[Bug 200051] Review Request: libutempter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libutempter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200051 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||193190 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 200064] Review Request: libpano12 : Library and tools for manipulating panoramic images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libpano12 : Library and tools for manipulating
panoramic images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200064
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 05:38 EST ---
Okay, let's look at the spec
%define name_version %{name}-%{version}
This isn't needed. Just wipe it
BR gcc isn't needed
Not sure on the obsoletes/provides.
%configure --prefix - %configure is enough (unless the tarball decides to put it
somewhere odd). If it is available as a configure option, include
--disable-static
%install
the two strip lines aren't required.
%package devel
Requires : should be %{version}-%{release}. It helps keep the devel files in
pace with the main package.
%description devel
The second paragraph isn't needed
%files
%{_bindir}/* - how many binaries does the package make? If they all start with
PT, then %{_bindir}/PT* and then one for the other one is a much better idea.
The same applies with the %{_libdir}
Does libpano12 not create it's own directory in %{_includedir} or is it again
just a couple of files?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188461] Review Request: xmms-musepack - Mpegplus (mpc) playback plugin for XMMS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xmms-musepack - Mpegplus (mpc) playback plugin for XMMS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188461 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 05:44 EST --- My BuildRoot is perfectly multi-user safe! Te only thing a user needs to do is add a line for %_tmppath to his ~/.rpmmacros. Or use mock/mach, which is what users should all be doing anyway. Repeat it over and over again as much as you like, but for me the default BuildRoot shoudn't be inside the spec file in the first place anyway. It's silly to have the exact same value in each and every spec file. Why does this have to happen for each and every review request I make? :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188461] Review Request: xmms-musepack - Mpegplus (mpc) playback plugin for XMMS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xmms-musepack - Mpegplus (mpc) playback plugin for XMMS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188461 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 06:00 EST --- (In reply to comment #16) Why does this have to happen for each and every review request I make? :-) It's also been discussed on fedora-packaging recently: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2006-July/msg00167.html It's also one of the items to be discussed by the packaging committee: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GuidelinesTodo Should a fixed %buildroot be made mandatory? The current FE SHOULD doesn't consider %arch. Axel's %buildroot is not multi-user capable. It doesn't seem to have a high priority on the agenda, so it probably needs someone to drive it forward on the mailing lists and establish a proposal that can be voted on. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199681] Review Request: slab
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: slab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199681 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 06:10 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) Rahul, I don't think we have gnomesu command on Fedora systems. When i check Desktop files of main-menu from CVS repository, i found that its calling gnomesu rug update unstable command . Similarly, Ubuntu OS changed that command to gnomesu gnome-app-install. So the problem of not able to use main-menu desktop file is that we don't have gnomesu and i need to know what will be the similar command i can use there instead to use gnomesu? If you see main-menu desktop file's description, you will find Desktop file for SuSE is [Desktop Entry] X-SuSE-translate=true _Name=Software Update Exec=gnomesu rug update unstable Icon=system-software-update Terminal=true Type=Application StartupNotify=true Encoding=UTF-8 NoDisplay=true and Desktop file for Ubuntu is [Desktop Entry] Version=1.0 Encoding=UTF-8 Name=No name X-SuSE-translate=true _Name=Software Update Exec=gnomesu gnome-app-install Icon=system-software-update Terminal=true Type=Application StartupNotify=true NoDisplay=true GenericName[en_US]= What should i change in that desktop file for Fedora OS? Wouldn't that be Package Updater (pup)? See /usr/share/applications/pup.desktop from the pirut 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 199681] Review Request: slab
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: slab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199681 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 06:37 EST --- Using consolehelper requires this arrangement: 1. The program to be run as root is installed into /usr/sbin or /sbin, and not /usr/bin, e.g. /usr/sbin/pup 2. A symlink is made from /usr/bin, e.g. /usr/bin/pup - consolehelper So when a regular user types pup, it invokes consolehelper, which prompts for the root password, switches to root and then runs the appropriate program from /usr/sbin or /sbin, i.e. /usr/sbin/pup -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200064] Review Request: libpano12 : Library and tools for manipulating panoramic images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpano12 : Library and tools for manipulating panoramic images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200064 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 06:54 EST --- D'oh! %prep %setup -q %build %configure --disable-static make I need more coffee! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199681] Review Request: slab
