[Bug 202439] Review Request: frozen-bubble - Frozen Bubble arcade gam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: frozen-bubble - Frozen Bubble arcade gam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 02:34 EST --- All necessary items addressed. Game still functions as expected. 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 179040] Review Request: socat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 02:39 EST --- Thanks for the information! glad to see it builds with mock now. I've fixed the documentation execute bits in the example shellscripts. I added a few more examples that i hadn't noticed were added. New specfile and rpms available at: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/socat/binaries/fedora/4/SRPMS/socat-1.5.0.0-2.src.rpm ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/socat/binaries/fedora/4/SRPMS/socat.spec Thanks again! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 202439] Review Request: frozen-bubble - Frozen Bubble arcade gam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: frozen-bubble - Frozen Bubble arcade gam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202439 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 03:28 EST --- I think moving the files but leaving the perl(...) Provides in is worse than leaving the files in the usual locations (and leaving the Provides intact). Moving should be coupled with Provides (and probably Requires due to comment 8) filtering but that's of questionable gain anyway, I'd revert moving the files and doing things as usual. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 202448] Review Request: gnome-sharp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-sharp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202448 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 06:05 EST --- There is a problem. I'm trying to build against gtk-sharp2 (which provides gnome-sharp-2.0.pc). When running through mock, it complains that said gnome-sharp-2.0.pc file is missing (or more accurately, it's not installed). This has only happened since the push to the -2 release on the 19th Aug. -- 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 192049] Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192049 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 06:05 EST --- (In reply to comment #32) (In reply to comment #31) Browsing to sites with flash 9 causes my X session/server to restart on my x86_64 running rawhide. This sounds like the problem in comment 26, but I agree this blocks acceptance. As I noted in comment 29 it seems to be fixed in cvs. Once again it is not a gnash bug, but certainly an xorg/mesa bug triggered by gnash. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 203265] Review Request: nqc - Programming environment for Lego's RCX (Mindstorms) bricks
Please 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 - Programming environment for Lego's RCX
(Mindstorms) bricks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203265
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 06:17 EST ---
%{_sbindir}/groupadd
You don't have anything in Requires(pre) for this (or the similar one in postun)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 203265] Review Request: nqc - Programming environment for Lego's RCX (Mindstorms) bricks
Please 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 - Programming environment for Lego's RCX (Mindstorms) bricks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203265 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 06:27 EST --- rpmlint warnings .src.rpm : mixed used of spaces and tabs rpm : non-conffile-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/60-legousbtower.rules dangerous-command-in-%postun groupdel I'm not worried about the src.rpm warning, but am about the two in the rpm (especially the dangerous command one). Fails to build in mock /bin/sh: flex: command not found -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 201170] Review Request: jfbterm - Japanese Console for Linux Frame Buffer Device
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jfbterm - Japanese Console for Linux Frame Buffer
Device
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201170
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 06:29 EST ---
Builds fine normally and rpmlint is clean. I am a tad concerned with this
snippet though and have asked for advice on it. There may be both a security and
SELinux implication with it.
8--
%{__cat} 60-jfbterm.perms EOF
# permission definitions
console 0660 /dev/tty00660 root
console 0600 /dev/console 0600 root
EOF
%{__mkdir_p} -m 755 %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/security/console.perms.d
%{__install} -m 644 60-jfbterm.perms \
%{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/security/console.perms.d/
--8
As for the spec file...
Good
Follows FE dist tags
No duplicates in the BRs
In american english and with correct permissions
No ownership conflicts
Includes docs
Set out logically
It looks good.
