[Bug 201656] Review Request: gstm-1.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gstm-1.2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201656 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-12 04:15 EST --- Well I removed openssh in br :) New Spec : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/gstm/gstm.spec Nex SRPM : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/gstm/gstm-1.2-2.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 176580] Review Request: x11-ssh-askpass -- the cool brother of gnome-ssh-askpass
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: x11-ssh-askpass -- the cool brother of gnome-ssh-askpass https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176580 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-12 04:21 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 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] 2006-08-12 09:01 EST ---
We need to be consistent here:
rpmlint is complaining about putting an application in setuid how could
you suggest to do this?
Clement is started un root priviledges and lets them go as soon
proper port (SMTP) are open, to do this it seteuid with the application program
ownership. So there is NO purpose to put clement setuid, not from the
security stand point, not from the rpmlint stand point, not from application
stand point.
file in %{_usr}/lib are shell for clement application (utilities, support),
shell are not archs dependent.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197353] Review Request: man-pages-fr - French man pages from the Linux Documentation Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: man-pages-fr - French man pages from the Linux Documentation Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197353 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-12 11:16 EST --- Spec URL: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SPECS/man-pages-fr.spec SRPM URL: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SRPMS/man-pages-fr-2.37.0-1.src.rpm %changelog * Fri Aug 12 2006 Alain Portal aportal AT univ-montp2 DOT fr 2.37.0-1 - Update to 2.37.0 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196570] Review Request: mirage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mirage https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196570 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-12 12:35 EST --- Hey Michael. I would be happy to formally review this. Before I do: Are the links in comment #2 current? Or did you make changes in comment #4 that aren't reflected yet in the spec? Also, it looks like moving forward the python guidelines are going to change to require .pyo files to just be included instead of ghosting them. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2006-August/msg00018.html Can you make that change 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 199173] Review Request: clusterssh
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: clusterssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199173
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-12 13:44 EST ---
Greetings. Here's a review:
OK - Package name
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
578208faf944100a233ae216fa230350 clusterssh-3.19.1.tar.gz
578208faf944100a233ae216fa230350 clusterssh-3.19.1.tar.gz.1
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
n/a - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
n/a - Spec handles locales/find_lang
n/a - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
n/a - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
n/a - -doc subpackage needed/used.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
n/a - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
n/a - .pc files in -devel subpackage.
n/a - .so files in -devel subpackage.
n/a - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
n/a - .la files are removed.
See below - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - No rpmlint output.
SHOULD Items:
OK - Should include License or ask upstream to include it.
OK - Should build in mock. (fc6/i386)
OK - Should function as described.
OK - Should have sane scriptlets.
Issues:
1. The Source0 line doesn't work for me. I guess the osdl mirror
doesn't have a copy of this source.
http://easynews.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/clusterssh/clusterssh-
3.19.1.tar.gz
worked ok for me.
2. You need to run desktop-file-install in %install for your .desktop
file. See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop
3. Might include the THANKS file as a %doc?
4. Why do you have the:
Requires: perl-Tk perl-X11-Protocol
rpm picks up those requirements just fine without help. You should remove
those Requires unless there is some reason I don't see why they are 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 202236] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-SSLify
Please 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-SSLify https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202236 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-12 13:50 EST --- I like it when there's not much to say :) +Import to CVS +Add to owners.list +Bump release, build for devel +devel build succeeds +Request branching (FC-5) +Close bug 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 185205] Review Request: nqc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nqc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185205 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-12 13:54 EST --- I'd really like to see nqc in FE. If there's no interest or time to move this forward, I'll offer to adopt it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193108] Review Request: libsexymm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libsexymm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193108
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-12 14:47 EST ---
Greetings. Here's a review:
OK - Package name
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (LGPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
See below - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
cb01af4595000d9e192f5d9fcff5b742 libsexymm-0.1.7.tar.gz
cb01af4595000d9e192f5d9fcff5b742 libsexymm-0.1.7.tar.gz.1
See below - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
n/a - Package needs ExcludeArch
See below - BuildRequires correct
n/a - Spec handles locales/find_lang
OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
n/a - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
n/a - -doc subpackage needed/used.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage.
OK - .so files in -devel subpackage.
OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
OK - .la files are removed.
n/a - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
See below - No rpmlint output.
SHOULD Items:
See Below - Should include License or ask upstream to include it.
See Below - Should build in mock.
OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
Issues:
1. The COPYING file included is the GPL, not the LGPL that this
package is distributed under. Perhaps ping upstream to include the
correct license file?
2. Doesn't build under mock for me, I get:
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lxml2
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
make[5]: *** [libsexymm.la] Error 1
Possibly missing BuildRequires: libxml2-devel? With that added it builds.
3. Are these Requires in the main package needed:
Requires: gtkmm24
Requires: libsexy = 0.1.7
and in the devel package:
Requires: gtkmm24-devel
4. rpmlint says:
W: libsexymm one-line-command-in-%post /sbin/ldconfig
W: libsexymm one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig
Suggest: Might change your post and postun to just do -p /sbin/ldconfig
E: libsexymm-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
These should be under /usr/include and /usr/share?