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: slab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199681 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 07:06 EST --- What i did is 1)cd /usr/sbin 2)ln -s /usr/bin/consolehelper slab 3)touch /etc/security/console.apps/slab 4)cp /etc/pam.d/halt /etc/pam.d/slab Then i added command /usr/sbin/slab /usr/bin/pup But when i reinstall package and then i click desktop icon under Application-Settings i got new console which even did not ask me for root password and nothing happened. What may go wrong? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199732] Review Request: clanbomber - Bomberman-like multiplayer game that uses ClanLib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clanbomber - Bomberman-like multiplayer game that uses ClanLib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199732 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 07:06 EST --- New version with smp_flags removed here: Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/clanbomber.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/clanbomber-1.05-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200064] Review Request: libpano12 : Library and tools for manipulating panoramic images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpano12 : Library and tools for manipulating panoramic images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200064 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 07:14 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) %prep %setup -q %build %configure --disable-static make Ok done: http://bugbear.blackfish.org.uk/~bruno/apt/SPECS/libpano12.spec http://bugbear.blackfish.org.uk/~bruno/apt/fedora/linux/5/x86_64/SRPMS.panorama/libpano12-2.8.4-4.fc5.src.rpm There is a %build example without a make here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-8c605ebf8330f6d505f384e671986fa99a8f72ee -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199681] Review Request: slab
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: slab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199681 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 07:15 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) What i did is 1)cd /usr/sbin 2)ln -s /usr/bin/consolehelper slab This creates a symlink /usr/sbin/slab - /usr/bin/consolehelper This is not the arrangement I described in Comment #6 3)touch /etc/security/console.apps/slab 4)cp /etc/pam.d/halt /etc/pam.d/slab Then i added command /usr/sbin/slab /usr/bin/pup But when i reinstall package and then i click desktop icon under Application-Settings i got new console which even did not ask me for root password and nothing happened. What may go wrong? I am not familiar with slab; what is it *supposed* to do? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196378] Review Request: kdegraphics-extras: Extras, including kuickshow
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdegraphics-extras: Extras, including kuickshow https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196378 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 07:18 EST --- I think it looks good 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 199681] Review Request: slab
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: slab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199681 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 07:19 EST --- its just substitute to foo given under http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/sysadmin-guide/s1-access-console-enable.html Do i need to use pup instead foo given in above link? I used slab a new file name which is link to consolehelper -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200064] Review Request: libpano12 : Library and tools for manipulating panoramic images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpano12 : Library and tools for manipulating panoramic images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200064 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 07:24 EST --- That URL is purely as an example of using find_lang With the changes (which are the same as yours) the package builds fine outside of mock. rpmlint shows nothing for the main binary, a warning (no-documentation) for the -devel package, and nothing for the -debuginfo and -src.rpm. I'm test building it in mock now. Out of interest, how easy would it be for someone to build this and break the patent? It is really my only concern on this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199681] Review Request: slab
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: slab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199681 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 07:24 EST --- The actual program needs to be in /usr/sbin The symlink needs to be in /usr/bin Otherwise, it doesn't work. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: clement-2.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 07:27 EST ---
As promised here is a full review:
MUST:
=
* rpmlint output is clean, good!
* Package and spec file named appropriately
* Packaged according to packaging guidelines
* License (GPL) ok, license file included
* spec file is legible and in Am. English.
0 Cannot verify if source matches upstream because of broken Source URL,
this must be fixed!
* Compiles and builds on devel-x86_64
* BR: ok
* No locales
* No shared libraries
* Not relocatable
0 Package does NOT owns / or requires all dirs
* No duplicate files Permissions ok
* %clean macro usage OK
* Contains code and permissible content
* %doc does not affect runtime, and isn't large enough to warrent a sub package
* no -devel package needed, no libs / .la files.
* no gui - no .desktop file required
MUST fix:
=
* Proper downloadable Source URL
* This is dead wrong:
%attr(-,mail,mail) %{_usr}/share/%{name}-%{version}/logs/
Running software cannot shall not and must not write to /usr it could
be on a readonly partition or or or
Please make that:
%attr(-,mail,mail) %{_var}/log%{name}-%{version}/
And adjust the software to write it logs there, or am I misinterpreting
the dir name here?