Unsure
Are you installing fonts to %{_datadir}/fonts/%{name}? if you are, you'll need
to do what you did with fonts package this relies on with mkfontdir
Very unsure
Security implications (detailed above)
Builds cleanly in mock
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 203274] New: Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone
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=203274 Summary: Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone 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.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/lesstif.spec SRPM URL: http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/lesstif-0.95.0-1.src.rpm Description: LessTif is a free replacement for OSF/Motif(R), which provides a full set of widgets for application development (menus, text entry areas, scrolling windows, etc.). LessTif is source compatible with OSF/Motif(R). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 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] 2006-08-20 06:45 EST --- Spec URL: http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/pulseaudio/pulseaudio.spec SRPM URL: http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/pulseaudio/pulseaudio-0.9.4-2.src.rpm Update to 0.9.4 and the dependency fix included. I haven't touched the number of subpackages as I want some more comments on the current state. These are the current split out packages: pulseaudio-lib-glib2: Client side dependency on GLib 2.0. pulseaudio-lib-zeroconf: Client side dependency on Avahi. pulseaudio-module-alsa: Server side dependency on ALSA libs pulseaudio-module-lirc: Server side dependency on LIRC libs. pulseaudio-module-x11: Server side dependency on X11, SM and ICE libs. pulseaudio-module-zeroconf: Server side dependency on Avahi. Personally, I don't care for packages that pull in everything and the kitchen sink because of some optional components, hence all these sub-packages. I am open to input if the concensus is that some/all of these are excessive. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 203274] Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library 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: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203274 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 06:52 EST --- lesstif is never abi compatible with openmotif. The soname provided for the libraries is different than the one of the current openmotif, and corresponds with earlier openmotif releases (lesstif being abi incompatible with the openmotif library providing those sonames). I don't know if it is correct or not nor what should be done. I couldn't get the tests to work, since some bitmaps are missing, which are in http://xorg.freedesktop.org/releases/individual/app/bitmap-1.0.2.tar.bz2 but don't seem to be in fedora extras or core (I reported that on fedora-devel-list). I'll try to have the tests built, but I think it isn't that important. I don't know if I did the right things with the obsolete/provides/conflicts. It is not obvious that lesstif should obsolete openmotif, maybe only conflict. But in that case the buildrequires should be changed in all the packages depending on openmotif, and openmotif-devel will not be updated to lesstif-devel on upgrades. lesstif-devel really conflicts with openmotif-devel (same header and library names). And I think we should really avoid having openmotif and lesstif libraries installed along since as I said above they are binary incompatible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 203274] Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library 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: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203274
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 06:56 EST ---
Looking at the spec file...
Release: 1
Needs the dist tag
Are both of the obsoletes and provides required (yes, I've read the note about
the second one) for both the main package and in the devel package?
%package mwm
Does this not need requires %{name} = %{version}-%{release} as well?
What is lynx sucked into the BRs for?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 195223] Review Request: pavucontrol: Volume control for PulseAudio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pavucontrol: Volume control for PulseAudio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195223 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 06:58 EST --- Spec URL: http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/pulseaudio/pavucontrol.spec SRPM URL: http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/pulseaudio/pavucontrol-0.9.3-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203274] Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library 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: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203274
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 07:07 EST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Looking at the spec file...
Release: 1
Needs the dist tag
Right, missed it. I'll add it.
Are both of the obsoletes and provides required (yes, I've read the note about
the second one) for both the main package and in the devel package?
I don't know. I'm seeking advice on that matter.
%package mwm
Does this not need requires %{name} = %{version}-%{release} as well?
I don't think so, since I think it could be linked against
a binary compatible motif library. It may be safer, though.
I'll add it when I update the spec file.
What is lynx sucked into the BRs for?
It is used to transform some html to text for the docs.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 203274] Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library 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: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203274 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 07:08 EST --- I didn't test an install of the lesstif packages I propose, since they conflict with openmotif and there are apps (from fedora core and extras) I use that need openmotif, but I will test lesstif install (and rebuild the rpms) when the review seems right. Of course lesstif violates the guidelines because it conflicts with a package in core, openmotif, but that's not unexpected... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 202439] Review Request: frozen-bubble - Frozen Bubble arcade gam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: frozen-bubble - Frozen Bubble arcade gam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202439 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 07:19 EST --- Wart, I'm waiting for a reply to comment 17 from you before continuing, the raised concern seems valid. (Although I'm getting the strange feeling with this that for some reason people are more stricy about perl(xxx) Provides/Requires then about .so Provides/Requires, because we have similar issues with .so Provides in a gazillion 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 201170] Review Request: jfbterm - Japanese Console for Linux Frame Buffer Device
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jfbterm - Japanese Console for Linux Frame Buffer
Device
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201170
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 08:11 EST ---
Before fixing spec file:
(In reply to comment #23)
Builds fine normally and rpmlint is clean. I am a tad concerned with this
snippet though and have asked for advice on it. There may be both a security
and
SELinux implication with it.
