[Bug 198833] Review Request: mercator - Terrain library for WorldForge client/server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mercator - Terrain library for WorldForge client/server Alias: mercator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198833 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 01:57 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) pkgconfig is not needed in BR for devel package and should not have been added, as wfmath-devel should pick it up. BR: pkgconfig MUST be added to all packages providing a *.pc Cf. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/IRCLog20060706 and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GuidelinesTodo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198833] Review Request: mercator - Terrain library for WorldForge client/server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mercator - Terrain library for WorldForge client/server Alias: mercator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198833 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 02:15 EST --- Erm, pkgconfig is ALREADY included by the wfmath-devel package, therefore it is NOT required. We already have guidelines in place for this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198928] Review Request: lsscsi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lsscsi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198928 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 02:30 EST --- Spec file looks much cleaner, and builds in mock (5devel/x86_64). And yes, always bump the release number :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198833] Review Request: mercator - Terrain library for WorldForge client/server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mercator - Terrain library for WorldForge client/server Alias: mercator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198833 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 02:30 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) Erm, pkgconfig is ALREADY included by the wfmath-devel package, therefore it is NOT required. It doesn't matter. Each package containing a *.pc depends on the directory /usr/*pkgconfig. It therefore must make sure this directory is present. Whether another package currently requires the package pkgconfig and thereby implicitly pulls in /usr/*pkgconfig doesn't matter. It is just a random accident. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198833] Review Request: mercator - Terrain library for WorldForge client/server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mercator - Terrain library for WorldForge client/server Alias: mercator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198833 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 02:45 EST --- Whether another package currently requires the package pkgconfig and thereby implicitly pulls in /usr/*pkgconfig doesn't matter. It is just a random accident. What? I'm sorry I totally do not understand this. What accident is occuring? The package is redundant. End of story. What am I missing? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191239] Review Request: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191239 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 03:49 EST --- Ping? It has been 4 weeks since I approved this package and said I would sponsor you, all you have todo is create an account, get sponsored (just wait) and import this. Why the delay? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196865] Review Request: audacious - A GTK2 based media player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: audacious - A GTK2 based media player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196865 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 03:50 EST --- Closing as this has been 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 198833] Review Request: mercator - Terrain library for WorldForge client/server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mercator - Terrain library for WorldForge client/server Alias: mercator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198833 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 03:57 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #3) pkgconfig is not needed in BR for devel package and should not have been added, as wfmath-devel should pick it up. BR: pkgconfig MUST be added to all packages providing a *.pc s/BR/R/ (In reply to comment #7) Whether another package currently requires the package pkgconfig and thereby implicitly pulls in /usr/*pkgconfig doesn't matter. It is just a random accident. What? I'm sorry I totally do not understand this. What accident is occuring? The package is redundant. End of story. What am I missing? It's just about conceivable that wfmath-devel might someday not include a .pc file and hence not require pkgconfig itself. It's good practice that if your package requires something itself and not just via a dependency (as would be the case if this package didn't ship a .pc file) then the direct dependency should be added to 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 196865] Review Request: audacious - A GTK2 based media player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: audacious - A GTK2 based media player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196865 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 04:17 EST --- Thanks for the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199402] Review Request: chrpath - Modify rpath of compiled programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: chrpath - Modify rpath of compiled programs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199402 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 04:31 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #4) Michael, you don't need to be sponsored to review a package, you only need to open up an account on admin.fedora.redhat.com/accounts/ I have written it to take note of I'm not sponsored ;-) maybe someone will have a look to one of my packages. OK, I understand now. I'd take a look, but I'm not a sponsor. :/ Ping me for the second package to get a review for. (In reply to comment #6) Because the BuildRoot is only suggested, the package is APPROVED even when you disagree with me/us. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199406] Review Request: vtkdata - Example data file for VTK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vtkdata - Example data file for VTK https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199406 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 04:38 EST --- One of recent features of vtk was to allow for several concurrent vtkdata installs due to user demand and be able to switch back and forth. I don't intend to ever have a second package coinstall a different data set, but if the user wants to do so, I'd like to avoid any conflicts and be verbose on filesytem level about what is actually on the system. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199406] Review Request: vtkdata - Example data file for VTK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vtkdata - Example data file for VTK https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199406 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 04:50 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) One of recent features of vtk was to allow for several concurrent vtkdata installs due to user demand and be able to switch back and forth. A versioned data dir would be useful if there is a strong dependency between application and application data, and if the application is supposed to be installed in parallel. But I don't see how this applies here. I don't intend to ever have a second package coinstall a different data set, but if the user wants to do so, I'd like to avoid any conflicts and be verbose on filesytem level about what is actually on the system. I regret having to say this, but I refuse to approve this package in its current shape. