[Bug 197198] Review Request: ntop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ntop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197198 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 01:54 EST --- (In reply to comment #22) glib2-devel is listed as a BR... Yes, nevertheless building fails ... ... but now that you say it, I noticed this to be a followup error to something else: # rpmbuild --rebuild ntop-3.2-4.src.rpm ... checking for GLIB - version = 2.0.0... *** 'pkg-config --modversion glib-2.0' returned 2.10.3, but GLIB (1.2.10) *** was found! If pkg-config was correct, then it is best *** to remove the old version of GLib. You may also be able to fix the error *** by modifying your LD_LIBRARY_PATH enviroment variable, or by editing *** /etc/ld.so.conf. Make sure you have run ldconfig if that is *** required on your system. *** If pkg-config was wrong, set the environment variable PKG_CONFIG_PATH *** to point to the correct configuration files no configure: error: GLib2 distribution not found. error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.42330 (%build) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196629] Review Request: perl-SVK - A Distributed Version Control 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: perl-SVK - A Distributed Version Control System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196629 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 01:55 EST --- Odd. It was working before on my machine, but now it is giving the same test failures. A new version was just released upstream and it includes a patch to t/tree.pl to add require Clone. The new version fixes the test failures. I also added the optional build requires. Spec: http://znark.com/fedora/perl-SVK.spec SRPMS: http://znark.com/fedora/perl-SVK-1.08-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197765] Review Request: libical - A library for parsing iCal component
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libical - A library for parsing iCal component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197765 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 02:25 EST --- Just some comments: * The spec file and http://www.aurore.net/projects/libical say: This is a modified version of the original libical project. i.e. this package would conflict with the original libical I am not sufficiently familiar with libical, but this raises concerns on your package: - Is this libical*aurore API compatible to the original libical? What are the differences? - Is the original libical still alive? - How is this package supposed to interact with an original libical? * The package installs its headers to /usr/include. Though the headers all are prefixed ical*, this pollutes the system header include path. Besides this, the package seems to be clean. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189400] Review Request: em8300(-kmod) - Hollywood+/DXR3 hardware MPEG decoder drivers and tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: em8300(-kmod) - Hollywood+/DXR3 hardware MPEG decoder drivers and tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 02:28 EST --- Per Packaging/KernelModules in the wiki, here's the additional required explanation about the mainline merge status (from Nicolas Boullis and yours truly): The em8300 modules are not part of mainline kernel yet partly because nobody has got around to submit it, and partly because there some things are still thought of as unfinished in the sense that they'd be better off behaving and being accessible more like other related devices in the kernel do, requiring less manual configuration, and the like. At this time, there are no specific deadlines or promises set for the submission, but it is expected to happen in not too distant future. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197765] Review Request: libical - A library for parsing iCal component
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libical - A library for parsing iCal component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197765 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 02:41 EST --- One existing package in FE that could be checked whether/how it works with this version of libical is gnokii (maintainer Cc'd). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197649] Review Request: gnustep-make - GNUstep makefile package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gnustep-make - GNUstep makefile package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197649
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 02:47 EST ---
== Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored ==
* Mock build for development i386 is sucessfull with errors as
** No gnustep-make installation found, attempting to create a local/temporary
one. **
make[2]: texi2pdf: Command not found
make[2]: texi2html: Command not found
I really got confused over why such errors was shown besides addding texinfo
in BuildRequires.
MUST Items:
- MUST: rpmlint shows same ERRORS as posted by author of package.
- MUST: dist tag is present
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name matching the base package gnustep-make, in the
format gnustep-make.spec
- MUST: This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license
GPL.
- MUST: License file COPYING is included in package.
- MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct
(1883a6387405e51ff4c384fb5cc547a7).
- MUST: This package have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
- MUST: This package used macros.
- MUST: Document files are included like README.
- MUST: Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives.
* Source URL is present and working.
* BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* BuildRequires is correct
Also it will be good to move /usr/local to /usr directory if there is no such
requirement.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197198] Review Request: ntop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ntop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197198 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 02:47 EST --- (In reply to comment #20) The perl substitutions are unusefull: the first one is allready done in a patch. The second operates on a file that is regenerated. I couldn't find 'user =' in the main.c file. It is in prefs.c however. I think that it should be replaced with a patch it is more robust than a substitution (it fails more easily). There is also a nobody in webInterface.c. Also maybe a comment could explain why other users are used. Thanks, made a patch. This spec was imported from dag rpms, so I (wrongly) assumed that the perl usage was correct. unix2dos may be replaced by sed -i 's/\r//' Thanks, made that change. updates: Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/ntop.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/ntop-3.2-5.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 187843] Review Request: phpMyAdmin - Web based MySQL browser written in php
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: phpMyAdmin - Web based MySQL browser written in php https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187843 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 02:55 EST --- Question: Why did you use the mysql python extension rather than mysqli? When I tried your RPM on FC4, I got the following result: [EMAIL PROTECTED] conf.d]# service httpd start Starting httpd:[FAILED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] conf.d]# mv phpMyAdmin.conf /tmp [EMAIL PROTECTED] conf.d]# service httpd start Starting httpd:[ OK ] So, there's something in the phpMyAdmin.conf file that apache did not like. Will try to track it down... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197641] Review Request: ode - High performance library for simulating rigid body dynamics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ode - High performance library for simulating rigid body dynamics https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197641 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 03:02 EST --- Imported and build. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197734] Review Request: xmoto - Challenging 2D Motocross Platform 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: xmoto - Challenging 2D Motocross Platform Game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197734 Bug 197734 depends on bug 197641, which changed state. Bug 197641 Summary: Review Request: ode - High performance library for simulating rigid body dynamics https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197641 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197198] Review Request: ntop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ntop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197198 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 03:07 EST --- (In reply to comment #23) (In reply to comment #22) glib2-devel is listed as a BR... Yes, nevertheless building fails ... ... but now that you say it, I noticed this to be a followup error to something else: # rpmbuild --rebuild ntop-3.2-4.src.rpm ... checking for GLIB - version = 2.0.0... *** 'pkg-config --modversion glib-2.0' returned 2.10.3, but GLIB (1.2.10) *** was found! If pkg-config was correct, then it is best *** to remove the old version of GLib. You may also be able to fix the error *** by modifying your LD_LIBRARY_PATH enviroment variable, or by editing *** /etc/ld.so.conf. Make sure you have run ldconfig if that is *** required on your system. *** If pkg-config was wrong, set the environment variable PKG_CONFIG_PATH *** to point to the correct configuration files no configure: error: GLib2 distribution not found. error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.42330 (%build) Looks like the patch for glib2 is not 100%... This builds in mock fine, so I would not call it a show stopper. I will review the patch tonight all the same. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197753] Review Request: gdmap-0.7.5-1
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gdmap-0.7.5-1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197753
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 03:08 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
== Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored ==
* Mock build for development i386 is NOT sucessfull
Error is=
checking for XML::Parser... configure: error: XML::Parser perl module is
required for intltool
I tried adding perl-XML-Parser in BuildRequires but still build failed.