8--
%{__cat} 60-jfbterm.perms EOF
# permission definitions
console 0660 /dev/tty00660 root
console 0600 /dev/console 0600 root
EOF
%{__mkdir_p} -m 755 %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/security/console.perms.d
%{__install} -m 644 60-jfbterm.perms \
%{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/security/console.perms.d/
--8
Very unsure
Security implications (detailed above)
This application (/usr/bin/jfbterm) needs device access right for
/dev/console and /dev/tty0. So usual compilation of jfbterm
sets sticky bit on /usr/bin/jfbterm, with the permission 4755 like
/usr/bin/kon (in kon2-0.3.9b-26.2.1 rpm) With stilly bit, installing
60-jfbterm.perms is not necessary.
Note: kon cannot deal with frame buffer.
Note: pam has /etc/security/console.perms.d/50-default.perms
Original packager (Hideki Machida) and me concluded that it may be
better that we use console.perms method than use sticky bit.
What do you think of this? Umm. I don't know well about SELINUX
Are you installing fonts to %{_datadir}/fonts/%{name}?
jfbterm requires some fonts (in install stage and on the real use),
however, these fonts are actually the copies of fonts in other
packages (in fonts-japanese, xorg-x11-fonts-X, and fonts-japanese)
Would it be better that I use only the symlink against that fonts?
Doing so requires a bit of trick on install stage.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 192049] Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192049 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 08:52 EST --- The patch works for me. It fills /tmp with temporary dirs, but it is better than what was before. It should be documented, however. So I propose to add a README.fedora in the gnash-plugin documentation. I attach a spec diff and a gnash-README.fedora. I also think that it would be better to prefix plugin-tempfile-dir.patch with gnash, such that it is called gnash-plugin-tempfile-dir.patch instead. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 175047] Review Request: NetworkManager-openvpn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: NetworkManager-openvpn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175047 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 08:55 EST --- I have checked in the package to Extras and have built the current version successfully for devel. Now I'm waiting for the module to appear in bugzilla to add the SELinux bug. Paul, did you make any progress on that end? An FC-5 branch has been requested but no one has dropped by yet, probably due to the weekend or so. So we're close to get this bug closed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192049] Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192049 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 08:55 EST --- Created an attachment (id=134526) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=134526action=view) explanation of the /tmp/gnash-XX 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 192049] Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192049 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 08:57 EST --- Created an attachment (id=134527) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=134527action=view) spec file diff to install the README for the plugin -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 08:58 EST --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 203265 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 203265] Review Request: nqc - Programming environment for Lego's RCX (Mindstorms) bricks
Please 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 - Programming environment for Lego's RCX (Mindstorms) bricks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203265 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 08:58 EST --- *** Bug 185205 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 192049] Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192049 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 09:05 EST --- Another remark, autoconf is required by automake. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 201170] Review Request: jfbterm - Japanese Console for Linux Frame Buffer Device
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jfbterm - Japanese Console for Linux Frame Buffer Device https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201170 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 10:02 EST --- Okay, I've had the advice back and it seems like there is nothing untoward security wise. If the package is making a copy of fonts, I'd prefer a symlink rather than bloating the system up with needless copies. A more favourable solution though would be to have the application just use the fonts already 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 202439] Review Request: frozen-bubble - Frozen Bubble arcade gam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: frozen-bubble - Frozen Bubble arcade gam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202439 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 11:02 EST --- That's probably because things are in better shape with perl(...) autoprovides/requires than generic .so elsewhere, problems elsewhere are not really a good reason to inflict them everywhere, the cases where this arises in perl related packages are pretty rare, and can be more cleanly filtered in these cases than others -- eg. no need to disable rpmbuild's internal dep generator. Note however that comment 17 is just an opinion, not a veto. But thanks for considering it anyway. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 203265] Review Request: nqc - Programming environment for Lego's RCX (Mindstorms) bricks