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199402] Review Request: chrpath - Modify rpath of compiled programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: chrpath - Modify rpath of compiled programs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199402 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 04:55 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) OK, I understand now. I'd take a look, but I'm not a sponsor. :/ Ping me for the second package to get a review for. My packages are Bug 199192 and Bug 198878. More important to me is the first one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195666] Review Request: mod_fcgid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mod_fcgid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195666 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 05:08 EST --- Sorry about the time taken to knock this one over, been ill or busy or both. - All the items I'd previously pointed out are well and truly fixed - The SELinux module is EXTREMELY cool and much appreciated, a fair bit of consideration has gone into it. Anything that encourages people to better consider system security (in a sane and non-onerous manner) is a Good Thing. Two thumbs up, APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198288] Review Request: python-pastedeploy - Load, configure, and compose WSGI applications and servers
Please 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-pastedeploy - Load, configure, and compose WSGI applications and servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198288 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 05:59 EST --- The %doc section should better be %doc docs/* There is an inconsistent use of rpm macros. I don't know if the name should be python-paste-script or python-pastescript. The guidelines don't cover the case of python submodules. If it is This makes a package name format of python-$NAME it seems to be python-pastescript, but if one follow use the name of the module that you type to import it in a script it should be python-paste-script. The second naming convention is also consistent with perl modules naming. Maybe this deserves a message on fedora-extras-list? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198288] Review Request: python-pastedeploy - Load, configure, and compose WSGI applications and servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-pastedeploy - Load, configure, and compose WSGI applications and servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198288 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 06:00 EST --- The %doc section should better be %doc docs/* There is an inconsistent use of rpm macros. I don't know if the name should be python-paste-deploy or python-pastedeploy. The guidelines don't cover the case of python submodules. If it is This makes a package name format of python-$NAME it seems to be python-pastedeploy, but if one follow use the name of the module that you type to import it in a script it should be python-paste-deploy. The second naming convention is also consistent with perl modules naming. Maybe this deserves a message on fedora-extras-list? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199406] Review Request: vtkdata - Example data file for VTK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vtkdata - Example data file for VTK https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199406 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 06:56 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) One of recent features of vtk was to allow for several concurrent vtkdata installs due to user demand and be able to switch back and forth. A versioned data dir would be useful if there is a strong dependency between application and application data, and if the application is supposed to be installed in parallel. But I don't see how this applies here. How strongly the application and its data are tied varies in vtk's past. Currently it is quite high, as both got a simultaneous minor release. (In reply to comment #4) I don't intend to ever have a second package coinstall a different data set, but if the user wants to do so, I'd like to avoid any conflicts and be verbose on filesytem level about what is actually on the system. I regret having to say this, but I refuse to approve this package in its current shape. Now I'm going to break out in tears ;) Ignoring actual user demand which is acknowledged by upstream development and even implemneted isn't really constructive. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199405] Review Request: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization 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: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199405 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 07:17 EST --- Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~athimm/fedorasubmit/vtk/vtk.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~athimm/fedorasubmit/vtk/vtk-5.0.1-9.at.src.rpm * Wed Jul 19 2006 Axel Thimm [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fix some permissions for rpmlint and debuginfo. Fixing the permissions removed 90% of rpmlint output (unstripped binaries, executable ASCII files which are no scripts). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199491] Review Request: dbus-sharp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dbus-sharp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199491 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 07:18 EST --- I've noticed that one of todays rawhide updates is relying on dbus-sharp. How many applications currently in core also rely on dbus-sharp? -- 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 186919] Review Request: eric: Python IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eric: Python IDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186919 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 07:19 EST --- Did you decide what to do about the non-executable-script errors As there's only 1 real problematic one (fastparser.py), I'll just patch 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 199406] Review Request: vtkdata - Example data file for VTK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vtkdata - Example data file for VTK https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199406 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 07:22 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #3) How strongly the application and its data are tied varies in vtk's past. Currently it is quite high, as both got a simultaneous minor release. Either data files are subpackages of an application, then they should go to below an application owned directory (data as internal implementation detail) or they are independent of the application, then they should go to outside of the applications directories. If they require a certain API, such data should go to API versioned directories. In none of these cases parallel installation of data files makes any sense. Also, upstream ships its data in an unversioned directory, which I read as a strong indication of them not wanting a versioned directory. Ignoring actual user demand which is acknowledged by upstream development and even implemneted isn't really constructive. 