A buildreq of intltool is needed. And the current buildreq of gettext-devel
should be changed to gettext - the -devel package isn't needed.
I also noticed the use of %{_datadir}/locale in the files list. That is a
blocker, and should be removed.
Use:
%find_lang GdMap
at the end of %install, and then:
%files -f GdMap.lang
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197765] Review Request: libical - A library for parsing iCal component
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libical - A library for parsing iCal component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197765 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 03:17 EST --- libical has lacked a solid upstream in the past. Most of its users have forked their own copies. (kdepim, sunbird, evolution) This version seems to be an attempt to merge them back together. The original libical has been dead since 2003. According to pbone.net, libical has not been packaged for any version of Fedora/Red Hat before at all, ever. It was pulled from Debian a while back, nothing ever used it. Backward compatability does not seem to be a realistic concern. Citadel seems to be its sole non-forked user. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197198] Review Request: ntop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ntop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197198 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 03:33 EST --- (In reply to comment #25) Looks like the patch for glib2 is not 100%... This builds in mock fine, so I would not call it a show stopper. I do, because this error implies rebuilding the package produces non-deterministic results, esp. when users rebuild the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197198] Review Request: ntop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ntop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197198 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 03:44 EST --- bugger.. Sorry.. I have just uploaded the src.rpm this 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 197765] Review Request: libical - A library for parsing iCal component
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libical - A library for parsing iCal component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197765
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 04:35 EST ---
== Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored ==
* Mock build for development i386 is sucessfull
MUST Items:
- MUST: rpmlint shows no error
- MUST: dist tag is present
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name matching the base package libical, in the
format libical.spec
- MUST: This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license
GPL.
- MUST: License file COPYING is included in package.
- MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct as
36c80c43940841e53e5a985204851c46.
- MUST: This package owns all directories that it creates.
- MUST: This package did not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
- MUST: This package have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
- MUST: This package used macros.
- MUST: Document files are included like README.txt.
- MUST: Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives.
- MUST: Header files are going in a -devel package.
- MUST: Library files that end in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel
package.
- MUST: This package contains shared library files located in the dynamic
linker's default paths, and therefore this package is calling ldconfig in %post
and %postun. But Devel package is NOT calling a %post/%postun section that calls
/sbin/ldconfig.
* Source URL is present and working.
* BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* BuildRequires is correct
* devel package contains the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197688] Review Request: inotify-tools - Command line utilities for inotify
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: inotify-tools - Command line utilities for inotify https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197688 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 04:52 EST --- Thanks for the review! Today was released new version so here's an updated package: http://fedora.pl/~gajownik/inotify-tools.spec http://fedora.pl/~gajownik/inotify-tools-2.2-1.src.rpm * Thu Jul 6 2006 Dawid Gajownik gajownik[AT]gmail.com - 2.2-1 - New version 2.2 - Update URL and description - Add man pages -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177105] Review Request: gnomeradio - Graphical FM-Tuner program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnomeradio - Graphical FM-Tuner program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177105 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163779 |163776 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 05:03 EST --- Okay, everyone who reads this please listen: Hereby I announce that I withdraw my approval from 2006-04-04 and move this ticket back into the FE-NEW queue. Too much time has passed without action from the packager. Further, another package submission from a different packager has been rejected (bug 188395), but the software is still not in Fedora Extras after three months. This simply doesn't work and is a major hindrance, IMO. An approved package must not block other submissions for months. And it becomes an extra burden for me as a reviewer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177104] Review Request: abook - Text-based addressbook program for mutt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: abook - Text-based addressbook program for mutt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177104 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163779 |163776 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 05:04 EST --- Withdrawing my approval from 2006-04-04. Back to FE-NEW. See bug 177105 comment 14 for background. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197764] Review Request: hfsplus-tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hfsplus-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197764 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 05:05 EST --- When i Mock build this SRPM, I got error: unpacking of archive failed on file /builddir/build/SOURCES/diskdev_cmds-332.11.tar.gz;44acd0bf: cpio: read failed - Invalid argument -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192436] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xgl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xgl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192436 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 05:16 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) Yes, it is a known solution for launching KDE from GDM. Considering that this solution requires changes in a config file of a core package, we wait until the package is reviewed for asking Core packages to apply a patch to do that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197442] Review Request: fatsort - sort fat of FAT32/FAT16 on cheap mp3 players
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: fatsort - sort fat of FAT32/FAT16 on cheap mp3 players
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197442
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 05:38 EST ---
== Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored ==
Mock build for development i386 is sucessfull
* MUST Items:
- MUST: rpmlint shows no error
- MUST: dist tag is present
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name matching the base package fatsort, in the
format fatsort.spec
- MUST: This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license
GPL.
- MUST: This Package contains License file as LICENSE.txt
- MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct
(ddf8e98b27455da104e8cca13d29d0cc).
- MUST: This package owns all directories that it creates.
- MUST: This package did not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
- MUST: This package have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
- MUST: This package used macros.
- MUST: Document files are included like README.
- MUST: Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives.
* Source URL is present and working.
* BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* BuildRequires is correct
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192438] Review Request: fedora-xgl-settings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fedora-xgl-settings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192438 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 05:41 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) We can add the possibility of changing this property via the GUI of 3ddesktop-configurator. But if the mofification of the default.conf file is made on the GDM package, I think that it would not be necessary? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197753] Review Request: gdmap-0.7.5-1
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gdmap-0.7.5-1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197753 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 05:52 EST --- Paul, Now as per your usggestions i did adding gettext and removed gettext-devel. The BuildRequires line i used is BuildRequires: gtk2-devel, libxml2-devel, desktop-file-utils, gettext But still getting same error. checking for XML::Parser... configure: error: XML::Parser perl module is required for intltool -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197688] Review Request: inotify-tools - Command line utilities for inotify
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: inotify-tools - Command line utilities for inotify
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197688
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 06:00 EST ---
== Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored ==
Mock build for development i386 is sucessfull
* MUST Items:
- MUST: rpmlint shows no error.