Please 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 - Programming environment for Lego's RCX (Mindstorms) bricks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203265 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 11:10 EST --- Please remove the groupdel from the next iteration of the spec file - it's a recipe for disaster. Does the %pre check to ensure that lego doesn't already exist first? It looks like it does. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 202670] Review Request: bygfoot - Football Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bygfoot - Football Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202670 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 11:46 EST --- Checked, it seems to be a problem at my end. pkgconfig is not required. You can remove it safely. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 11:48 EST --- Time's up for this, can someone deallocate this package so someone else can pick it up. Anyone. Please. Someone. Pick it up and review 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 201170] Review Request: jfbterm - Japanese Console for Linux Frame Buffer Device
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jfbterm - Japanese Console for Linux Frame Buffer Device https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201170 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 11:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #25) Okay, I've had the advice back and it seems like there is nothing untoward security wise. Okay, then I use console.perms method. If the package is making a copy of fonts, I'd prefer a symlink rather than bloating the system up with needless copies. A more favourable solution though would be to have the application just use the fonts already there. Umm... It seems that I have to install fonts required to /usr/share/fonts/jfbterm . So, I changed so that requires fonts are installed as symlinks to that directory. The fixed spec and srpm are: http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/jfbterm.spec http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/jfbterm-0.4.7-6.src.rpm rpmlint says than symlink should be relative (not absolute), whic made spec file a bit complex. This spec file (0.4.7-6) leaves rpmlint messages: W: jfbterm dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/fonts/jfbterm/shnmk16.pcf.gz ../japanese/misc/shnmk16.pcf.gz W: jfbterm dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/fonts/jfbterm/shnm8x16r.pcf.gz ../japanese/misc/shnm8x16r.pcf.gz W: jfbterm dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/fonts/jfbterm/8x13-ISO8859-14.pcf.gz ../../X11/fonts/misc/8x13-ISO8859-14.pcf.gz W: jfbterm dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/fonts/jfbterm/b16.pcf.gz ../japanese/efont-unicode-bdf/b16.pcf.gz W: jfbterm dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/fonts/jfbterm/8x13-ISO8859-9.pcf.gz ../../X11/fonts/misc/8x13-ISO8859-9.pcf.gz W: jfbterm dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/fonts/jfbterm/8x13-ISO8859-7.pcf.gz ../../X11/fonts/misc/8x13-ISO8859-7.pcf.gz W: jfbterm dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/fonts/jfbterm/8x16.pcf.gz ../../X11/fonts/misc/8x16.pcf.gz W: jfbterm dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/fonts/jfbterm/8x13-ISO8859-5.pcf.gz ../../X11/fonts/misc/8x13-ISO8859-5.pcf.gz W: jfbterm dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/fonts/jfbterm/hanglg16.pcf.gz ../../X11/fonts/misc/hanglg16.pcf.gz W: jfbterm dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/fonts/jfbterm/gb16fs.pcf.gz ../../X11/fonts/misc/gb16fs.pcf.gz W: jfbterm dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/fonts/jfbterm/jisksp16-1990.pcf.gz ../japanese/misc/jisksp16-1990.pcf.gz W: jfbterm dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/fonts/jfbterm/8x13-ISO8859-8.pcf.gz ../../X11/fonts/misc/8x13-ISO8859-8.pcf.gz W: jfbterm dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/fonts/jfbterm/8x13-ISO8859-1.pcf.gz ../../X11/fonts/misc/8x13-ISO8859-1.pcf.gz W: jfbterm dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/fonts/jfbterm/8x13-ISO8859-2.pcf.gz ../../X11/fonts/misc/8x13-ISO8859-2.pcf.gz W: jfbterm dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/fonts/jfbterm/8x13-ISO8859-15.pcf.gz ../../X11/fonts/misc/8x13-ISO8859-15.pcf.gz I cannot help but leave this because the real fonts are in other packages. I added some font packages to Require. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 201170] Review Request: jfbterm - Japanese Console for Linux Frame Buffer Device
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jfbterm - Japanese Console for Linux Frame Buffer
Device
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201170
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 11:58 EST ---
Can you not do
ln -s %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/fonts/jfbterm/shnmk16.pcf.gz
%{_datadir}/fonts/japanese/misc/shnmk16.pcf.gz
?