1. Show us an URL were upstream explicitly says so. I searched their web site and could not find any such statement. 2. User demand? Whose? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191208] Review Request: ipe - The Ipe extensible drawing editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ipe - The Ipe extensible drawing editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191208 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: The Ipe |Review Request: ipe - The |extensible drawing editor |Ipe extensible drawing ||editor -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198833] Review Request: mercator - Terrain library for WorldForge client/server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mercator - Terrain library for WorldForge client/server Alias: mercator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198833 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 08:03 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #3) pkgconfig is not needed in BR for devel package and should not have been added, as wfmath-devel should pick it up. BR: pkgconfig MUST be added to all packages providing a *.pc s/BR/R/ Ouch - Mea culpa, ugly typo that shouldn't have happened. (In reply to comment #7) Whether another package currently requires the package pkgconfig and thereby implicitly pulls in /usr/*pkgconfig doesn't matter. It is just a random accident. What? I'm sorry I totally do not understand this. What accident is occuring? The package is redundant. Yes, atm it's redundant, but will it be in 2 weeks? What am I missing? The guidelines have changed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194320] Review Request: im-chooser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: im-chooser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194320 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 08:49 EST --- Well, ideally it should be installed by default regardless scim is installed or not, to allow all people to setup their preference. Warren and I talked about it a bit though, if someone enables IM on im-chooser without SCIM installed say, getting the package through pirut say and installing them sounds good idea to me. So I would push this to install by default for that purpose too. -- 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 196146] Review Request: mod_nss
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mod_nss https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196146 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 10:09 EST --- Thanks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199484] Review Request: notify-python - python bindings for libnotify
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: notify-python - python bindings for libnotify https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199484 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 10:32 EST --- Fixed above issues, except I could not find dbus-glib-devel in rawhide, so I omitted that package. Spec URL: ftp://people.redhat.com/jdennis/notify-python.spec SRPM URL: ftp://people.redhat.com/jdennis/notify-python-0.1.0-2.src.rpm Added Jeremy to CC, as he needs this as well. -- 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 199484] Review Request: notify-python - python bindings for libnotify
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: notify-python - python bindings for libnotify https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199484 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 10:42 EST --- dbus-glib hit rawhide last night, I was testing in brew with the current dist-fc6 stuff, which included dbus-glib. Please add it back, this will not compile w/out it. -- 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 199484] Review Request: notify-python - python bindings for libnotify
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: notify-python - python bindings for libnotify https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199484 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 11:02 EST --- O.K. added dbus-glib-devel, but I can't test the build because I can't find this package. Normally I get my rawhide packages off of bigpapi (formerly qafiler), so I'm guessing the package wasn't there when the last sync occurred. Can you point me to another location (e.g. something off of /mnt/redhat?) -- 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 195666] Review Request: mod_fcgid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mod_fcgid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195666 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Keywords||Reopened Resolution|NEXTRELEASE | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 11:27 EST --- Bug appears to have been closed by mistake. I have some tweaks I need to make here, as the selinux-policy package has been split into selinux-policy and selinux-policy-devel in rawhide. I'll upload a version that builds on rawhide shortly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195666] Review Request: mod_fcgid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mod_fcgid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195666 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198247] Review Request: libpng10
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libpng10
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198247
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 11:42 EST ---
I need some help with this. It's failing to build on x86_64:
http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/12809-libpng10-1.0.20-2.fc6/x86_64/build.log
At first I thought it was out-of-order building due to a broken Makefile and the
use of %{?_smp_mflags}, but that wasn't it. I now suspect it may be to do with
the use of assembly code. The strange thing is that it builds fine on x86_64
RHEL3 (the only x86_64 box I have access to).
It could probably be fixed by using the configure script instead of the old
Makefiles, but doing it that way I can't find any way to make it produce shared
libraries with an soname (libpng.so.2.1.0.20) that lines up with what's in
previous Fedora/Red Hat releases.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199491] Review Request: dbus-sharp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dbus-sharp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199491 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 11:45 EST --- Woops, I uploaded them but forgot to move them to the webdir, moved now. Currently f-spot and tomboy use it. -- 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 199494] Review Request: gnu-getopt (RENAME ONLY)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gnu-getopt (RENAME ONLY)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199494
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 11:47 EST ---
Just confirming, the new release will have:
Provides: gnu.getopt = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes: gnu.getopt = 0:1.0.9
and
Provides: gnu.getopt-javadoc = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes: gnu.getopt-javadoc = 0:1.0.9
So the javadoc part also gets replaced.
Can you confirm if this is what is expected?
Thanks!