- MUST: dist tag is present.
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name matching the base package inotify-tools, in the
format inotify-tools.spec.
- MUST: This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license
GPL.
- MUST: This package includes License file COPYING.
- MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct
(0ca1dd7a9bb0c6d0bbd084d8436b850f)
- MUST: This package owns all directories that it creates.
- MUST: This package did not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
- MUST: This package have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
- MUST: This package used macros.
- MUST: Document files are included like README.
- MUST: Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives.
* Source URL is present and working.
* BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* BuildRequires is correct
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197753] Review Request: gdmap-0.7.5-1
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gdmap-0.7.5-1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197753 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 06:13 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) Paul, Now as per your usggestions i did adding gettext and removed gettext-devel. The BuildRequires line i used is BuildRequires: gtk2-devel, libxml2-devel, desktop-file-utils, gettext But still getting same error. checking for XML::Parser... configure: error: XML::Parser perl module is required for intltool I also said a buildreq of intltool was needed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197753] Review Request: gdmap-0.7.5-1
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gdmap-0.7.5-1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197753 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 06:16 EST --- I have already tried that one also with gettext but still same error. Have you got it working with those BuildRequires?? I am doing mock build in development i386 environment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197445] Review Request: fuse-convmvfs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: fuse-convmvfs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197445
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 06:20 EST ---
== Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored ==
Mock build for development i386 is sucessfull
* MUST Items:
- MUST: rpmlint shows error as
W: fuse-convmvfs incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.2-1 0.2-1.fc5.y
Your last entry in %changelog contains a version that is not coherent with
the current version of your package.
Change 0.2.1 to 0.2.1.fc5.y
- MUST: dist tag is present
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name matching the base package fuse-convmvfs, in the
format fuse-convmvfs.spec
- MUST: This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: This package contains License file as COPYING.
- MUST: The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license
GPL.
- MUST: This package owns all directories that it creates.
- MUST: This package did not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
- MUST: This package have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
- MUST: This package used macros.
- MUST: Document files are included like INSTALL README.
- MUST: Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives.
* Source URL is NOT present and NOT working.
* BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* BuildRequires is correct
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197753] Review Request: gdmap-0.7.5-1
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gdmap-0.7.5-1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197753 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 06:20 EST --- I built it in mock for FC5 i386 with the changes suggested in Comment #2 this morning. I don't have a rawhide mirror at home, which is why I built for FC5, but I doubt that it would be different for development. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197198] Review Request: ntop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ntop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197198 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 06:36 EST --- More issues: * plugins loaded twice After some look at the code and some testing I have found that all the plugins in the plugins directory are loaded, so they are loaded twice since they appear twice in the package... In my opinion either the *.so without version number should be removed, or they should be moved to *.so without version numbers. * a plugin is not functionnal **WARNING** Unable to load plugin /usr/lib/ntop/plugins/libxmldumpPlugin-3.2.so' **WARNING** Message is '/usr/lib/ntop/plugins/libxmldumpPlugin-3.2.so: undefined symbol: gdome_str_mkref' And there is also another error, but it may only happen on the first run **ERROR** LASTSEEN: Unable to open LsWatch database (/var/ntop/LsWatch.db)- the plugin will be disabled * many unneeded files in the docs: CONTENTS FILES ntop.txt README.Suse INSTALL BUILD-MinGW.txt BUILD-NTOP.txt ntop-autotools.* PORTING RedHat-rpmbuild-HOWTO.txt, and certainly DAG * should depend on logrotate * less rpmbuild warnings with the following line in %setup chmod -x docs/ntop-autotools.pdf *.c *.h plugins/*.c plugins/*.xml * you should remove /usr/lib/libntop.so, /usr/lib/libmyrrd.so and /usr/lib/libntopreport.so since there are no associated headers and also since they use -release, see below. * myrrd seems to be an old included version of rrdtools. It shouldn't be used but instead linked against the system rrd, unless there is a very good reason not to do so. * upstream uses the -release for libtool using the package version, this is wrong in general, since it trigggers a soname change even when the abi don't change, however those libraries are not meant to ne linked against, so if the *.so that don't have the release within their names are not distributed it is right. * The mechanisme described under PRIVACY NOTICE should be disabled in the default case (and reenabled with, for example --version-check) or completly disabled. * ntop doesn't seems to be interruptible by a control-C. It doesn't seems right to me but I may be wrong. Maybe for a similar reason, when killing ntop on the first run when ntop asks for a password, the console is broken. This last issue is not blocking the inclusion in extras in my opinion, it is more 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 197753] Review Request: gdmap-0.7.5-1
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gdmap-0.7.5-1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197753
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 06:38 EST ---
- Fix Buidrequires, add intltool
- Fix locales, add %find_lang GdMap and %files -f GdMap.lang and remove
{_datadir}/locales
Spec URL : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/gdmap/gdmap.spec
Srpms URL : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/gdmap/gdmap-0.7.5-2.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 197732] Review Request: optipng - a PNG optimizer and converter - need a Sponsor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: optipng - a PNG optimizer and converter - need a Sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197732 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 06:42 EST --- Spec URL: http://www-users.kawo2.rwth-aachen.de/~tmaas/fedora/optipng.spec SRPM URL: http://www-users.kawo2.rwth-aachen.de/~tmaas/fedora/repo/optipng-0.5.2-1.src.rpm Sorry, SRPM contained a type, you reviewed the correct SRPM. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php calls the license zlib/libpng, libpng in Core uses OSI approved as license text. But I can change the license tag to zlib next time I boot my development machine. Thx for the review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 183322] Review Request: conexus (network and serial I/O library with Gtkmm widgets)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: conexus (network and serial I/O library with Gtkmm widgets) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183322 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|183953 | 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 197353] Review Request: man-pages-fr - French man pages from the Linux Documentation Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: man-pages-fr - French man pages from the Linux Documentation Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197353 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 07:10 EST --- Spec URL: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SPECS/man-pages-fr.spec SRPM URL: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SRPMS/man-pages-fr-2.09.0-1.src.rpm %changelog * Thu Jul 5 2006 Alain Portal aportal AT univ-montp2 DOT fr 2.09.0-1 - Update to 2.09.0 -- 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 187843] Review Request: phpMyAdmin - Web based MySQL browser written in php
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: phpMyAdmin - Web based MySQL browser written in php https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187843 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 08:06 EST --- Looks like the stock httpd-2.0.54-10.3 did not like the space in the Order Deny, Allow line. Making that be Order Deny,Allow fixed my httpd startup problem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197688] Review Request: inotify-tools - Command line utilities for inotify
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: inotify-tools - Command line utilities for inotify https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197688 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 09:28 EST --- I've e-mailed upstream about this compilation warning and he gave me instructions how to fix it :-) http://fedora.pl/~gajownik/inotify-tools.spec http://fedora.pl/~gajownik/inotify-tools-2.2-2.src.rpm * Thu Jul 6 2006 Dawid Gajownik gajownik[AT]gmail.com - 2.2-2 - Fix compilation warnings -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197791] New: Review Request: stacaccli - Stateless Cached Client Tools