/usr/lib/libsexymm/include
/usr/lib/libsexymm/include/libsexymmconfig.h
/usr/lib/libsexymm/proc
/usr/lib/libsexymm/proc/m4
/usr/lib/libsexymm/proc/m4/convert.m4
/usr/lib/libsexymm/proc/m4/convert_libsexymm.m4
W: libsexymm-devel no-documentation
This one can be ignored.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202317] Review Request: perl-File-HomeDir - Get the home directory for yourself or other users
Please 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-File-HomeDir - Get the home directory for yourself or other users https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202317 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-12 14:49 EST --- Note: This module is new requirement of perl-AppConfig (version 1.63). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185205] Review Request: nqc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nqc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185205 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-12 14:52 EST --- Go ahead and adopt it. I've got no time now and in the foreseable future to work on 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 201636] Review Request: CSpace p2p Instant Messenger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: CSpace p2p Instant Messenger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201636 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-12 14:54 EST --- I can't find your email as a member of the cvsextras group, so it looks like you need to be sponsored. Here are some links to read about becoming sponsored and contributing to fedora extras: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202318] New: Review Request: perl-Scalar-Properties - Run-time properties on scalar variables
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=202318 Summary: Review Request: perl-Scalar-Properties - Run-time properties on scalar variables 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://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Scalar-Properties.spec SRPM URL: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Scalar-Properties-0.12-1.src.rpm Description: Scalar::Properties attempts to make Perl more object-oriented by taking an idea from Ruby: Everything you manipulate is an object, and the results of those manipulations are objects themselves. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202319] New: Review Request: perl-Data-Compare - Compare perl data structures
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=202319 Summary: Review Request: perl-Data-Compare - Compare perl data structures 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://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Data-Compare.spec SRPM URL: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Data-Compare-0.13-1.src.rpm Description: This module compares arbitrary data structures to see if they are copies of each other. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202319] Review Request: perl-Data-Compare - Compare perl data structures
Please 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-Data-Compare - Compare perl data structures https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202319 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||202318 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202318] Review Request: perl-Scalar-Properties - Run-time properties on scalar variables
Please 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-Scalar-Properties - Run-time properties on scalar variables https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||202319 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 202324] New: Review Request: nagios-plugins-snmp-disk-proc - Nagios SNMP plugins to monitor remote disk and processes
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=202324 Summary: Review Request: nagios-plugins-snmp-disk-proc - Nagios SNMP plugins to monitor remote disk and processes 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://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/nagios-plugins-snmp-disk-proc.spec SRPM URL: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/nagios-plugins-snmp-disk-proc-1.0-1.src.rpm Description: These plugins allow you to monitor disk space and running processes on a remote machine via SNMP. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202220] Review Request: compat-gcc-295 - RHEL5 2.95.3 compatibility libstdc++ for s390{, 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: compat-gcc-295 - RHEL5 2.95.3 compatibility libstdc++
for s390{,x}
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202220
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|normal |urgent
--
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 201417] Review Request: alleyoop : Graphical front-end to the Valgrind memory checker for x86
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: alleyoop : Graphical front-end to the Valgrind memory checker for x86 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201417 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-12 21:09 EST --- Starting alleyop and exiting via menu File Quit gives a backtrace and a hanging main window: $ alleyoop *** glibc detected *** alleyoop: double free or corruption (!prev): 0x08106000 * ** === Backtrace: = /lib/libc.so.6[0x6472b7] /lib/libc.so.6(cfree+0x78)[0x64a7ac] /usr/lib/libpopt.so.0(poptFreeContext+0x266)[0xdf07d6] /usr/lib/libgnome-2.so.0[0x247f8c9] /lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0(g_object_unref+0x16c)[0x95d24c] /usr/lib/libgnome-2.so.0[0x247d5e4] /lib/libc.so.6(exit+0xe6)[0x60e65e] /lib/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xe4)[0x5f921c] alleyoop[0x804d231] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177105] Review Request: gnomeradio - Graphical FM-Tuner program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnomeradio - Graphical FM-Tuner program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177105 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-12 21:34 EST --- Is the package back in comment #1 the one that should be reviewed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197565] Review Request: buildbot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: buildbot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197565 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-12 22:13 EST --- Well, the python guidelines have been changed to get rid of the ghost the .pyo files bit. So your files section should shrink a bit. (In any case, you didn't ghost the .pyo files in the contrib directory.) This builds fine in mock; rpmlint has the following to say about the SRPM: W: buildbot mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs You use spaces everywhere except for Patch0: and BuildArch:. Not a really big deal. There are many subdirectories under python_sitelyb/buildbot that you don't own. Getting rid of the %ghost bits should fix this as well. There's something that looks like a test suite in buildbot/test. Is this something that could be run at package build time? Should it really be included with the installed package? Review: * source files match upstream: 7be16fe13f173e46df711ed51648e750 buildbot-0.7.3.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). X rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: buildbot = 0.7.3-3.fc6 = /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/python python(abi) = 2.4 python-cvstoys python-twisted = 1.3.0 ? %check is not present but there might be a test suite. * package is not relocatable. X 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. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177512] Review Request: mysql-connector-net