--
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 192420] Review Request: Bonfire - CD/DVD burning app for gnome
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Bonfire - CD/DVD burning app for gnome https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192420 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 11:57 EST --- I have a question. Currently this package depends on totem (and, of course, some other things). Can this dependancy on totem be avoided somehow, so people who use totem-xine (instead of totem, as they conflict each other) can also use bonfire? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199484] Review Request: notify-python - python bindings for libnotify
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: notify-python - python bindings for libnotify https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199484 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 12:18 EST --- performed a brew scratch build on notify-python-0.1.0-2 with dbus-glib-devel added, everything seems o.k. Note URL's for spec file and src rpm in #3 updated as well. -- 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 199192] Review Request: kadu - Gadu-Gadu client for online messaging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: kadu - Gadu-Gadu client for online messaging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199192
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 13:00 EST ---
The release number for pre-releases should begin with 0 (as stated in
NamingGuidelines), so in this case it would be 0.%{date}svn.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199592] New: Review Request: icu4j
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=199592 Summary: Review Request: icu4j 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/bkonrath/eclipse/icu4j.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/bkonrath/eclipse/icu4j-3.4.4-1jpp_1fc.src.rpm Description: The International Component for Unicode for Java (ICU4J) is a library for Unicode support, software internationalization and globalization. Eclipse 3.2 uses this library for its internationalization support. -- 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 199592] Review Request: icu4j
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: icu4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||needinfo? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 13:13 EST --- The versioning doesn't pass current naming guidelines. We've got an open discussion on jpp based packages and need input from more RH Java folks about the goals of the jpp naming so that we can work our guidelines to allow for an agreed upon scheme. Differring until this has been completed. -- 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 199592] Review Request: icu4j
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: icu4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|188265 |188267 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 199592] Review Request: icu4j
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: icu4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 13:20 EST --- The Eclipse packges in Fedora Core currently include a binary version of these libraries. The purpose of this package is to remove these binary jars. Given this, and the fact the Eclipse packages all currently use the jpp naming convention, I respectfully request review at this time instead of waiting for the jpp naming issue to be sorted out. -- 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 198831] Review Request: varconf - Configuration library used by WorldForge apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: varconf - Configuration library used by WorldForge apps Alias: varconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198831 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 13:21 EST --- Imported and built. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198839] Review Request: sear - WorldForge client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sear - WorldForge client Alias: sear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198839 Bug 198839 depends on bug 198831, which changed state. Bug 198831 Summary: Review Request: varconf - Configuration library used by WorldForge apps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198831 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 13:22 EST --- I have now read through all steps in the packaging guidelines on the Wiki. I would therefore be grateful if someone could sponsor this package as it is my first attempt at Packaging and Extras submission. Regards Chris -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198829] Review Request: wfmath - WorldForge math libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wfmath - WorldForge math libraries Alias: wfmath https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198829 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 13:26 EST --- Imported, but the build failed on ppc due to a single test failure. I'll follow up with upstream on this. I'll defer closing this ticket until the test issue is resolved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199192] Review Request: kadu - Gadu-Gadu client for online messaging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kadu - Gadu-Gadu client for online messaging https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199192 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 13:30 EST --- Created an attachment (id=132755) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=132755action=view) kadu-0.5.0-0.20060716svn Okay, fixed it. But now, if I would like to make next pre-release, should I increase number before dot? For example, actual version is 0.20060716svn so next will be 0.20060720svn? I think official release won't be released quickly, so doing packages of new snapshots may be necessarily. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199491] Review Request: dbus-sharp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dbus-sharp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199491 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|188267 |188268 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 13:31 EST --- Name: dbus-sharp Version: 0.63 Obsoletes: dbus-sharp 0.63 I think this Obsoletes is unnecessary, am I wrong? Otherwise everything else looks OK. APPROVED -- 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 199491] Review Request: dbus-sharp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dbus-sharp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199491 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 13:37 EST --- Note, things are not perfect here but good enough. I am pushing this through in order to fix rawhide a day sooner. Please submit more spec improvements here if you think it should be improved further. -- 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 199491] Review Request: dbus-sharp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dbus-sharp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199491 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 13:37 EST --- The Obsoletes is a precaution since we are moving from a subpackage to an actuall 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 199592] Review Request: icu4j
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: icu4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 13:44 EST --- I'm trying very hard to get the naming scheme approved by the freeze. Is there upstream (jpp) packages of the icr4j stuff, or is this our local split out? -- 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 191239] Review Request: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191239 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 13:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #21) Ping? Pong... It has been 4 weeks since I approved this package and said I would sponsor you, all you have todo is create an account, get sponsored (just wait) and import this. Why the delay? I've been terribly busy (still are)... I think I've done everything that's needed and should be sponsorable now. Thanks for your patience... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192420] Review Request: Bonfire - CD/DVD burning app for gnome
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Bonfire - CD/DVD burning app for gnome https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192420 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 13:57 EST --- Vedran: As I understand it, when the binary RPM is built, it find the dependencies on the shared libraries that this package would link to. Hence, it would depend on things like libtotem-plparser.so.1 (or whatever the exact SO name is). Thus, simply replacing totem with totem-xine should be fine on the user's end, as they both (to my knowledge) provide the same shared libraries. The reason it actually depends on 'totem' when you attempt to install it after building it is that totem is the only RPM available in the default repositories which contains these libraries. Hope that helps. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199484] Review Request: notify-python - python bindings for libnotify