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=197791 Summary: Review Request: stacaccli - Stateless Cached Client Tools Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/markmc/stacaccli/stacaccli.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/markmc/stacaccli/stacaccli-0.2-1.src.rpm Description: Stateless Linux is not a deployment model. It is not any single technology. It's a new way of thinking about how a system is supposed to run and be managed. The Cached Client mode of deploying stateless clients is similar to using a network mounted root filesystem, except that an entire copy of the OS image is cached locally thereby allowing offline support and better performance. stacaccli contains the tools needed for running a cached client. stacaccli-install is responsible for installing such a client by initializing the local cache of the OS image. stacacclid is a daemon which downloads updates from the image server and integrates them into the local image cache. -- 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 197791] Review Request: stacaccli - Stateless Cached Client Tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stacaccli - Stateless Cached Client Tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197791 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 09:37 EST --- Some notes: - Overview of what this is all about: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/StatelessLinuxCachedClient - In order for the updating part of this to work, we need a new snapshot merging feature in LVM and device-mapper. Patches here: http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/code/lvm-snapshot-merging/ agk is currently reviewing these for upstream inclusion. The cached client install part works without this feature, though. - Only works on i386 and x86_64 currently. The partitioning and bootloader code is specific to these arches. -- 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 197796] New: Review Request: glipper-0.89
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=197796 Summary: Review Request: glipper-0.89 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://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/glipper/glipper.spec SRPM URL: http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/glipper/glipper-0.89-1.src.rpm Description: Glipper is a simple Clipboardmanager for the GNOME Desktop Environment -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190991] Review Request: libpar2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpar2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190991 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 09:55 EST --- Some of the discoveries in this ticket are wrong and misleading. The biggest problem with config.h (regardless of its contents!) is global namespace pollution when installing the file into a location that takes precedence in the search-path list. The observation that auto-generated headers are wrong/bad in general, is wrong. Surely there are valid scenarios in which it makes sense to re-use generated headers in a public API. Finally, I fail to see where libsigc++-2.0 and gtkmm-2.4 are affected by 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 190991] Review Request: libpar2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpar2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190991 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 10:04 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) The observation that auto-generated headers are wrong/bad in general, is wrong. Surely there are valid scenarios in which it makes sense to re-use generated headers in a public API. Then I have to correct you: Installing files generated by autoheader is always wrong. They are not *designed* for this purpose. Any program doing so is abusing them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: hardinfo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 10:18 EST ---
* Wrong. This package does not use any cached pixmap location, but
an absolute path in the .desktop file. Touching the hicolor directory
and running gtk-update-icon-cache is completely useless here.
* Bad:
Software is not compiled with Fedora global %{optflags}.
Image files are executable.
Missing:
Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig
Requires(post)un: /sbin/ldconfig
Duplicate .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 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hardinfo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 10:19 EST --- Missing: Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig Requires(post)un: /sbin/ldconfig Should read: Missing: Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187843] Review Request: phpMyAdmin - Web based MySQL browser written in php
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: phpMyAdmin - Web based MySQL browser written in php https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187843 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 10:20 EST --- Doah! Forgot to update that source file. http://mmcgrath.net/~mmcgrath/phpMyAdmin/phpMyAdmin.spec http://mmcgrath.net/~mmcgrath/phpMyAdmin/phpMyAdmin-2.8.2-2.src.rpm As for why I used php-mysql. Just habit I guess, I've always used it for my php mysql support. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192430] Review Request: python-kiwi - Framework for Python GUI applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-kiwi - Framework for Python GUI applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192430 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||197793 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 192430] Review Request: python-kiwi - Framework for Python GUI applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-kiwi - Framework for Python GUI applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192430 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 10:26 EST --- Ping. I need this to continue providing gazpacho. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191589] Review Request: qt4-qsa: Qt Script for Applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qt4-qsa: Qt Script for Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191589 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: qsa: Qt |Review Request: qt4-qsa: Qt |Script for Applications |Script for Applications -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 171541] Review Request: kimdaba: KDE Image Database
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kimdaba: KDE Image Database https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171541 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|fedora-extras- | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | CC||fedora-package- ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC|fedora-package- | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | CC||fedora-extras- ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 10:29 EST --- FYI, name deprecated, package renamed upstream to kphotoalbum. -- 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 190991] Review Request: libpar2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpar2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190991 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 10:33 EST --- auto-generated headers != using autoheader -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190991] Review Request: libpar2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpar2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190991 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 10:38 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) auto-generated headers != using autoheader Exactly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187294] Review Request: gwyddion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gwyddion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187294 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 11:32 EST --- Using GPL instead of GNU GPL is a matter of convention. If there is a mix of GPL and public domain code, the resulting subpackage is covered by the GPL. However if you want to make clear which part of the subpackage are under which licence, you can add a file explaining more precisely the licences of the different parts of that subpackage, and put it in %docs. If you can isolate the parts that are public domain in a subpackage, then the licence may be public domain for that subpackage. Licence issues are not technical issues, but they are as important as technical issues. As a side note, you can omit the Licence: tag from subpackages when it is the same than the licence of the main package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 183322] Review Request: conexus (network and serial I/O library with Gtkmm widgets)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: conexus (network and serial I/O library with Gtkmm widgets) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183322 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 11:52 EST --- I'm getting ready to release a new version of this library in the next couple of weeks. Since it needs another review, it would probably be best to wait until the new release comes out. Also, I'll clean up the spec a bit to include the hints you provided on the bit library. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197461] Review Request: perl-Class-InsideOut
Please 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-Class-InsideOut https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197461 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 11:53 EST --- ihave read the Packaging Guidelines again. The packages in the exception list may be listed as a BR optional. So that this is not a blocker. I will APPROVED your package now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197476] Review Request: python-cvstoys
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-cvstoys https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197476 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 11:58 EST --- rpmlint is noew quite for the binary rpm. So I will APPROVE your package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197488] Review Request: uread - Utilities for unformatted fortran files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: uread - Utilities for unformatted fortran files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197488 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 12:02 EST --- I disagree with comment #6, I expect a full-qualified URL in the source tag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197814] New: Review Request: autogen