That should avoid the dangling problem (that said, the dangling isn't
that big a worry from what I can see)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 201170] Review Request: jfbterm - Japanese Console for Linux Frame Buffer Device
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jfbterm - Japanese Console for Linux Frame Buffer
Device
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201170
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 12:07 EST ---
ln source dest
You mean
ln -s %{_datadir}/fonts/japanese/misc/shnmk16.pcf.gz \
%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/fonts/jfbterm/shnmk16.pcf.gz ?
Anyway, %{_datadir}/fonts/japanese/misc/shnmk16.pcf.gz is not in
jfbterm but in fonts-japanese and this cause
dangling-symlink (not dangling-relative-symlink).
Also, rpmlint warn about symlink-should-be-absolute
(although I think that absolute symlink can be allowed..)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 203286] New: Review Request: sjasm - A z80 cross assembler
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=203286 Summary: Review Request: sjasm - A z80 cross assembler Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://dribble.org.uk/reviews/sjasm.spec SRPM URL: http://dribble.org.uk/reviews/sjasm-0.39-0.3.g1.src.rpm Description: SjASM is a two pass macro Z80 cross assembler -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 203288] New: Review Request: devilspie
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=203288 Summary: Review Request: devilspie 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://deadbabylon.de/fedora/extras/devilspie/devilspie.spec SRPM URL: http://deadbabylon.de/fedora/extras/devilspie/devilspie-0.17.1-1.fc5.src.rpm Description: A window-matching utility, inspired by Sawfish's Matched Windows option and the lack such functionality in Metacity. Devil's Pie can be configured to detect windows as they are created, and match the window to a set of rules. If the window matches the rules, it can perform a series of actions on that window. For example, I can make X-Chat appear on all workspaces, and make a particular xterm not appear in the pager or task list. This is also my first package and im searching for an 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 203274] Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library 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: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203274 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 13:16 EST --- IIRC, lesstif used to be parallely installable with openmotif 2.x and it provided compatibility with the older API (1.x) of Motif. Has this changed lately? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 203288] Review Request: devilspie
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: devilspie https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203288 [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 203286] Review Request: sjasm - A z80 cross assembler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sjasm - A z80 cross assembler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203286 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 13:27 EST --- MUST: = * rpmlint output is clean * Package and spec file named appropriately * Packaged according to packaging guidelines * License ok (but license file not included) * spec file is legible and in Am. English. * Source matches upstream * Compiles and builds on FC-5 i386 * BR: ok * No locales * No shared libraries * Not relocatable * Package owns / or requires all dirs * No duplicate files Permissions ok * %clean macro usage OK * Contains code only * %doc does not affect runtime, and isn't large enough to warrent a sub package * no -devel package needed, no libs / .la files. * no .desktop file required 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 203265] Review Request: nqc - Programming environment for Lego's RCX (Mindstorms) bricks
Please 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 - Programming environment for Lego's RCX (Mindstorms) bricks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203265 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 13:31 EST --- Spec URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/nqc.spec SRPM URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/fedora/5/srpms/nqc-3.1.4-2.src.rpm Changes: - Removed groupdel lego - Added faq, manual and guide docs - Added flex BuildRequires and groupadd Requires(pre) - Added -f option to groupadd (success if group exists) It build fine in mock (x86_64) now. Also, I tested the groupadd -f option to ensure that it doesn't have any problems with the group if it's already present. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 14:25 EST --- SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-Gnome2-GConf-1.032-2.fc5.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-Gnome2-GConf.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 203265] Review Request: nqc - Programming environment for Lego's RCX (Mindstorms) bricks