* Unowned dir %{_usr}/share/%{name}-%{version}
Add: %dir %{_usr}/share/%{name}-%{version} to %files or better replace:
%{_usr}/share/%{name}-%{version}/*.php
%{_usr}/share/%{name}-%{version}/reg-icons
%{_usr}/share/%{name}-%{version}/local
%{_usr}/share/%{name}-%{version}/cgi-bin
With just:
%{_usr}/share/%{name}-%{version}
Should fix:
===
* Spec contains: #%postun this will end up as the last line of the %preun
line, harmless but it it would be cleaner to just remove it completly.
* Replace all occurences of %{_usr}/share with %{_datadir}
So all in all its looking good! Once all the must fix items are taken care of
I'll sponsor you and you can import 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 200064] Review Request: libpano12 : Library and tools for manipulating panoramic images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpano12 : Library and tools for manipulating panoramic images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200064 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 07:35 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) Out of interest, how easy would it be for someone to build this and break the patent? It is really my only concern on this package. It's a one-line change to a header file and a rebuild. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200064] Review Request: libpano12 : Library and tools for manipulating panoramic images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpano12 : Library and tools for manipulating panoramic images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200064 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 07:39 EST --- Given the ease by which a patent can be broken, I'll carry on reviewing it, but will need to clarify the position higher up the food chain. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200064] Review Request: libpano12 : Library and tools for manipulating panoramic images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpano12 : Library and tools for manipulating panoramic images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200064 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 08:00 EST --- builds fine in mock. I've asked about #10 and will let you know when I have an answer. rpmlint on the installed packages is fine as well. All being fine with the legal bods, I can't see a problem with the amended spec and package, though the no-documentation warning in devel does need some attention. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188138] Review Request: mod_auth_ntlm_winbind - NTLM authentication for the Apache web server using winbind daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mod_auth_ntlm_winbind - NTLM authentication for the Apache web server using winbind daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188138 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 08:11 EST --- Maybe don't touch /var/cache/samba/winbindd_privileged at all now, and implement usermod -a -G ... just when samba/squid will implement the requested changes? I would prefer to not wait for FC6 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 189662] Review Request: transconnect -- A function imposter to allow transparent connection over HTTPS proxies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: transconnect -- A function imposter to allow
transparent connection over HTTPS proxies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189662
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 09:13 EST ---
* Tue Jul 25 2006 Enrico Scholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1:1.3-0.3.Beta
- removed the %(id -u) from the buildroot; it adds unneeded clutter,
is not required and you gain nothing with it
- fixed paths in 'tconn.cat'
- enhanced 'README.fedora'
http://ensc.de/fedora/transconnect/
==
- follow Fedora naming guidelines strictly; increased epoch
This package have never been released, you don't need to increase
the epoch?
Needed as upgrade path on my systems; you want to follow the guidelines
strictly and these guidelines do not forbid epoch...
no; I like it this way
Indeed, but if I'm not wrong
%{!?release_func:%global release_func() %1%{?dist}}
Release:%release_func 0.2.Beta
leads to the much simpler
Release:0.2.Beta%{?dist}
so why not use the simpler way?
* I like it
* it is used in all my other packages
* it does not violate the guidelines
* I think it would be nice if you dropped a line somewhere (in
README.fedora?) explaining that tconn-localres.so corresponds
with the make localres case described in the INSTALL file, or
something along those lines.
ok; added some lines
* I also think that the file tconn.cat could be modified such that
export LD_PRELOAD=$HOME/.tconn/tconn.so
is replaced by
export LD_PRELOAD=%{_libdir}/tconn.so
ok; is now 'LD_PRELOAD=tconn.so'
* I know that some reviewer disagree on having modules to be
dlopened directly in %_libdir and insist on having dlopened
modules in subdirs of %_libdir.