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=197814 Summary: Review Request: autogen 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.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/autogen.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/autogen-5.8.4-1.src.rpm Description: AutoGen is a tool designed to simplify the creation and maintenance of programs that contain large amounts of repetitious text. It is especially valuable in programs that have several blocks of text that must be kept synchronized. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189685] Review Request: Anjuta2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Anjuta2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189685 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||197814 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 12:36 EST --- Now requires autogen to build (submitted as BZ 197814) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197814] Review Request: autogen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: autogen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197814 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||189685 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 182320] Review Request: gnome-build
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-build https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182320 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 12:37 EST --- Spec Name or Url: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/gnome-build.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/gnome-build-0.1.3-2.src.rpm Updated spec and 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 197821] New: Review Request: perl-IO-Socket-INET6
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=197821 Summary: Review Request: perl-IO-Socket-INET6 Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/perl-IO-Socket-INET6.spec SRPM URL: http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/perl-IO-Socket-INET6-2.51-1.src.rpm Description: Perl Object interface for AF_INET|AF_INET6 domain sockets Spamassassin requires this in order to support IPv6. -- 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 197814] Review Request: autogen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: autogen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197814 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 189685 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 13:36 EST --- Good: + Local Source math with upstream Bad: - rpmlint complaints on the source rpm: W: autogen strange-permission autogen-5.8.4.tar.bz2 0666 - Source could not be downloaded automaticly: Source 0 is not available (http://osdn.dl.sourceforge.net/autogen/autogen-5.8.4.tar.bz2) I have open a tracker on sf.net, becouse I have a simular problem on a other project. - rpmlint on binary rpm complaints: W: autogen devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libguileopts.so W: autogen devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/autoopts-config W: autogen devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/autoopts/usage-txt.h E: autogen library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/libopts.so.25.2.1 E: autogen info-files-without-install-info-postin /usr/share/info/autogen.info-2.gz E: autogen postin-without-install-info /usr/share/info/autogen.info-2.gz W: autogen devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libopts.so W: autogen devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/autoopts/options.h W: autogen devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/pkgconfig/autoopts.pc E: autogen script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/pkgconfig/autoopts.pc E: autogen info-files-without-install-info-postin /usr/share/info/autogen.info.gz E: autogen postin-without-install-info /usr/share/info/autogen.info.gz E: autogen library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/libguileopts.so.0.0.1 E: autogen info-files-without-install-info-postin /usr/share/info/autogen.info-1.gz E: autogen postin-without-install-info /usr/share/info/autogen.info-1.gz - Mock build on FC-5 failed: extracting debug info from /var/tmp/autogen-5.8.4-1-root-mockbuild/usr/lib/libgu ileopts.so.0.0.1 2392 blocks + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-compress + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-strip-static-archive /usr/bin/strip + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-strip-comment-note /usr/bin/strip /usr/bin/objdump + /usr/lib/rpm/brp-python-bytecompile Processing files: autogen-5.8.4-1 error: File not found: /var/tmp/autogen-5.8.4-1-root-mockbuild/usr/bin/xml2ag error: File not found by glob: /var/tmp/autogen-5.8.4-1-root-mockbuild/usr/share /man/man1/xml2ag* Processing files: autogen-debuginfo-5.8.4-1 Provides: libguileopts.so.0.0.1.debug libopts.so.25.2.1.debug Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHave Prefix) = 4.0-1 RPM build errors: File not found: /var/tmp/autogen-5.8.4-1-root-mockbuild/usr/bin/xml2ag File not found by glob: /var/tmp/autogen-5.8.4-1-root-mockbuild/usr/share/ma W: autogen one-line-command-in-%preun /sbin/ldconfig W: autogen one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189685] Review Request: Anjuta2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Anjuta2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189685 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|197814 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197826] New: Review Request: perl-IO-Socket-SSL
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=197826 Summary: Review Request: perl-IO-Socket-SSL Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/perl-IO-Socket-SSL.spec SRPM URL: http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/perl-IO-Socket-SSL-0.97-1.src.rpm Description: Nearly transparent SSL encapsulation for IO::Socket::INET Spamasssasin requires this for SSL encryption between spamc and spamd. This also requires the inclusion of perl-Net-SSLeay currently in Extras. -- 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 197827] New: Review Request: perl-Net-SSLeay
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=197827 Summary: Review Request: perl-Net-SSLeay Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/perl-Net-SSLeay.spec SRPM URL: http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/perl-Net-SSLeay-1.30-4.src.rpm Description: This module offers some high level convinience functions for accessing web pages on SSL servers (for symmetry, same API is offered for accessing http servers, too), a sslcat() function for writing your own clients, and finally access to the SSL api of SSLeay/OpenSSL package so you can write servers or clients for more complicated applications. This package was previously in Extras. It is required for perl-IO-Socket-SSL, which is required for Spamassassin. -- 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 197826] Review Request: perl-IO-Socket-SSL
Please 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-IO-Socket-SSL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197826 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED BugsThisDependsOn||197827 -- 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 197827] Review Request: perl-Net-SSLeay
Please 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-SSLeay https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197827 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||197826 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 180571] Review Request: puppet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: puppet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180571 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 13:59 EST --- * Updated to latest upstream release 0.18.2 Spec: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/spec/puppet.spec SRPM: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/SRPMS/puppet-0.18.2-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197827] Review Request: perl-Net-SSLeay
Please 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-SSLeay https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197827 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 14:33 EST --- jpo, note that we're adding this to Core soon in order to satisfy a dependency of spamassassin. -- 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 180092] Review Request: NRPE - Monitoring agent for Nagios
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: NRPE - Monitoring agent for Nagios https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180092 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 14:44 EST --- Good: + Local build works fine. + Mock build works fine. + rpmlint quite on binary rpm. Bad: - rpmlint complaints the binary rpm: E: nrpe configure-without-libdir-spec - Can't sheck source tarball agains upstream during a technical problem on download the upstream source. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193059] Review Request: ibmasm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ibmasm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193059 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 14:47 EST --- Updated the spec file (per suggestions in comment #8) and the source code to compile more cleanly now. SPEC URL:http://ibmasm.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*/ibmasm/ibmasm/ibmasm.spec SRPM URL: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/ibmasm/ibmasm-3.0-6.src.rpm?download Also adding Aristeu who is the maintainner of ibmasm for RHEL4 and RHEL5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193059] Review Request: ibmasm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ibmasm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193059 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 14:49 EST --- err, correction (wrong version): SRPMS URL: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/ibmasm/ibmasm-3.0-7.src.rpm?download -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197847] New: Review Request: pymsnt - MSN Transport for Jabber Servers
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=197847 Summary: Review Request: pymsnt - MSN Transport for Jabber Servers 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://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/5/SRPMS/pymsnt-0.11-1.fc5.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/5/SRPMS/pymsnt-0.11-1.fc5.src.rpm Description: The MSN Transport provides a gateway which allows Jabber users to communicate with their contacts on the MSN Messenger network. The transport must be installed on the Jabber server, and it's operation is nearly transparent to the user. They can interact with their MSN contacts in the same way as they do with their Jabber contacts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197821] Review Request: perl-IO-Socket-INET6
Please 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-IO-Socket-INET6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197821
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 14:58 EST ---
Some comments:
* Source0 should be a URL
* rpmbuild -ba perl-IO-Socket-INET6.spec
...
