[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 03:30 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) 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. OK, BR for all autotools are 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. I think that for SVN repos there should be possible to use revision number. With CVS there is no such possibility so the dates must be used. It makes also possible to track the official nightly build which use revision numbers. 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.) It is only an omission from some bug hunting. Ah, the build just failed again: /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' Not sure what to do at this point. Perhaps a missing BR: on some X or cairo library? I have no idea too, all required libraries should be taken to the linker via wxWidgets libraries. Is this from x86_64 rawhide? How much up-to-date was the rawhide? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 03:33 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) + 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. Cut'n'paste from upstream, fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 03:41 EST --- Ah, the build just failed again: /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' Not sure what to do at this point. Perhaps a missing BR: on some X or cairo library? I have no idea too, all required libraries should be taken to the linker via wxWidgets libraries. Is this from x86_64 rawhide? How much up-to-date was the rawhide? It builds clean on rawhide from 20060810 on i386, now I am updating my build system and will try it later today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 05:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) Ah, the build just failed again: /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' Not sure what to do at this point. Perhaps a missing BR: on some X or cairo library? I have no idea too, all required libraries should be taken to the linker via wxWidgets libraries. Is this from x86_64 rawhide? How much up-to-date was the rawhide? No linking problem on just updated rawhide, so it could be a x86_64 problem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 06:41 EST --- I think that for SVN repos there should be possible to use revision number. With CVS there is no such possibility so the dates must be used. Not true. Surely you could check out from CVS using a branch tag or revision. Please use the date for SVN checks, too, and optionally put the revision number at the right. Like: codeblocks-1.0-0.1.20060731svn.src.rpm or: codeblocks-1.0-0.1.20060731svn2824.src.rpm or: codeblocks-1.0-0.1.20060803cvs.src.rpm There is no necessity to squeeze SVN revision numbers or CVS tags/revs into the package Release. Instead, add a comment in your spec on how to check out the included source code. The most interesting information about pre-releases is the date, which is independent from whether the source is maintained in SVN or CVS or a different VCS. Further info: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-d97a3f40b6dd9d2288206ac9bd8f1bf9b791b22a -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 07:07 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) I think that for SVN repos there should be possible to use revision number. With CVS there is no such possibility so the dates must be used. Not true. Surely you could check out from CVS using a branch tag or revision. I meant situation between tagged revisions as the tags in CVS are not usually created after every commited change. Please use the date for SVN checks, too, and optionally put the revision number at the right. Like: codeblocks-1.0-0.1.20060731svn.src.rpm or: codeblocks-1.0-0.1.20060731svn2824.src.rpm OK, I will use the above (date + rev) or: codeblocks-1.0-0.1.20060803cvs.src.rpm There is no necessity to squeeze SVN revision numbers or CVS tags/revs into the package Release. Instead, add a comment in your spec on how to check out the included source code. The most interesting information about pre-releases is the date, which is independent from whether the source is maintained in SVN or CVS or a different VCS. Using the date versus revision depends on the the style of upstream development. And I see using the revisions useful as the revision is exact identification of the development state and should be visible. When placed in the spec file, it would be hidden from most users. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-13 07:40 EST --- Thanks for the review. Imported and built for development. Pending FC-5 branch creation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202006] Review Request: fmio - FM radio card manipulation 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: fmio - FM radio card manipulation utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202006
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 09:09 EST ---
* error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/usr/bin/fmio-wrapper.pyc
/usr/bin/fmio-wrapper.pyo
* Run rpmlint on the binary rpms.
* The setuid program is unacceptable.
* Sub-packages ought to require full %{version}-%{release} of the main
packages to stay in sync with them (in particular since the shared lib
does not have a proper soname).
* %defattr missing for all packages.