'tconn.so' will not be dlopen()'ed but LD_PRELOAD'ed. Placing into the
searchpath allows
| LD_PRELOAD=tconn.so
without specifying the full path. Therefore, I will keep it in %_libdir.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196378] Review Request: kdegraphics-extras: Extras, including kuickshow
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdegraphics-extras: Extras, including kuickshow https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196378 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 09:39 EST --- Thanks, importing... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189662] Review Request: transconnect -- A function imposter to allow transparent connection over HTTPS proxies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: transconnect -- A function imposter to allow transparent connection over HTTPS proxies https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189662 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 10:37 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) * Tue Jul 25 2006 Enrico Scholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1:1.3-0.3.Beta - removed the %(id -u) from the buildroot; it adds unneeded clutter, is not required and you gain nothing with it This issue should really be clarified. In the guidelines it is said The preferred value for the BuildRoot tag is so this looks like an almost must to me. I'll ask on the fedora-extras-list - fixed paths in 'tconn.cat' - enhanced 'README.fedora' Ok. This package have never been released, you don't need to increase the epoch? Needed as upgrade path on my systems; you want to follow the guidelines strictly and these guidelines do not forbid epoch... I think it is better to follow the guidelines, because this is a case where they make sense, since there may be a 1.3 and there is no reason to make an exception for this package anyway. Adding an epoch is also bad. I also understand your local issue, but I think we should avoid as far as possible that local issue interfer with fedora extras packaging. Isn't there another solution for your upgrade path, like setting a Provide temporarily in your local repo? Otherwise I guess this issue should be submitted to the fedora-extras-list, since it is likely to be a situation that will happen again in the future. * I like it * it is used in all my other packages * it does not violate the guidelines If you insist. But I think that it really complicates things needlessly. 'tconn.so' will not be dlopen()'ed but LD_PRELOAD'ed. Placing into the searchpath allows | LD_PRELOAD=tconn.so without specifying the full path. Therefore, I will keep it in %_libdir. Ok, makes sense. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 10:47 EST --- Built on dist-fc6 Thanks for your help! -- 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 200106] New: Review Request: werken-xpath (RENAME ONLY)
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=200106 Summary: Review Request: werken-xpath (RENAME ONLY) 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: same spec as the current gnu.getopt SRPM URL: same SRPM as the current gnu.getopt Description: same as before This package has a '.' in the name so it is being renamed to use a '-'. P.S.: As we are rebuilding we may take the opportunity and do an upgrade at the same time if a new version is available. We will add the versioned Provides/Obsoletes for the old name as required. -- 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 200064] Review Request: libpano12 : Library and tools for manipulating panoramic images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpano12 : Library and tools for manipulating panoramic images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200064 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 10:54 EST --- (In reply to comment #12) You don't need the INSTALL file. However, you do need the text files inside of doc to be added (probably best to add these to the devel package). You also need to include the README.linux file. Done. The files in doc/ are end-user documentation, so I put them in the main package. I've taken the dist tag out of the changelogs. I seem to remember putting it in there quieten some version of rpmlint. http://bugbear.blackfish.org.uk/~bruno/apt/SPECS/libpano12.spec http://bugbear.blackfish.org.uk/~bruno/apt/fedora/linux/5/x86_64/SRPMS.panorama/libpano12-2.8.4-5.fc5.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-07-25 11:05 EST --- I was using CVS with the Fedora CVSROOT yesterday, but today I'm locked out: $ export CVSROOT=:ext:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs/extras $ export CVS_RSH=ssh $ cvs co lsscsi For more information on using the Fedora source code repositories, please visit http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UsingCvs Permission denied (publickey,keyboard-interactive). cvs [checkout aborted]: end of file from server (consult above messages if any) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-07-25 11:12 EST --- Dumb question, I know, but can I assume that you're not actually using USERNAME there? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-07-25 11:14 EST --- (In reply to comment #12) Dumb question, I know, but can I assume that you're not actually using USERNAME there? Ooops. The hazards of copy/paste from the FAQ. Thanks. Chip -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] New: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma-2.3.0-1.src.rpm Luma - a graphical tool for accessing and managing LDAP server. It is written in Python, using PyQt and python-ldap. Plugin-support is included and useful widgets with LDAP- functionality for easy creation of plugins are delivered. