world. [Recreating the original review request due to recent bugzilla data loss] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195255] Review Request: manaworld - 2D mmorpg 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: manaworld - 2D mmorpg game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 12:25 EST --- [reposting comments from original review] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 21:08 EST --- My Review: MUST (OK) * rpmlint does not return any warning/errors (good) * Package is named according to Package Naming Guidelines * Spec filename matches package base name * Package license is open-source compliant * License field matches package's license * License file (COPYING) is included in %doc * Spec file is written in American English * Spec file is legible * Source file from package matches the upstream source with md5sum: b142f603c75819a04ac50d876776e92b tmw-0.0.19.tar.gz * Package compiled and built fine in i386 * BuildRequires is used well * Package does not contain locale files * Package does not contain shared library files * Package is not relocatable * Package owns all directories it creates * No duplicate files in %files * macro use consistent * No -doc subpackage needed * %doc contains only files that do not affect application runtime * No -devel subpackage needed * No pkgconfig files (.pc) needed * Package does not contain libtool archives (.la) * Desktop file installed with desktop-file-install * Package does not own other packages' directories SHOULD (OK) * Scriptlets for icon cache are used in proper way * Package installs and runs just fine! --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 22:53 EST --- APPROVED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 22:17 EST --- Imported and built on FC-4, FC-5 (devel build queued) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194551] Review Request: ifd-egate
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ifd-egate https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194551 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 12:31 EST --- Lost review comments can be read at https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-review/2006-June/thread.html The latest versions appear to be at: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/built/rpm_review/rrelyea/ifd-egate.spec http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/built/rpm_review/rrelyea/ifd-egate-0.05-9.src.rpm From quickly skimming the specfile, it looks ok to me. The pcsc_cflags %define at the top is no longer needed though. -- 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 193187] Review Request: pcsc-lite ccid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pcsc-lite ccid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193187 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO_REPORTER --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 12:34 EST --- Lost review comments: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-review/2006-June/thread.html In particular: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-review/2006-June/msg01096.html -- 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 194374] Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194374 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 13:07 EST --- Rex: if supported, global highscores would be a good feature to multi-user system games. Other packages uses it, why not this one? It's not that complicated ;) just a few more lines in the spec and here we go. Wart: I think upstream already cared about this issue. See this message from 2003: http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-games-develm=105271154603114w=2 I have looked on some code in khighscore.cpp and it looks like it's still implemented in recent versions. The code checks if the --enable-highscore-dir is used and then use the setgid feature, dropping immediately after. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194563] Review Request: conman - the console 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: conman - the console manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194563 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 13:21 EST --- Okay, new -2 build pushed up, contains a much cleaner initscript and also properly sets up log directories and log rotation. http://wilsonet.com/packages/conman/conman-0.1.9.1-2.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 195292] New: Review Request: Openbox
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=195292 Summary: Review Request: Openbox 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 [ Recreating this review request as Bugzilla's DB had hardware troubles which lost it. ] I intend to unorphan and maintain Openbox in Fedora Extras. Spec URL: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox.spec SRPM URL: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox-3.3-0.rc2.1.src.rpm Description: Openbox is a window manager for X11 designed to be standards-compliant while staying fast and highly configurable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Openbox https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194519] Review Request: q - Equational programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: q - Equational programming language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194519 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 14:10 EST --- Just a note that I spent some time trying to get those unwanted Provides: filtered out and I didn't have any luck. I verified that RPM isn't calling the script I name in __find_provides; I have no idea why. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: Openbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 14:11 EST ---
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 19:55 EST ---
I don't know if this suggestion belongs in a package-review, but it'd be great
if you could include an openbox.desktop file to be installed in
/usr/share/xsessions (just like the fluxbox package does) so openbox can be
selected from the Sessions list in GDM, instead of having to edit who knows
what file by hand.
By the way, I'm glad you're going to unorphan this package. I love Openbox :)
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 22:12 EST ---
id also say a gdm entry is necassery.
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 23:31 EST
---
Thanks. Added it in 3.3-0.rc2.2, as suggested.
Spec: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox.spec
SRPM: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox-3.3-0.rc2.2.src.rpm
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-13 00:53 EST ---
Hi,
I could be wrong but as far as I understand the NamingGuidelines, this package
should have a Release tag similar to 0.2.rc2 instead of 0.rc2.2.
The relevant part from the NamingGuidelines:
Release Tag for Pre-Release Packages:
0.%{X}.%{alphatag}
Where %{X} is the release number increment, and %{alphatag} is the string that
came from the version.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-13 01:18 EST
---
Jorge,
You are correct about that. I mistakenly thought otherwise; but I checked the
guidelines and that's what it should be. I've uploaded new sources to fix this:
Spec: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox.spec
SRPM: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox-3.3-0.3.rc2.src.rpm
Thanks.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194374] Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194374 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 14:12 EST --- Hi guys, I have created the experimental specfile for the sub-package concept: Spec URL: http://www.devin.com.br/eitch/fextras/kdegames.spec SRPM URL: http://www.devin.com.br/eitch/fextras/SRPMS/kdegames-3.5.3-3.src.rpm I made the specfile as clean and organized as possible. It creates 36 packages: one for common game files, one for devel files, one for card decks (used by lskat and kpat), one as a metapackage that requires all others and one for each game. Hope you all like it. It is indeed more difficult to maintain, but not that much. I think we get some good advantages for the users. And I know this because I've asked to 10+ Linux users (beginners and experienced) and they *all* said that this approach is better. Note: Since I don't have the 3.5.3 ready to install here, I have commented out the version requirements and using generic ones. In the spec you can note the FIXME warnings, these should be removed if you have these recent versions installed in the building machine. Rex: I'm thinking in helping co-maintain KDE packages or trying to create a maintainer group for these KDE packages, based on the SIG. I really look forward for KDE improvement in Fedora Core :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194374] Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194374 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 14:14 EST --- Sorry, I made a mistake. The correct URLs for the files are: Spec URL: http://www.devin.com.br/eitch/fextras/SPECS/kdegames.spec SRPM URL: http://www.devin.com.br/eitch/fextras/SRPMS/kdegames-3.5.3-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195301] New: Review Request: perl-POE
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=195301 Summary: Review Request: perl-POE 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: spec info here SRPM URL: srpm info here Description: description here -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