* Couldn't get any good results with or without the bktr driver,
so I think this software is not ready yet.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202356] New: Review Request: terminus-font
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=202356 Summary: Review Request: terminus-font 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://n-dimensional.de/software/terminus-font/terminus-font.spec SRPM URL: http://n-dimensional.de/software/terminus-font/terminus-font-4.20-3.src.rpm Description: Clean fixed width font The Terminus Font is designed for long (8 and more hours per day) work with computers. Version 4.16 contains 690 characters, covering code pages ISO8859-1/2/5/9/13/15/16, IBM-437/852/855/866, KOI8-R/U/E/F, Windows-1250/1251/1252/1254/1257, Paratype-PT154/PT254, Bulgarian-MIK, Macintosh-Ukrainian, Esperanto and many others (a total of about 110 language sets). Also included are the IBM VGA, vt100 and xterm pseudographic characters. The sizes present are 6x12, 8x14, 8x16, 10x20, 12x24, 14x28 and 16x32. The styles are normal and bold (except for 6x12), plus EGA/VGA-bold for 8x14 and 8x16. The font is available for the Linux console and for X11. This is my first package for Fedora, so I'm going to need a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202356] Review Request: terminus-font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: terminus-font https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202356 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |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 202356] Review Request: terminus-font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: terminus-font https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202356 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||163776 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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 12:23 EST --- * Sun Aug 13 2006 Enrico Scholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.1.1.23-0 - updated to 0.1.1.23 http://ensc.de/fedora/tor/ -- 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 202356] Review Request: terminus-font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: terminus-font https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202356 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 12:27 EST --- A few notes on the package: * rpmlint reports no problems. * The package name is derived from the upstream tarball name terminus-font. However, there is no binary package terminus-font, only the two subpackages terminus-font-console and terminus-font-x11. * The spec file hopefully meets the Packaging Guidelines. There are no specific Packaging Guidelines for fonts, therefore a little guesswork and copying from other packages had to happen. * The font is licensed under the GPL. * It builds with mock for FC5 and FC6. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200662] Review Request: lostirc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lostirc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200662 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 15:36 EST --- I'm getting a build failure in development: g++ -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -Wall -o lostirc main.o MainWindow.o MainNotebook.o Tab.o Prefs.o ServerWindow.o GuiCommands.o Entry.o StatusBar.o TextWidget.o NickList.o DCCList.o ../libirc/libirc.a -L/lib64 -lgtkmm-2.4 -lgtk-x11-2.0 -lgdkmm-2.4 -lgdk-x11-2.0 -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0 -lm -lpangocairo-1.0 -lcairo -latkmm-1.6 -latk-1.0 -lpangomm-1.4 -lglibmm-2.4 -lpango-1.0 -lsigc-2.0 -lgobject-2.0 -lgmodule-2.0 -ldl -lglib-2.0 /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/../../../../lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so: undefined reference to `cairo_xlib_surface_create_for_bitmap' /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/../../../../lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so: undefined reference to `cairo_xlib_surface_create' /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/../../../../lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so: undefined reference to `cairo_xlib_surface_set_size' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status This is the second build failure I've had like this today; I think my tree is busted. It builds fine on FC5. I'm seeing two .desktop files installed: fedora-listirc.desktop and lostirc.desktop. It looks like the package installs its own desktop file and then the second one gets installed when you call desktop-file-install. I guess you'll need to delete lostirc.desktop. * source files match upstream: 501cd56bc0740d599540fb415718b939 lostirc-0.4.6.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. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (FC5, x86_64). * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: lostirc = 0.4.6-2.fc5 = /bin/sh libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libatkmm-1.6.so.1()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdkmm-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglibmm-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtkmm-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangomm-1.4.so.1()(64bit) libsigc-2.0.so.0()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. Manual testing shows that the package runs fine. * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets present are OK (gtk-update-icon-cache * 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. X problems with desktop file installation. * locale files installed; %find_lang called properly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201061] Review Request: IServerd - Groupware ICQ server clone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: IServerd - Groupware ICQ server clone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201061 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 15:38 EST --- I cannot fetch the spec from the above URL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201941] Review Request: tetex-elsevier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tetex-elsevier https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201941 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 15:51 EST --- Everything looks fine to me. 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 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] 2006-08-13 17:10 EST ---
(In reply to comment #14)
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.
I think you understood me wrong here, I didn't want to suggest to make
%attr(-,mail,mail) %{_usr}/bin/%{name} setuid, I thought it was setuid and that
was why it has owner and group mail, if its not setuid, then why not just owner
and group root?
file in %{_usr}/lib are shell for clement application (utilities, support),
shell are not archs dependent.
OK.