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191239] Review Request: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191239 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200051] Review Request: libutempter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libutempter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200051 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|188265 |188268 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 14:06 EST --- Spec looks pretty good, here is some rpmlint output: E: libutempter-debuginfo tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: libutempter-devel tag-not-utf8 %changelog Find the offending changelog entry E: libutempter non-standard-dir-perm /usr/libexec/utempter 0710 E: libutempter non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/utempter/utempter 02711 E: libutempter non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/utempter/utempter 02711 E: libutempter non-standard-gid /usr/libexec/utempter utempter E: libutempter non-standard-gid /usr/libexec/utempter/utempter utmp I'm assuming because this has to run as utmpter and this is ignorable. E: libutempter non-utf8-spec-file libutempter.spec Because of the changelog E: libutempter setgid-binary /usr/libexec/utempter/utempter utmp 02711 Again because of utempter, ignore. E: libutempter tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: libutempter tag-not-utf8 %changelog Changelog again. W: libutempter-devel no-documentation Ignorable W: libutempter macro-in-%changelog _libdir W: libutempter macro-in-%changelog _libdir W: libutempter macro-in-%changelog _sbindir These are probably ignorable as well. Everything else looks OK, so approving. Bill Ack? -- 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 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 14:10 EST --- Thanks for explaining. If I understand correctly, if an ABI change occurs, pulseaudio will enhance the pulsedsp library to receive either the old or new ABI, convert the call properly based on some external information (config file, ENVVAR, etc), and then send it on to the daemon. If that's the pulseaudio team's plan for dealing with ABI changes, then I can't think of any other instances versioning would come in handy at the moment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200106] Review Request: werken-xpath (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: werken-xpath (RENAME ONLY) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200106 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|188265 |188268 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 14:11 EST --- Heh, I assume this is for werken-xpath rather than gnu.getopt (: I approve this, adding the package. You're clear to build. -- 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 199611] 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. Summary: Review Request: monsterz - Puzzle game, similar to Bejeweled or Zookeeper https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199611 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 14:42 EST --- Spec URL: http://dribble.org.uk/reviews/monsterz.spec SRPM URL: http://dribble.org.uk/reviews/monsterz-0.7.0-6.src.rpm Here's the latest version. It looks secure to me, but I'm also an untrained eye. I agree, there appears to be no file locking although the example on the wiki doesn't seem to imply this either. I think the possibility of corrupting the scoreboard file is extremely small but that's just IMHO. :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ 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] 2006-07-25 14:57 EST ---
Hi Igor. I went through the review list. Please see the lines with X.
MUST Items:
- rpmlint output is clean
- package name is fine for now (although debate continue on jpp usage)
- The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
- The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- The package license is OK: (I think) GPL + headache inducing exception text.
X- The License field says GPL, which I think it fair since I think
you're allowed to ignore the exception. However, the license text
(COPYING) has the old FSF address. Please update the address and
file a bug upstream.
- The license text is in %doc
- The spec file is written in American English.
X- The spec file for the package is legible, although it would be nice
to line up field names and values in columns, rather than have them
ragged.
X- The guidelines say The sources used to build the package must
match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers
should use md5sum for this task. however we need to remove jar
binaries before packaging to comply with LGPL.
X- Fails to build in in mock.
Cannot find build req jta = 0:1.0.1-0.a.1. Exiting.
$ rpm -q --whatprovides jta
geronimo-specs-compat-1.0-0.M2.2jpp_7fc
I don't know what the right solution here is. Replace jta with
geronimo-specs-compat?
X- BuildRequires need adjusting. (see mock build failure, above)
- Package is not relocatable.
- Package owns all directories in creates.
- No duplicate files in %files.
- File permissions look good.
- %clean section is good.
X- macro use is fine apart from %{__sed}. Please use sed.
- package contains code (no content)
X- %doc section seems to contain equivalent README/README.txt files in
top level and docs dir. Please clean this up. Also, what is with the
@MYSQL_CJ_VERSION@ in the README files?
- %doc contents don't affect runtime
- package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191538] Review Request: qsynth - Qt based Fluidsynth GUI front end
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qsynth - Qt based Fluidsynth GUI front end https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191538 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 15:37 EST --- Yeah, I don't think the guidelines were explicit before that the FESCo approval needed to be *before* you start packaging a kernel module for Fedora Extras. In any case Jeff: Are you still interested in this package? It's been a month or so since any asterisk package updates on your site. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 175433] Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175433 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163776 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 15:42 EST --- Sorry for sitting on this review for so long... I am going to set this back to FE_NEW and see if someone else would like to move it forward. (I thought I did this a while back, but it fell through the cracks. Sorry). -- 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 199780] Review Request: dstat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: dstat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199780
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 15:47 EST ---
MD5sums:
72917aa5eed385464d70ec731bd6d2b1 dstat-0.6.3-2.src.rpm
a2df5d7fecc0115f8eef84141a068e86 dstat-0.6.3.tar.bz2
Blocker:
* Your patch adds #!/usr/bin/python to the modules files. Since the modules are
not intended to be run from the command line, this is improper behaviour. You
should make the files non-executable instead.