Please 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 - Programming environment for Lego's RCX (Mindstorms) bricks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203265 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 14:31 EST --- Builds fine in mock. It's 19:37 in the UK which can mean only one thing, it's time for the official UK review procedure... (cue naff 90's music trying to sounds like crumby '06 noises) At 10... No ownership problems rpmlint is clean (well, spaces/tabs in srpm and config file in rpm) builds clean in mock (i386) No dupes No devel, so no pkgconfig, no .so/.la problems software does as it should no problems with documentation consistent use of macros upstream matches the package (version and md5) works fine with smp_mflags And this weeks number 1... It controls the lego! (fade really terrible music) 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 202946] Review Request: aqsis - 3D 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: aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202946 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 14:44 EST --- As the review bug says, this package is intended for rawhide/devel only. The licensing is interesting. The spec notes GPL and LGPL -- but it's not package wide (that is, there's a bundled library that's LGPL, whereas the main program itself is GPL). Is it worth splitting the library out into its own package, even if just a subpackage of this one, in order to clarify this at the package level? I suppose a relevent question here is: do we expect this library to be used by other packages? I'm inclined to defer to the judgement of the packager. Unfortunately, my mock build (devel/x86_64) fails: /bin/sh ../../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -o libgif2tif.la -rpath /usr/lib64/aqsis gif2tif.lo ../common/libcommon.la gcc -shared .libs/gif2tif.o -Wl,--whole-archive ../common/.libs/libcommon.a -Wl,--no-whole-archive -L/usr/local/lib -ltiff -m64 -mtune=generic -Wl,-soname -Wl,libgif2tif.so.0 -o .libs/libgif2tif.so.0.0.0 /usr/bin/ld: ../common/.libs/libcommon.a(pixelsave.o): relocation R_X86_64_32 against `a local symbol' can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC ../common/.libs/libcommon.a(pixelsave.o): could not read symbols: Bad value collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[2]: *** [libgif2tif.la] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/aqsis-1.0.1/plugins/gif2tif' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/aqsis-1.0.1/plugins' make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.16921 (%build) This prevents me from completing the formal review... I can post the build.log, etc, here if it'll help. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 198758] Review Request: gnome-phone-manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-phone-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 14:47 EST --- Ping? Looks like this was imported and built OK, can we close the bug? :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 197740] Review Request: dircproxy - IRC proxy 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: dircproxy - IRC proxy server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197740 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 14:51 EST --- No pressure, just want to note the state :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 183439] Review Request: papyrus (Canvas drawing library based on cairo/cairomm)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: papyrus (Canvas drawing library based on cairo/cairomm) Alias: papyrus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183439 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 14:52 EST --- Updated spec and SRPM locations (the University was having trouble with DNS records at the time): Spec Name or Url: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/papyrus.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/fedora/5/srpms/papyrus-0.3.0-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201779] Review Request: xfsdump
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xfsdump https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 15:02 EST --- (In reply to comment #12) Note the xfs-cmds cvs tree on oss.sgi.com contains the xfstest scripts, many of which run xfsdump/restore regression tests. This scripts are run nightly by Nathan Scott at SGI but only on x86 and ia64 machines. If anybody has other architectures available to test it would to good to have those results as well. If there is a test suite, doesn't it make sense to include it in the package as well? Even if it's another tarball, %check makes such testing easy, and we'd be able to take advantage of automating this routine testing during the build on the builders (which include ppc). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 202439] Review Request: frozen-bubble - Frozen Bubble arcade gam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: frozen-bubble - Frozen Bubble arcade gam
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202439
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 15:46 EST ---
(In reply to comment #17)
I think moving the files but leaving the perl(...) Provides in is worse than
leaving the files in the usual locations (and leaving the Provides intact).
Moving should be coupled with Provides (and probably Requires due to comment
8)
filtering but that's of questionable gain anyway, I'd revert moving the files
and doing things as usual.
My main concerns with leaving the files in %{perl_vendorarch} is that these are
application-specific perl modules. They have no use outside of this package. I
strongly prefer moving things like this into application specific directories
such as %{_libdir}/%{name} instead of polluting the language library tree.
I know languages like python and Tcl can handle this with no problem, which is
why I advocated doing it here as well. It seems to me that we have two choices
here:
1) Move the files to %{_libdir}/%{name} and turn off the
autoprovides/autorequires for the perl modules
2) Leave the files where they are and live with obscurities like perl(fbsyms)
and perl(fb_c_stuff) in the system-wide perl library tree.