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: notify-python - python bindings for libnotify https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199484 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|188267 |188268 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 14:00 EST --- Looks good now. Approving. Does this need to be in comps anywhere, or will it be pulled in through a dependancy of something else? -- 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 199192] Review Request: kadu - Gadu-Gadu client for online messaging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kadu - Gadu-Gadu client for online messaging https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199192 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 14:37 EST --- Is this a pre-release snapshot of 0.5.0? If so, there should be an additional dot and an integer between the leading 0 and the 20060716svn, like 0.1.20060716svn, see Pre-release packages at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193894] Review Request: ant-contrib - A collection of tasks for Ant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ant-contrib - A collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193894 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 14:42 EST --- Hans, h2html seems close: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193889 I think Igor is ready for sponsorship now, and I'll take care of it if you want. Either way is fine with me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193894] Review Request: ant-contrib - A collection of tasks for Ant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ant-contrib - A collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193894 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 14:56 EST --- New files: http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/ant-contrib-1.0-0.2.b2.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/ant-contrib.spec I removed the class-path from the manifest file and it seems to be fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199192] Review Request: kadu - Gadu-Gadu client for online messaging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kadu - Gadu-Gadu client for online messaging https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199192 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #132755|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 15:01 EST --- Created an attachment (id=132763) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=132763action=view) 0.5.0-0.1.20060716svn.spec Yes, you're right, I haven't read Packing Naming Guidelines carefully :/ So there is new spec file with correct release number. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177583] Review Request: zaptel-kmod
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zaptel-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177583 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 15:05 EST --- Just a note that according to http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/KernelModules reviews shouldn't even start until FESCo has a chance to approve the module, and before that happens, the statement from upstream is absolutely required. This package probably predates those guidelines, though. Anyway, any chance of getting that statement soon so I can sheperd this package through the committee? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199611] New: Review Request: monsterz - Puzzle game, similar to Bejeweled or Zookeeper
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=199611 Summary: Review Request: monsterz - Puzzle game, similar to Bejeweled or Zookeeper 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://dribble.org.uk/reviews/monsterz.spec SRPM URL: http://dribble.org.uk/reviews/monsterz-0.7.0-4.src.rpm Description: Monsterz is a little arcade puzzle game, similar to the famous Bejeweled or Zookeeper. The goal of the game is to create rows of similar monsters, either horizontally or vertically. The only allowed move is the swap of two adjacent monsters, on the condition that it creates a row of three or more. When alignments are cleared, pieces fall from the top of the screen to fill the board again. Chain reactions earn you even more points. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199494] Review Request: gnu-getopt (RENAME ONLY)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnu-getopt (RENAME ONLY) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199494 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 15:07 EST --- actually, you can drop the epoch business. If the epoch is 0, there is no need to list it (nor define it if you're doing that in the spec) Adding gnu-getopt to you as the owner. Please let me know when you've built it so that I can block gnu.getopt. -- 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 199491] Review Request: dbus-sharp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dbus-sharp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199491 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 15:07 EST --- I'm pretty sure it doesn't work this way, and there is no actual problem here. -- 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 191745] Review Request: sysprof-kmod - kernel module for the sysprof profiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sysprof-kmod - kernel module for the sysprof profiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191745 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 15:09 EST --- According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/KernelModules you will need to provide certain information to the Extras steering committee, in particular: A publishable explanation from the author(s) why the module is not merged with the mainline kernel yet and when it's planned to get merged. Could you please provide this information so that the committee can consider this module? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199212] Review Request: dbus-glib and dbus-python (split out from the dbus 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: dbus-glib and dbus-python (split out from the dbus package) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199212 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 15:10 EST --- These have been built into rawhide. -- 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 193897] Review Request: mysql-connector-java - Official JDBC driver for MySQL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: mysql-connector-java - Official JDBC driver for MySQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193897
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 15:16 EST ---
Hi Anthony,
Thanks for the feedback, here are the new files:
http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/mysql-connector-java.spec
http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/mysql-connector-java-3.1.12-1jpp_2fc.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #2)
rpmlint output is:
W: mysql-connector-java non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
We just use Development/Libraries in Fedora. Perhaps there's an argument to
be
made for Development/Libraries/Java, but let's use the standard for now. I'll
send a note to fedora-devel
I've changed it to Development/Libraries.
W: mysql-connector-java wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/mysql-connector-java-3.1.12/docs/README.txt
W: mysql-connector-java wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/mysql-connector-java-3.1.12/README.txt
W: mysql-connector-java wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/mysql-connector-java-3.1.12/EXCEPTIONS-CONNECTOR-J
Fix these with sed in the %prep section like so:
%{__sed} -i 's/\r//' README.txt
Done.
The spec file includes:
# remove all binary libs
find . \( -name *.jar -o -name *.class \) | xargs -t rm -f
I would rather that we strip the .jar files from the tarball prior to
packaging.
This will ensure that we don't accidentally ship binaries sans sources or
binaries with unfriendly licensing - even if they only show up in the SRPM.
I feel kind of uncomfortable with doing this before pacakging, because it will
defeat the point of the pristine upstream source. I don't see how doing this
before the packaging process is better than doing it at %prep time, I'd say
it's less reproducable.
Can you explain this part of the spec file?..