* It's customary to put the defattr line first in the files section. I believe
that rpm uses the defattr line even on lines that preceed it in the file
listings but I don't know if that's documented behaviour. If that behaviour
ever changes, then you could suddenly have files with incorrect ownership and
permissions.
* Remove the execute permissions from the scripts in the examples directory.
* Package needs to own the dstat directory like this:
%dir %{_datadir}/dstat
Cosmetic:
* It looks like you're patching out dos line endings for html files. This is
okay if you're going to submit the change upstream. As a general rule (for
instance, if upstream were to not accept the change and you had to continue
to carry it around in the package) it's better to use sed or dos2unix to fix
this. Otherwise your patch becomes filled with whole files where the only
difference is the EOL character.
* Some people still use the default rpm defined topdir, sourcedir, etc. When
this is so, installing the source rpm places the files in the same directory
as a multitude of other rpms. So your patch: patch-to-clean-for-fedora.patch
should really have a less generic name. Something like dstat-eol.patch or
dstat-eol-cleanup.pach.
* I'd remove the commented out code as it doesn't add any value to the spec.
* You don't need to Require: python; this is being picked up automatically.
Good:
* Source matches upstream.
* Package Name follows the Naming Guidelines.
* Spec file follows the %{name}.spec format.
* License is GPL, matches the license field, and is included in the rpm.
* Package built on x86_64 as a noarch package.
* All BuildRequires not listed in the exceptions have been satisfied.
* No locale files, so no need to use %find_lang.
* No libraries or pkgconfig files.
* Package is not relocatable.
* No duplicate files.
* Package has a proper %clean section.
* Package uses proper macros from Packaging Guidelines.
* Code, not content.
* No large doc files.
* Doc files do not affect the runtime behaviour.
* Not a GUI application.
* Does not own directories that belong to another package.
* No scriptlets.
* Package built in mock.
After you fix the listed issues, I can run a last rpmlint check and make sure
the program runs and then APPROVE the package.
Since you need a sponsor, I need to know that you understand the guidelines
before SPONSORing you. This package was a good indication of understanding on
your part. If you do a review of someone else's package that continues to
demonstrate your knowledge of the Fedora Guidelines in particular and rpm
packaging in general, I'll sponsor you as well.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196177] Review Request: kdmtheme - Theme Manager for KDM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdmtheme - Theme Manager for KDM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196177 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: kdmtheme|Review Request: kdmtheme - |manager |Theme Manager for KDM -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP 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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 16:34 EST --- For reference, here's my local package of this: http://cachalot.mine.nu/5/SRPMS/luma-2.3-0.1.src.rpm The above contains some improvements over your package but it is pretty much untested and known to be not quite complete, so approach with care. And I don't have use for luma at the moment, so I'm not doing a full review. But a quick peek into the specfile differences tells me that: - Possibly missing Requires on python-ldap, PyQt, maybe python-smbpasswd - Odd placement of icon and icon caches not updated (does the menu entry actually show an icon?), see my specfile for ideas for a more thorough implementation - Could %lang'ify translations, see my specfile - Specfile comment says Desktop entry for nvidia-settings -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200051] Review Request: libutempter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libutempter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200051 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 17:20 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) Spec looks pretty good, here is some rpmlint output: E: libutempter-debuginfo tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: libutempter-devel tag-not-utf8 %changelog Bero's last name was in ISO8859-1 in a changelog entry. Worked around via anglicization. Find the offending changelog entry E: libutempter non-standard-dir-perm /usr/libexec/utempter 0710 Dir restricted to group utempter access for security. E: libutempter non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/utempter/utempter 02711 E: libutempter non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/utempter/utempter 02711 Binary restricted to group utempter, with perms for SGID binaries. E: libutempter non-standard-gid /usr/libexec/utempter utempter This needs to be created once the package is approved, which it sounds like now from above. ;o) E: libutempter non-standard-gid /usr/libexec/utempter/utempter utmp setuid utmp executable. The GID should be allocated already, if not I'll have to do that, but I assume it is, since RH utempter uses the same GID. I'm assuming because this has to run as utmpter and this is ignorable. yup E: libutempter non-utf8-spec-file libutempter.spec Because of the changelog yup, fixed. E: libutempter setgid-binary /usr/libexec/utempter/utempter utmp 02711 Again because of utempter, ignore. yup E: libutempter tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: libutempter tag-not-utf8 %changelog Changelog again. Wow, it reports the same problem 3 different errors for the same issue. W: libutempter-devel no-documentation Correct, there is no documentation except the README and COPYING. The rpmlint developers are free to submit manpages however. ;o) W: libutempter macro-in-%changelog _libdir W: libutempter macro-in-%changelog _libdir W: libutempter macro-in-%changelog _sbindir These are probably ignorable as well. Actually I just noticed them a half hour ago or so and fixed them. Theoretically %_libdir et al. should always expand to a path of some form, however it is also theoretical that they could expand to something else, and macros are illegal in the changelog, so fixed. Everything else looks OK, so approving. Good beans. -- 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 200172] Review Request: freeglut
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: freeglut
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200172
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 17:44 EST ---
* upstream source checks out:
6d16873bd876fbf4980a927cfbc496a1 freeglut-2.4.0.tar.gz
MUSTFIX items:
1. Drop
BuildRequires: /sbin/ldconfig
(it's pretty much already a given)
Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig
Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig
(rpm automatically picks these up)
2. Drop the
CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -Wall $(pkg-config --cflags glib)
it's not needed. At some point in the past, freeglut may have had references to
glib's header files, but it doesn't anymore (I checked).