Warning: prerequisite Socket6 0.12 not found
Probably a missing BR: perl(Socket6)
* Package is noarch
= passing OPTIMIZE to Makefile.PL is superfluous
= find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name '*.bs' -a -size 0 -exec rm -f {} ';'
probably also is not necessary.
--
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 197476] Review Request: python-cvstoys
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-cvstoys https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197476 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 15:32 EST --- awesome. Thank you. In devel now and building. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191005] Review Request: glob2 - Realtime Strategy 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: glob2 - Realtime Strategy game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191005 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 15:33 EST --- (In reply to comment #19) About your requirements for sponsorship, I'd prefer to do one package at a time. When I get this one working, I'll move to another one :) Fine by me, I agree this is better then juggling 3 reviews at the same time. You won't be able to import glob2 though untill you've done one or more other packages. While we're talking process I'll be on holiday for 5 days starting next monday. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196748] Review Request: setroubleshoot - automatic diagnosis of SELinux problems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: setroubleshoot - automatic diagnosis of SELinux problems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196748 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 15:36 EST --- I realize the package needs documentation but let me explain what Bill probably experienced. There are two basic modes the analyzer can run it, either running in the background waiting to be triggered by an real time AVC, or run against a log file which might contain AVC messages. In the former case, AVC real time event mode, the trigger is fired by auditd, it invokes the analyzer because /etc/auditd.conf has its dispatcher line set to /usr/sbin/avc_snap (BTW, that name is going to change), avc_snap talks to the troubleshooter daemon setroubleshootd. However, the rpm in its current form does not edit auditd.conf or manage the auditd service, all for a variety of good packaging practices. Thus you may not have seen anything if auditd was not running or it's dispatcher was not set to avc_snap. Steve Grubb and I are working on fixing this issue this week. The plan is to have auditd find plugin configuration files in /etc/audisp.d. When that functionality is present (expected next week) then setroubleshoot will install a configuration file there. (BTW, I did just notice the spec file was missing a requires for audit, that has been fixed). The second mode, log file scanning, can be done via % /usr/sbin/setroubleshoot filename Just be aware the version you have does not throttle multiple alerts and may fire off a bunch of them in succession, throttling code will be checked in tommorow. -- 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 196748] Review Request: setroubleshoot - automatic diagnosis of SELinux problems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: setroubleshoot - automatic diagnosis of SELinux problems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196748 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 15:39 EST --- I spoke with Pete Graner today because we're trying to get this into RHEL5, but that has a dependency on this being in FC6t2 (as I understand it). FC6t2 freeze is 7/12, can we get this approved so that its in the pipeline? -- 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 196748] Review Request: setroubleshoot - automatic diagnosis of SELinux problems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: setroubleshoot - automatic diagnosis of SELinux problems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196748 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 15:41 EST --- OK, I installed auditd and started it, and still didn't get any pop-ups or similar; setroubleshoot /var/log/messages also gave no output. Does it only handle certain AVCs? -- 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 197867] New: Review Request: iscsitarget (includes kernel module)
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=197867 Summary: Review Request: iscsitarget (includes kernel module) Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://iscsitarget.sourceforge.net OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Proposed package name: iscsitarget (and kmod-iscsitarget) Project URL: http://iscsitarget.sourceforge.net Tarball: http://download.sf.net/iscsitarget/iscsitarget-0.4.13.tar.gz License: GPL Explanation: It won't get merged. At some point it was submitted to linux-scsi for review: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsim=110966161714414w=2 However, IET will be superceded by a generic target framework: http://developer.berlios.de/projects/stgt . tgt will also provide iSCSI target functionality (among others). It is more likely to be merged, because it addresses the points made in the linux-scsi review, and well, because it's a generic framework. ;-) HTH, Arne Note: I will be adding a warning about the stopgap status of the project to the %description of each package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197821] Review Request: perl-IO-Socket-INET6
Please 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-IO-Socket-INET6 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197821 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 16:05 EST --- http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/perl-IO-Socket-INET6.spec http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/perl-IO-Socket-INET6-2.51-2.src.rpm Added your changes. -- 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 197874] New: Review Request: perl-Socket6
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=197874 Summary: Review Request: perl-Socket6 Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/perl-Socket6.spec SRPM URL: http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/perl-Socket6-0.19-3.fc6.src.rpm Description: This module supports getaddrinfo() and getnameinfo() to intend to enable protocol independent programing. If your environment supports IPv6, IPv6 related defines such as AF_INET6 are included. This package is required for perl-IO-Socket-INET6, which is needed by spamassassin in order to support IPv6. -- 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 196748] Review Request: setroubleshoot - automatic diagnosis of SELinux problems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: setroubleshoot - automatic diagnosis of SELinux problems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196748 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 16:08 EST --- There are two pieces to the package, the framework, and a set of analysis plugins. It is the analysis plugin's job to recognise an AVC. So far most of the work has gone into the framework, not the set of plugins, and the current rpm only has two analysis plugins. The plugin's are meant to be simple to author, and on the TODO list is simplyfying them even further. I'm attaching a trival log file you can test with that has an AVC which would be generated by ftpd, one of the existing plugins. I suppose I should mention as well that we would like to distribute the plugin's separately and I'll probably tweak the spec file to make the plugin's a sub package. -- 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 197821] Review Request: perl-IO-Socket-INET6
Please 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-IO-Socket-INET6 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197821 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED BugsThisDependsOn||197874 -- 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 196748] Review Request: setroubleshoot - automatic diagnosis of SELinux problems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: setroubleshoot - automatic diagnosis of SELinux problems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196748 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 16:10 EST --- Created an attachment (id=132021) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=132021action=view) trival log file with ftpd AVC message to use for testing -- 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 189685] Review Request: Anjuta2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Anjuta2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189685 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 17:01 EST --- Why have you removed 197814 as a depends on when it clearly needs it? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197814] Review Request: autogen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: autogen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197814