You still haven't explained why you do:
%attr(-,mail,mail) %{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version}/
Instead of just:
%{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version}/
Or is that just a copy and paste error and will you fix that with the next
version?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 17:12 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/brandy.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/brandy-1.0.19-2.src.rpm Fixes docdir problem and examples problem -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202376] New: Review Request: openwebmail
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=202376 Summary: Review Request: openwebmail Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/openwebmail.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/openwebmail-2.52-1.src.rpm Description: OpenWebmail is an open source webmail system which is designed to replace Outlook (which face it, isn't hard!), but also offer spam filtering, out of office notices and everything else you'd expect from a fully-fledged webmail system Note for reviewers : due to a large number of permission issues with this package, I've fixed the permissions and repackaged. This was also required in order to get it to install correctly (and create sane directories under BUILD. The tarball is tar.bz2 and not .gz - I don't therefore expect the md5sums to be the same. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202376] Review Request: openwebmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openwebmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202376 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 18:30 EST --- (In reply to comment #0) Note for reviewers : due to a large number of permission issues with this package, I've fixed the permissions and repackaged. IMHO, this is not good solution. I think it will be better if you report these issues to upstream and upstream will fix it. Also, you can include patch to fix these issues. IMHO, that's better than repackaging. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202356] Review Request: terminus-font - Clean fixed width font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: terminus-font - Clean fixed width font https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202356 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: terminus- |Review Request: terminus- |font|font - Clean fixed width ||font -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-13 19:07 EST --- I think datadir is not a problem, I need to double check with the PHP person, should be fixed in the next version. clement is not 'setuid' but must be root open 1024 port. such the Clement daemon is started as root and clement take the application ownership to become a standard user mail to avoid the have a daemon with root priviledge open on the (wild) outside. I would rather have a clement username but rpmlint seems to be rather reluctant to 'give/declare' new username. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202376] Review Request: openwebmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openwebmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202376 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 19:50 EST --- The repackaging is for two purposes 1. To install into BUILD so that it actually works (the original spec installed directly into /var) 2. The permissions I've sent the changes upstream but haven't had a reply yet -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202379] New: Review Request: perl-Gnome2-GConf
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=202379 Summary: Review Request: perl-Gnome2-GConf Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Gnome2-GConf/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-Gnome2-GConf-1.032-1.fc5.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-Gnome2-GConf.spec Description: This module allows you to use the GConf configuration system in order to store/retrieve the configuration of an application. The GConf system is a powerful configuration manager based on a user daemon that handles a set of key and value pairs, and notifies any changes of the value to every program that monitors those keys. GConf is used by GNOME 2.x. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202379] Review Request: perl-Gnome2-GConf
Please 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-Gnome2-GConf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202379 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||163776 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 202384] New: Review Request: dates
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=202384 Summary: Review Request: dates Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/dates/dates.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/dates/dates-0.1-1.20060813svn.src.rpm Description: Dates is a small, lightweight calendar that uses Evolution Data Server as a backend. Dates features an innovative, unified, zooming view and is designed for use on primarily hand-held devices. It features both a ‘vanilla’ GTK user interface and tailored support for the Nokia 770 maemo interface. rpmlint complains about mixed tabs and spaces, but I'm having a hard time finding that. Also, no docs for -devel but I think thats ignorable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: mondo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 23:34 EST ---
ok quick thing drop the define addreq and just put your requires in a
Requires line you do realise you dont have to have them all on one line?
do not hard code .fc5 in release use %{?dist}
is there any reason you are not using %{?_smp_mflags} with make you really
should just call make not %{__make}
drop --program-prefix=%{?_program_prefix} from %configure your not using it
at all
you really should not add all the Requires unless they are only needed at
run time. if they please state so.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requires
you dont need to require gcc
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/FullExceptionList
dont use %makeinstall
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0dbcfbdd2fcb7791dd002
I would write the spec file more like attached 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 23:36 EST --- Created an attachment (id=134115) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=134115action=view) corrected 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 187317] Review Request: mindi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mindi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187317 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||m) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 23:52 EST --- remove the %post section. You cant have that kind of output you have binary statically linked files that you don't build this is very bad as one you shouldn't have anything statically linked, it should not be prebuilt, extras packages support multiple arches those files will not run on ppc or sparc for instance. they will run on x86_64 but 64 bit binaries are preferred. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202398] New: Review Request: python-musicbrainz2
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=202398 Summary: Review Request: python-musicbrainz2 Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/development/SRPMS/python-musicbrainz2-0.3.1-1.fc6.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/development/SRPMS/python-musicbrainz2-0.3.1-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: The package python-musicbrainz2 is a client library written in python, which provides easy object oriented access to the MusicBrainz Database using the XMLWebService. It has been written from scratch and uses a different model than PythonMusicbrainz, the first generation python bindings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177232] Review Request: regionset - reads/sets the region code of DVD drives
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: regionset - reads/sets the region code of DVD drives https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177232 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 01:04 EST --- Needs work: - Run rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT right after %install like the templates - Need smp flags or comments why not Good: + version-release + file permissions good + file ownership good + license (GPL) + sources match -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