Please 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-net https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177512 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-12 22:44 EST --- It's been some months now with no reviewer input. I propose that we invoke the stalled review policy and assign this back to the phantom address so that someone else can have a go at it. I'll do this in a week unless the assignee indicates otherwise. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202317] Review Request: perl-File-HomeDir - Get the home directory for yourself or other users
Please 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-File-HomeDir - Get the home directory for yourself or other users https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202317 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-12 23:01 EST --- Boring easy Perl module review follows: * source files match upstream: 295ee8b4f580bea5fa5714cdf8ac965b File-HomeDir-0.58.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(File::HomeDir) = 0.58 perl(File::HomeDir::Darwin) = 0.58 perl(File::HomeDir::MacOS9) = 0.58 perl(File::HomeDir::TIE) perl(File::HomeDir::Unix) = 0.58 perl(File::HomeDir::Windows) = 0.58 perl-File-HomeDir = 0.58-1.fc6 = perl = 0:5.005 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(File::Spec) perl(base) perl(strict) perl(vars) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful, 4 subtests skipped. Files=3, Tests=35, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.10 cusr + 0.04 csys = 0.14 CPU) (the skipped dests are meaningless except on Windows) * 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. 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 187236] Review Request: smixer - A simple interface to /dev/mixer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: smixer - A simple interface to /dev/mixer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187236 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-12 23:09 EST --- So what's up here? Does this still need a review or should it be dropped? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193712] Review Request: sos
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193712 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-12 23:25 EST --- Is Steve back in action? The python guidelines were changed to remove the recommendation that the .pyo files be ghosted, so that's good. The package still builds fine and the only rpmlint issue is: W: sos setup-not-quiet which can be eliminated by adding -q to the %setup line. Not a big deal at all. Is there a proper upstream source or URL for this package now? Regarding sponsorship, lately I've been sponsoring Red Hat folks with just a single package submittion if they've responded quickly to comments. I know everyone's busy with FC6 and RHEL5 at the moment, but let's see how it goes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193446] Review Request: GLiv: OpenGL image viewer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: GLiv: OpenGL image viewer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193446 [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 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 00:03 EST --- This failed to build for me: + chmod a+x bootstrap acinclude.m4 src/update + ./bootstrap ./bootstrap: line 43: libtoolize: command not found error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.76866 (%build) Looks like a BuildRequires: libtool is needed. Also, I note that the naming guidelines require that a SVN checkout be dated instead of using the revision number, but I'm not sure that requirement makes much sense. Is there a reason why you disabled parallel make? If so, you should note that in the spec. (This takes ages to build single-threaded.) Ah, the build just failed again: ++ -O2 -ffast-math -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -DCB_PRECOMP -Winvalid-pch -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/codeblocks app.o appglobals.o compilersettingsdlg.o crashhandler.o dlgabout.o dlgaboutplugin.o environmentsettingsdlg.o main.o prefix.o printdlg.o scriptconsole.o splashscreen.o startherepage.o -pthread -L/builddir/build/BUILD/codeblocks/src/src/wxAUI /builddir/build/BUILD/codeblocks/src/src/wxAUI/.libs/libwxaui.a -L/builddir/build/BUILD/codeblocks/src/sdk /builddir/build/BUILD/codeblocks/src/sdk/.libs/libcodeblocks.so -lwx_gtk2u_xrc-2.6 -lwx_gtk2u_qa-2.6 -lwx_gtk2u_html-2.6 -lwx_gtk2u_adv-2.6 -lwx_gtk2u_core-2.6 -lwx_baseu_xml-2.6 -lwx_baseu_net-2.6 -lwx_baseu-2.6 -lpthread -ldl -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/lib /usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0: undefined reference to `cairo_xlib_surface_create_for_bitmap' /usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0: undefined reference to `cairo_xlib_surface_create' /usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0: undefined reference to `cairo_xlib_surface_set_size' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[3]: *** [codeblocks] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/codeblocks/src/src' make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/codeblocks/src/src' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/codeblocks/src' make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.41997 (%build) Not sure what to do at this point. Perhaps a missing BR: on some X or cairo library? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202004] Review Request: brandy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: brandy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 00:24 EST --- This package looks good and builds and runs fine, but you seem to leave out the documentation and the examples, save for COPYING and READ.ME. It looks liks stuff manually copied into _docdir doesn't get added to the package, yet you can't manually list _docdir in %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 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 00:56 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) This failed to build for me: + chmod a+x bootstrap acinclude.m4 src/update + ./bootstrap chmod a+x'ing acinclude.m4 doesn't make any sense. acinclude.m4's are not executable. They are source 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