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 17:35 EST ---
I can't understand why you should be getting build errors. If I remove
%{_bindir}/xml2ag and %{_mandir}/man1/xml2ag* from the spec file, the rpm
builds, but then when it checks, complains they are there, but not packaged.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197137] Review Request: Conga - Remote management interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: Conga - Remote management interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197137
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 17:47 EST ---
Please check out version 0.8-7 (will publish on Friday, July, 7th 2006):
Spec URL: http://sourceware.org/cluster/conga/extras/conga.spec
SRPM URL: http://sourceware.org/cluster/conga/extras/conga-0.8-7.fc6.src.rpm
* It would be better to split the package into several source packages (e.g.,
conga, luci, ricci, and cluster-*). That would probably also help expediting the
review; when you do that, file separate review requests for each package
- ricci, ricci-modcluster, cluster-cim and cluster-snmp build from the same
source code, and has been split into several packages so that users can pick and
choose what they need
* Please run rpmlint on the generated packages and either fix the
errors/warnings it generates, or explain here why you think they are ok to
ignore
- rpmlint output at the end
* You shouldn't require /bin/bash, it's in the list of requirement exceptions
(see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-4cadce5e79d38a63cad3941de1dadc9d25d67d30)
- removed
* The summary of the packages should be a short one-sentence description of each
package.
- added
* There is no need to have a 'Provides: %name' for each package
- removed
* You shouldn't hardcode the distribution in the release tag; instead use
'6{%?dist}' as the release - the build system will fill in the appropriate value
(.fc5, .fc6 etc.)
- fixed
* Do not manually set _libdir on x86_64; it's automatically set to the right
thing by rpm
- rpmbuild used not to do that, not setting manually any more
* Why does ricci have a number of 'Requires: ricci-xyz = version' and 'Provides:
ricci-xyz' ? Shouldn't the provides be versioned, too ? There's no need for
those requires
- fixed
rpmlint *rpm | grep -v non-standard-uid (both ricci and luci run under their own
respective users):
E: luci non-readable /var/lib/luci/var/Data.fs 0600
- Data.fs contains data that should be viewed by luci only
E: luci non-executable-script /var/lib/luci/Extensions/ModelBuilder.py 0644
- python file with self-test function
E: luci executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/luci
- init script
W: luci dangerous-command-in-%post chmod
- rpm generates private ssl key, has to be readable by luci only
E: ricci executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/ricci
- init script
E: ricci setuid-binary /usr/sbin/ricci-auth root 04755
E: ricci non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/ricci-auth 04755
- authentication helper; verifies root password against pam libraries, while
ricci runs as non-root - should be set-uid
W: ricci dangerous-command-in-%post chown
- rpm generates private ssl key, has to be readable by ricci only
W: ricci service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/ricci
- idea behind ricci is that after installation, luci connects to it, without
any user interaction
W: ricci-modcluster service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/ricci-modclusterd
- same goes for cluster module
E: ricci-modcluster executable-marked-as-config-file
/etc/rc.d/init.d/ricci-modclusterd
- init script
W: ricci-modcluster incoherent-init-script-name ricci-modclusterd
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197732] Review Request: optipng - a PNG optimizer and converter - need a Sponsor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: optipng - a PNG optimizer and converter - need a Sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197732 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 17:51 EST --- Spec URL: http://www-users.kawo2.rwth-aachen.de/~tmaas/fedora/optipng.spec SRPM URL: http://www-users.kawo2.rwth-aachen.de/~tmaas/fedora/repo/optipng-0.5.2-2.src.rpm License Tag is now zlib. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192052] Review Request: bitgtkmm (Gtkmm widgets for the bit library)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bitgtkmm (Gtkmm widgets for the bit library) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192052 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 17:54 EST --- Spec URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/bitgtkmm.spec SRPM URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/fedora/5/srpms/bitgtkmm-0.2.2-1.src.rpm Changes: - New upstream release - Removed *.md5, *.map and *.dot in upstream package - Changed mv of docs to cp -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197814] Review Request: autogen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: autogen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197814 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 18:27 EST --- Hmmm, I'm getting these mock errors as well. That said, I've sorted most of the rpmlint warnings, though some of them are wrong (the two about no !# in a COPYING and some other one spring to mind). As soon as I've sorted out the problem with mock, I'll upload 5.8.4-2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197726] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Set
Please 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-DateTime-Set https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197726 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 18:29 EST --- The requires list for this module comes up with: perl(Set::Infinite) = 0.59 perl(Set::Infinite) = 0.59 so I think you can drop your explicit Requirement for that module. (I did so and rebuilt and only one of those showed up.) Since this is the only issue, I'll go ahead and approve this. Perhaps you could pass on the favor and review someone else's package. 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: 777f0d8c2f6c6092cd7a70bf7e701831 DateTime-Set-0.25.tar.gz * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64) (one dependency added locally) * rpmlint is silent. * noarch package; no debuginfo package * final provides and requires are sane: perl(DateTime::Set) = 0.25 perl(DateTime::Span) perl(DateTime::SpanSet) perl(Set::Infinite::_recurrence) perl-DateTime-Set = 0.25-1.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(DateTime) = 0.12 perl(DateTime::Duration) perl(DateTime::Infinite) perl(DateTime::Set) perl(DateTime::Span) perl(DateTime::SpanSet) perl(Params::Validate) perl(Set::Infinite) = 0.59 perl(Set::Infinite) = 0.59 perl(Set::Infinite::_recurrence) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(vars) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=19, Tests=196, 57 wallclock secs (55.93 cusr + 0.67 csys = 56.60 CPU) * 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. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. APPROVED, just remove the explicit Requires: perl(Set::Infinite) = 0.59 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197736] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Strptime
Please 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-DateTime-Format-Strptime https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197736 [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 196740] Review Request: ogre - Object-Oriented Graphics Rendering Engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ogre - Object-Oriented Graphics Rendering Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196740
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 18:36 EST ---
rpmlint warnings:
W: ogre-devel no-documentation
- Can be safely ignored since docs are in a -doc subpackage.