Provides: mm.mysql
Obsoletes: mm.mysql
Hmm, no I don't know why these are there. This package is taken from JPackage,
I'll try contacting the packager and ask if there is a reason for these to
remain.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193894] Review Request: ant-contrib - A collection of tasks for Ant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ant-contrib - A collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193894 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 15:29 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) Hans, h2html seems close: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193889 I think Igor is ready for sponsorship now, and I'll take care of it if you want. Either way is fine with me. I'm rather busy with other FE stuff at the moment, so if you could sponsor Igor and help him with the other reviews that would be great! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199386] Review Request: aspell-mi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aspell-mi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199386 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 15:34 EST --- No need, just including it here for reference. I'll go ahead and work up a quick 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 199491] Review Request: dbus-sharp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: dbus-sharp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199491
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 15:49 EST ---
Minor...
Requires: %name = %{version}-%{release}
Should this not be %{name}?
Can the spec unify how it uses $RPM_BUILD_ROOT? It should be either entirely
%{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT but not a mix of the two.
Also, why is the mkdir -p %{_prefix}/lib/mono in the install? The make install
step creates it.
Thanks
--
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 199386] Review Request: aspell-mi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aspell-mi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199386 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 15:55 EST --- Odd that nobody else saw this, but rpmlint on the source package complains about: E: aspell-mi configure-without-libdir-spec The configure script isn't actually one generated by autoconf and doesn't accept --libdir, so this error is bogus. And, to reiterate, these errors: E: aspell-mi no-binary E: aspell-mi only-non-binary-in-usr-lib are also bogus as the aspell dictionaries are arch-dependent due to byte ordering. Note that the license is LGPL, not GPL. Since this is the only issue and it's just one letter, I'll approve this and you can fix it when you check in. Onto the review: * source files match upstream: 8b1a07032ee086662bfe44a2e0459db4 aspell-mi-0.50-0.tar.bz2 * 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. X license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * Compiler flags are appropriate (nothing is compiled, so no need to pass them) * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). O rpmlint has only ignorable errors (see above). * debuginfo package necessarily disabled. * final provides and requires are sane: aspell-mi = 0.50-1.fc6 = aspell = 12:0.60 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * 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 fix the license. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185325] Review Request: sparse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sparse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185325 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 16:00 EST --- Anything happening here? It's been two months. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194320] Review Request: im-chooser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: im-chooser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194320 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 16:06 EST --- Added to Gnome and KDE desktop groups as a default. -- 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 199192] Review Request: kadu - Gadu-Gadu client for online messaging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kadu - Gadu-Gadu client for online messaging https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199192 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 16:13 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) Created an attachment (id=132763) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=132763action=view) [edit] 0.5.0-0.1.20060716svn.spec Yes, you're right, I haven't read Packing Naming Guidelines carefully :/ So there is new spec file with correct release number. I have done it right in my not-yet-released package and here I give a wrong advice. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199627] New: Review Request: kooldock - dock for KDE with great visual effects and enhancements
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=199627 Summary: Review Request: kooldock - dock for KDE with great visual effects and enhancements 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://ecik.zspswidwin.pl/kooldock/kooldock.spec SRPM URL: http://ecik.zspswidwin.pl/kooldock/kooldock-0.3-1.20060720cvs.src.rpm Description: This is one of my first packages, and I'm looking for a sponsor. KoolDock is a KDE project that aims to have a cool dock for KDE with great visual effects and enhancements. Some of it features are: - Display quick launchers to your favourite apps - A builtin task bar - Pager and clock. (Not done yet) - Smooth zooming effect (like Apple's OS X dock) - Transparent Background. Comments: It uses my own cvs snapshot source, because kooldock site is down, and there is no option to download the source. Probably, CVS snapshot will never be updated (the last update is 2 years old) and package is probably dead but... I use it every day and it looks really cool ;) so I think it would be good if the latest version will turn up in Extras. Package should be easy to review, because rpmlint doesn't show anything and mock build completes successfully ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194320] Review Request: im-chooser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: im-chooser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194320 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 16:24 EST --- This has been built into rawhide. -- 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 199627] Review Request: kooldock - dock for KDE with great visual effects and enhancements
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kooldock - dock for KDE with great visual effects and enhancements https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199627 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199192] Review Request: kadu - Gadu-Gadu client for online messaging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kadu - Gadu-Gadu client for online messaging https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199192 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 16:30 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) I have done it right in my not-yet-released package and here I give a wrong advice. Never mind ;-) Well... maybe someone will decide to review 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 191239] Review Request: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191239 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 16:33 EST --- Ok, you've been sponsored, so you should be able to import this shortly (donnu howlong the infrastructure takes to work through 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 199484] Review Request: notify-python - python bindings for libnotify