3. omit static lib using
%configure --disable-static
and drop from %files
%{_libdir}/lib*.a
4. Optional. Be careful about the Obsoletes/Provides. It seemingly Obsoletes
itself using:
Obsoletes: glut = 3.7
Provides: glut = 3.7
maybe use something safer like:
Obsoletes: glut 3.7-%{release}
Provides: glut = 3.7-%{release}
(and likewise for the Ob/Pr for glut-devel)
Or heck, drop the glut Obsoletes/Provides bits altogether, isn't glut pretty
much ancient history anyway? (:
Fix 1-3, and I'll approve 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 199732] Review Request: clanbomber - Bomberman-like multiplayer game that uses ClanLib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clanbomber - Bomberman-like multiplayer game that uses ClanLib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199732 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 17:50 EST --- Yeah, looks like my system is at fault on this one. 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 199732] Review Request: clanbomber - Bomberman-like multiplayer game that uses ClanLib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clanbomber - Bomberman-like multiplayer game that uses ClanLib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199732 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200172] Review Request: freeglut
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: freeglut https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200172 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 18:01 EST --- Fixed 1 - 3 Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/freeglut.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/freeglut-2.4.0-9.src.rpm CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS was still needed, otherwise the buidl failed, but dropped the glib cruff tho. As for item 4, I would like to hear what Mike Harris has to say, if nots not required, I would like to remove it from the spec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200172] Review Request: freeglut
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: freeglut https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200172 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 18:17 EST --- CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS was still needed, otherwise the buidl failed, but dropped the glib cruff tho. ??? Really?? I just built it in a fedora-6 mock buildroot just fine without it. No biggie, either way, 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 184331] Review Request: K-3D - 3D modeling and rendering system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: K-3D - 3D modeling and rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184331 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 18:53 EST --- Can you post the URLs of both the spec and srpm here so I can just download, test, review and we can get this one off into FE? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187609] Review Request: tre - POSIX compatible regexp library with approximate matching
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tre - POSIX compatible regexp library with approximate matching https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187609 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 19:14 EST --- Adding myself to CC list due to above-mentioned interest in crm114 (for a LUG colleague). It appears that tre 0.7.4 (released a couple months ago) may resolve the issues with x86_64 which caused the original delays with this package moving forward (which I learned of by discussing this package with Dominik on IRC). Alas, I lack access to an x86_64 buildhost (well, for scratch builds), so I can't verify this. If Dominik doesn't have the time to continue this (which was mentioned), I'd be happy to pick up the pieces he put together and maintain them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177211] Review Request: newsx - NNTP news exchange utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: newsx - NNTP news exchange utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177211 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO_REPORTER --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 22:29 EST --- Ping. Adding --without-history to %configure results in a build. What's this Provides: news-sucker line? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200172] Review Request: freeglut
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: freeglut https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200172 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 22:35 EST --- Cool, thanks for the review. All checked in and built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 182254] Review Request: SS5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: SS5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182254 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 22:43 EST --- I could not actually find SS5 in repository for branching. I'll leave the branch request in the wiki but you should contact your sponsor to determine what happend during the import. http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/rpms/ If something 'funny' is going on let me know and I'll take a look. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 182254] Review Request: SS5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: SS5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182254 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 22:47 EST --- sorry, false alarm. ss5, got it :-D. this should be branched now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 22:51 EST ---
It looks like the spec and package moved to
http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/built/rpm_review/jmagne/
yea? Looking good. A few things:
- The gtk-update-icon-cache stuff still isn't right. Have a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets for the right idiom.