E: ogre-devel invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libOgrePlatform.so libOgrePlatform.so
- Not sure where this is coming from.
MUST
* Package/spec named appropriately
* GPL license ok, license file included
* spec file legible and in Am. English
* Builds on FC6-i386, FC6-x86_64, FC5-i386, FC5-x86_64
* Sources match upstream:
6ff98b1f14ca679ceaeec00daff2ff87 ogre-linux_osx-v1-2-1.tar.bz2
* No locales
* ldconfig called correctly from %post/%postun
* Not relocatable
* RPM_BUILD_ROOT cleaned as needed
* headers, unversioned .so, and pkgconfig files in -devel subpackage
* No libtool archives
* Does not own any directories that it should not.
* No .desktop file needed
MUSTFIX
===
* The 'tr' trick in Source0: is cute, but my preference is to limit
macro substitutions in Source0 to simple %{name} and %{version} only.
Anything more complicated (like spawning subshells) becomes
harder to read. In this case, just hard code the version string.
* -devel subpackage should use full version in base package dependency (it
is missing -%{release}), or add a comment why it's not needed:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
* BR: flex, bison seem to be unnecessary.
COMMENTS
* One duplicate file found: Docs/styles.css. This is ok, however, as it
is needed for the docs in both the base and the -devel-doc subpackage
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197739] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Event-Recurrence
Please 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-DateTime-Event-Recurrence https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197739 [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 197565] Review Request: buildbot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: buildbot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197565 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 19:11 EST --- Thanks for the review. 1) used I changed it to Development/Tools as Development/Build Tools is not a valid group. 2) fixed 3) fixed 4) fixed 5) I am choosing to leave this one it. buildbot is 100x more functional with it. 6) fixed 7) its only a small files list, so in this case I will leave it. If it were bigger, then I would certainly use the method suggested on the wiki. Updated: Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/buildbot.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/buildbot-0.7.3-2.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 196710] Review Request: coldet - 3D Collision Detection Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: coldet - 3D Collision Detection Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196710
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 19:19 EST ---
MUST
* Package/spec named appropriately
* Source matches upstream:
26c2db12ec5ad2d7a0b1d0fe2597ed4a coldet_11.zip
* LGPL license ok, license file included
* rpmlint output clean
* spec file legible and in Am. English
* Builds ok in mock on FC4, FC5, and FC6 for both i386 and x86_64
* No excessive BR: (no BR: at all!)
* ldconfig called in %post/%postud as needed
* headers and unversioned .so properly located in -devel subpackage
* Owns all directories that it creates; doesn't own directories that it
should not.
* No locales
* No .desktop file needed
* Not relocatable
* No duplicate %files
* File permissions look ok
* No libtool archives
MUSTFIX
===
* -devel subpackage missing the -%{release} component of e-v-r when requiring
the base package.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189724] Review Request: libflaim
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libflaim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189724 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX OtherBugsDependingO|163778 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 19:35 EST --- withdrawning the review for this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197739] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Event-Recurrence
Please 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-DateTime-Event-Recurrence https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197739 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 19:51 EST --- Your two manual versioned dependencies are duplicated by unversioned dependencies found by RPM; you will have to remove yours or filter RPM's. Review: * source files match upstream: 9a08830b081a93619f4a8564063e3bf0 DateTime-Event-Recurrence-0.16.tar.gz * 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. * latest version is being packaged (0.16 12 May 2005) * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64) (with DateTime-Set and Set-Infinite in my local repo) * rpmlint is silent. * noarch package, so no debuginfo. X final provides and requires are sane: perl(DateTime::Event::Recurrence) = 0.16 perl(DateTime::Set::ICal) perl-DateTime-Event-Recurrence = 0.16-1.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) X perl(DateTime) X perl(DateTime) = 0.27 X perl(DateTime::Set) X perl(DateTime::Set) = 0.17 perl(DateTime::Span) perl(Params::Validate) perl(constant) perl(integer) perl(strict) perl(vars) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=14, Tests=195, 16 wallclock secs (15.10 cusr + 0.35 csys = 15.45 CPU) * 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. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193071] Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193071
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 20:02 EST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
The gemspec file looks like a source of useful data; I wonder if we could use
it
to generate a reasonable starting spec file.
I tried that with http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/gem2spec.html which works
reasonably well. The thing that makes me hesitant about packaging gems are
outlined at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/RubyGems
The site{lib,arch} thing should be resolved now. The guidelines say
sitearchdir
and sitelib dir; is that we really wanted to go with?
I wanted to keep it close to the entry in Config::CONFIG those get set from. Do
you think the resulting macro names are too long ?
There's no ruby(abi) requirement.
Oops.
Is the explicit sqlite requirement necessary? rpm finds the libsqlite3.so.0
dependency on its own.
You are right - that was overkill
Review:
X No ruby(abi) requirement.
Fixed
Updated stuff:
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/spec/ruby-sqlite3.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/SRPMS/ruby-sqlite3-1.1.0-4.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 189685] Review Request: Anjuta2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Anjuta2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189685 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 20:29 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/anjuta-2.spec SRPM : http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/anjuta-2.0.2-2.src.rpm (Okay, I know the src rpm was not built with the anjuta-2 spec file, it is the same file as in the src.rpm, only renamed) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