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: notify-python - python bindings for libnotify https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199484 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 16:34 EST --- It will be a dependency of other packages -- 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 199630] New: Review Request: ClanLib - Cross platform C++ game library
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=199630 Summary: Review Request: ClanLib - Cross platform C++ game library 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://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/ClanLib.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/ClanLib-0.8.0-0.1.RC2.src.rpm Description: ClanLib is a cross platform C++ game library. --- What a PITA, it has cost me 2 days to get this and the older ClanLib-0.6 (which is still very widely used) packaged in such a way that the 2 clanlibs are parallel installable and some test apps compiled and tested. Tomorrow I'll start working on pingus (from the FE wishlist), clanbomber and auriferous (loderunner inspired game) packages. Notice the smallish HACK to the pkg-config files to stop this from conflicting with ClanLib06, which I'm also submitting for review it might be best to review these 2 together. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199632] New: Review Request: ClanLib06 - Version 0.6 of this Cross platform C++ game library
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=199632 Summary: Review Request: ClanLib06 - Version 0.6 of this Cross platform C++ game library 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://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/ClanLib06.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/ClanLib06-0.6.5-1.src.rpm Description: Version 0.6 of this cross platform C++ game library, which is still used by many games. --- What a PITA, it has cost me 2 days to get this and the current ClanLib-0.8 packaged in such a way that the 2 clanlibs are parallel installable and some test apps compiled and tested. Tomorrow I'll start working on pingus (from the FE wishlist), clanbomber and auriferous (loderunner inspired game) packages. I'm also submitting the current ClanLib-0.8 for review it might be best to review these 2 together. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198878] Review Request: mutagen - Python module to handle audio metadata
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mutagen - Python module to handle audio metadata https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 16:49 EST --- Michał, I'll sponsor you. A quick question before I start the review: why is this package arch-specific? It doesn't seem to contain any compiled code. This results in the following rpmlint warnings: E: mutagen no-binary E: mutagen-debuginfo empty-debuginfo-package which are correct since there are no binary executables and the debuginfo package ends up empty. Adding BuildArch: noarch seems to result in a proper 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 199632] Review Request: ClanLib06 - Version 0.6 of this Cross platform C++ game 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: ClanLib06 - Version 0.6 of this Cross platform C++ game library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199632 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 17:02 EST --- The other CLanLib review is under bug 199630 . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199630] Review Request: ClanLib - Cross platform C++ game 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: ClanLib - Cross platform C++ game library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199630 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 17:02 EST --- The other CLanLib review is under bug 199632 . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198878] Review Request: mutagen - Python module to handle audio metadata
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mutagen - Python module to handle audio metadata https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #132496|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 17:04 EST --- Created an attachment (id=132774) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=132774action=view) mutagen-1.5.1-4.spec Thanks for advice and sponsorship. I noticed that python packages are mostly noarch and I forgot to add it to spec file. So, here is new spec file with no rpmlint errors. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191745] Review Request: sysprof-kmod - kernel module for the sysprof profiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sysprof-kmod - kernel module for the sysprof profiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191745 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 17:06 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/KernelModules you will need to provide certain information to the Extras steering committee, in particular: A publishable explanation from the author(s) why the module is not merged with the mainline kernel yet and when it's planned to get merged. Could you please provide this information so that the committee can consider this module? OK, I asked the author to provide that info. My opinion is that this particular package does not really fall into the picture covered by the guidelines: this is not a driver, it's a (small) module which is exposing CPU sampling data for the GUI to show. Of course, it would be easier if I had only to package the GUI... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 178901] Review Request: gtksourceview-sharp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtksourceview-sharp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178901 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 17:25 EST --- Spec Name or Url: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/gtksourceview-sharp.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/gtksourceview-sharp-2.0-13.src.rpm Fixes licence -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199386] Review Request: aspell-mi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aspell-mi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199386 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 17:33 EST --- Fix the license. Imported. Thanks 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 199592] Review Request: icu4j
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: icu4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 17:34 EST --- This is a local split. I had to update the sources from 3.2 to 3.4.4 and add a patch to work around a bug in the javadoc generation. Other than that the spec file is the same. -- 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 199632] Review Request: ClanLib06 - Version 0.6 of this Cross platform C++ game 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: ClanLib06 - Version 0.6 of this Cross platform C++ game library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199632 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199630] Review Request: ClanLib - Cross platform C++ game 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: ClanLib - Cross platform C++ game library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199630 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199028] Review Request: perl-eperl
Please 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-eperl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199028 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 17:39 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) I struggled with the naming a bit, as eperl is more than just a perl module. However, it is indeed a module and then some, which I believe makes it appropriate to prefix perl-. The website and documentation also switch from ePerl to eperl fairly frequently, so I defer to the packager. I was going for perl-$CPAN_name (even though is isn't on CPAN). It's as appropriate as anything... It's been imported into CVS, branches have been created, and builds have been requested. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: icu4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||199504 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 199592] Review Request: icu4j