- you don't have to manually run tar for xulrunner, you can specify another
%setup line, although I don't remember the right arguments to give it off hand.
- Also, I don't think you should need %{_buildir} anywhere. rpm normally puts
you in the right directories i think.
- I think if you just put %doc esc/LICENSE in the filelist then it should get
moved to the right place (/usr/share/doc/esc-1.0.0/LICENSE) automatically, but I
could be wrong.
--
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 199833] Review Request: vips - image processing 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: vips - image processing library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199833 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 22:55 EST --- New version: http://www.spicenitz.org/fedora/vips.spec http://www.spicenitz.org/fedora/vips-7.10.20-2.src.rpm Change: eliminate undefined symbols in libvipsCC. I have not yet removed the BuildRequires as you suggested. This is because vips independently requires each of those libraries to build-- for example, vips still needs glib2-devel to build independently of pango-devel. If pango-devel were ever to stop requiring glib2-devel (say it switched to glib3-devel), then vips would fail to have glib2-devel present for it to compile. Same with the other build requirements, vips independently uses libtiff, libjpeg, etc. along with ImageMagick. I can still remove these BuildRequires, since vips will correctly build today without them. But I'm worried that this could cause the build to fail in non-obvious ways in the future. For that reason, I request to leave them in. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196434] Review Request: ren
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ren
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196434
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 22:56 EST ---
I can review this one.
Review for release 7:
* RPM name is OK
* This is the latest version
* Builds fine in mock
* rpmlint looks OK
* File list looks OK
Needs work:
debuginfo package is not built correctly. I added CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS to the
make line:
make CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS %{?_smp_mflags}
This builds a correct debuginfo package.
Fix that up and I can approve this submission.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192363] Review Request: GTS - Gnu Triangulated Surface 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: GTS - Gnu Triangulated Surface Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192363 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 23:03 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) Can you post up a new srpm and spec file? I can get down to reviewing it properly then. ... this package's review had been completed long ago. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196591] Review Request: bitlbee
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bitlbee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196591 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 23:28 EST --- Is there a technical reason for selecting OpenSSL over gnutls ? Even the bitlbee developers recommend using gnutls (docs/README). Its seems a trival change and seems to be holding up a review for no good reason. IMHO. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198885] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Client-HTTP
Please 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-POE-Component-Client-HTTP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198885 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: esc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: esc and esc-|Review Request: esc |xulrunner-devel | -- 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 192606] Review Request: yafc: yet another ftp 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: yafc: yet another ftp client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192606 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-26 01:46 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) rpmlint result: E: yafc zero-length /usr/share/doc/yafc-1.1.1/doc/yafc.info The package does indeed contain an empty compressed file yafc.info.gz. The cause is building triggers regeneration of the *.info while makeinfo is missing. /builddir/build/BUILD/yafc-1.1.1/support/missing: line 46: makeinfo: command not found WARNING: `makeinfo' is missing on your system. You should only need it if you modified a `.texi' or `.texinfo' file, or any other file indirectly affecting the aspect of the manual. The spurious call might also be the consequence of using a buggy `make' (AIX, DU, IRIX). You might want to install the `Texinfo' package or the `GNU make' package. Grab either from any GNU archive site. = BR: /usr/sbin/makeinfo could be applied to work around this issue. But .. the actual cause is deeper: The tarball is not packaged properly. It contains a raw preconfigured CVS snapshot with all temporary files and broken timestamps inside. Due to this I strongly recommend to add a make distclean to %prep to assure the subsequent %configure doesn't reconfigure the source tree, but to configure it anew. Further issues: * You put *.texi's in %doc. These *.texi's are the sources of yafc.info. It doesn't make much sense to put them into %docdir * Related to the previous issue, the prepare for %doc block doesn't seem useful to me. The package ships and installs mans and infos, its Makefiles handle them correctly. There is no for any special treatment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