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: icu4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 17:51 EST --- As stated in bug #199504, I wasn't able to build eclipse after replacing its binary jars with icu4j 3.4.4. I did not investigate further. -- 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 199592] Review Request: icu4j
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: icu4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 17:54 EST --- Don't forget to fix the version in you changelog entry -- 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 198836] Review Request: freetype1 compatibility FreeType 1.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: freetype1 compatibility FreeType 1.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198836 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 18:13 EST --- I fail to find any official upstream releases of FreeType 1.x. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194278] Review Request: kdeadmin: Administrative tools for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdeadmin: Administrative tools for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194278 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 18:20 EST --- * Missing dependancy on update-desktop-database for %post (package desktop-file-utils) * Missing dependancy on update-desktop-database for %postun (package desktop-file-utils) * The package contains libtool archive files (*.la) * Many of the desktop files don't follow the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop packaging guidelines. Minor * Duplicate BuildRequires: bzip2-devel (by kdelibs-devel) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199630] Review Request: ClanLib - Cross platform C++ game 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: ClanLib - Cross platform C++ game library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199630 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 18:42 EST --- Blocker : How does the ClanLib licence marry up to the LGPL? Nearest to it would be just distributable or better still, ClanLib. You will need to include the license in %docs You need BR zlib-devel for it to build in mock More to follow -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: icu4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 19:01 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) As stated in bug #199504, I wasn't able to build eclipse after replacing its binary jars with icu4j 3.4.4. I did not investigate further. Right, I'll make a patch on Monday. I'm at OLS right now. -- 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 199632] Review Request: ClanLib06 - Version 0.6 of this Cross platform C++ game 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: ClanLib06 - Version 0.6 of this Cross platform C++ game library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199632 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 19:02 EST --- Blocker : needs BR lua Possible fault. You haved defined ARCH_CONFIG_FLAGS in the %ifarch construct and passed to the configure line. On a non x86 machine, ARCH_CONFIG_FLAGS is undefined which may upset things somewhat! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: icu4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 19:07 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) Don't forget to fix the version in you changelog entry Fixed, thanks. -- 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 199630] Review Request: ClanLib - Cross platform C++ game 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: ClanLib - Cross platform C++ game library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199630 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 19:13 EST --- rpmlint errors and warnings. main i386 package : clean devel : E : ClanLib-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib All of the warnings are the same (dangling-relative-symlink) - there are 13 in total W: ClanLib-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/ClanLib-0.8/libclanNetwork.so ../libclanNetwork-0.8.so.1.0.0 W: ClanLib-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/ClanLib-0.8/libclanGUIStyleSilver.so ../libclanGUIStyleSilver-0.8.so.1.0.0 W: ClanLib-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/ClanLib-0.8/libclanGUI.so ../libclanGUI-0.8.so.1.0.0 W: ClanLib-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/ClanLib-0.8/libclanGL.so ../libclanGL-0.8.so.1.0.0 W: ClanLib-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/ClanLib-0.8/libclanMikMod.so ../libclanMikMod-0.8.so.1.0.0 W: ClanLib-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/ClanLib-0.8/libclanCore.so ../libclanCore-0.8.so.1.0.0 W: ClanLib-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/ClanLib-0.8/libclanSignals.so ../libclanSignals-0.8.so.1.0.0 W: ClanLib-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/ClanLib-0.8/libclanApp.so ../libclanApp-0.8.so.1.0.0 W: ClanLib-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/ClanLib-0.8/libclanDisplay.so ../libclanDisplay-0.8.so.1.0.0 W: ClanLib-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/ClanLib-0.8/libclanSound.so ../libclanSound-0.8.so.1.0.0 W: ClanLib-devel file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/ClanLib-devel-0.8.0/html/Tutorial/TicTacToe/tictactoe.zip W: ClanLib-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/ClanLib-0.8/libclanVorbis.so ../libclanVorbis-0.8.so.1.0.0 W: ClanLib-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/ClanLib-0.8/libclanSDL.so ../libclanSDL-0.8.so.1.0.0 debuginfo : clean srpm : clean Fails to build in mock (see #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 198878] Review Request: mutagen - Python module to handle audio metadata
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: mutagen - Python module to handle audio metadata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198878
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 19:32 EST ---
Note: it's nice to the reviewers if you generate a new src.rpm with each change
you make to your spec. That way it's simple to just pull down the new package
and build it.
You seem to have tickled a new rpmlint warning:
W: mutagen mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
This happened because you indented noarch with a tab. Not a big deal but that
means it's easy to fix.
More serious is the name of the package: according to the naming guidelines this
package should be named python-mutagen. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#AddonPython
There's no need to pass CFLAGS to setyp.py since this is a noarch package.
This package seems to have a test suite, but you don't call it. You should
consider adding a section like:
%check
%{__python} setup.py coverage
Finally, note that if you disagree with me about the necessity of any of these
issues I've raised, let me know why you think my reasoning is bogus and we'll
discuss it.
Review:
* source files match upstream:
9ce5d5f14e02f2eabd919d6bdaebadbc mutagen-1.5.1.tar.gz
X package meets naming and packaging guidelines (should be called
python-mutagen).
X specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
(looks good but should be named python-mutagen.spec).
* 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.
* BuildRequires are proper.
X No need to pass compiler flags for noarch packages.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
X rpmlint is silent (spaces and tabs thing)
* noarch package; no debuginfo.
* final provides and requires are sane:
mutagen = 1.5.1-4.fc6
=
/usr/bin/python
python(abi) = 2.4
X %check is not present but there is a test suite.
* 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