If the current standard practice for app-specific perl modules is #2 then I
won't argue, even though I think it's a bad policy.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 183439] Review Request: papyrus (Canvas drawing library based on cairo/cairomm)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: papyrus (Canvas drawing library based on cairo/cairomm) Alias: papyrus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 15:48 EST --- rpmlint is clean, mock is clean Time for a review I suppose... Upstream version is the same as this package No ownership problems Documentation included Software does what it says it does Consistent use of macros pkgconfig included with R for devel No problems with the devel package No dupes found in the installed rpms No smp_mflags problems I think this is good to go 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 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 16:19 EST --- 10 days further on... I'm not going to be able to review this week (starting a new job), so if you can get the update in tonight (20th Aug), I'll see what's happening, failing that, it'll be after the 27th. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 203274] Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library 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: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203274 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 16:43 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) IIRC, lesstif used to be parallely installable with openmotif 2.x and it provided compatibility with the older API (1.x) of Motif. Has this changed lately? Indeed lesstif was only packaged for the 1.x compatibility api (up to Fedora Core 3). But following the discussion initiated here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2006-August/msg00076.html I am now packaging it as an openmotif replacement. And there is certainly no need for the 1.x api. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 203274] Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library 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: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203274 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 16:46 EST --- New version here, that builds in mock http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/lesstif-0.95.0-1.src.rpm - BuildRequires automake for the shipped autoconf macro - add %%dist in release - tie mwm to the lesstif version and release -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198758] Review Request: gnome-phone-manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-phone-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 17:45 EST --- It doesn't build on devel because (I think) Evolution Data Server has changed its interface. I need to communicate with upstream and perhaps write patches first... :-/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 19:08 EST --- (In reply to comment #26) 10 days further on... Tell me about it, doesn't time fly. http://www.iammetal.co.uk/jokosher/jokosher.spec http://www.iammetal.co.uk/jokosher/jokosher-0.1-5.src.rpm The only response rpmlint gives is on the license which I understand is okay as it is. I have now patched the released 0.1 source and these are also available at http://www.iammetal.co.uk/jokosher Regards Chris -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203286] Review Request: sjasm - A z80 cross assembler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sjasm - A z80 cross assembler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203286 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 19:23 EST --- Thanks for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203286] Review Request: sjasm - A z80 cross assembler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sjasm - A z80 cross assembler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203286 [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 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|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |z) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 20:05 EST --- Hey, just a quick ping to let you know that I am alive, just still in the trows of unpacking/new job/etc etc. I hope to tidy this review up before/by the end of the week. Thanks for your patience. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |z) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 20:06 EST --- Hey, just a quick ping to let you know that I am alive, just still in the throws of unpacking/new job/etc etc. I hope to tidy this review up before/by the end of the week. Thanks for your patience. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195486] Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195486 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 20:07 EST --- Hey, just a quick ping to let you know that I am alive, just still in the throws of unpacking/new job/etc etc. I hope to tidy this review up before/by the end of the week. Thanks for your patience. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195486] Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195486 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 21:13 EST --- No rush, this won't get deployed until *after* fc6 is released anyway. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 201170] Review Request: jfbterm - Japanese Console for Linux Frame Buffer Device
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jfbterm - Japanese Console for Linux Frame Buffer
Device
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201170
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution||NEXTRELEASE
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 22:58 EST ---
(In reply to comment #29)
I'm happy for this to go
APPROVED
Thank you!!
* Finally released as 0.4.7-7 to fix the mixed use of %{build_root}
and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and the compilation problem on ppc
(now 0.4.7-7 can be built on i386, x86_64, ppc).
http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=14387
* SyncNeeded is requiested for FE-5.
Now I close this as CLOSED NEXTRELEASE. Thank you for reviewing
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 203274] Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library 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: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203274 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 23:55 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) I am now packaging it as an openmotif replacement. FE package MUST NOT replace FC packages. 1. Unless openmotif is formally discontinued in Core, you MUST NOT do this. 2. Lesstif is not ABI compatible to OpenMotif, so you are breaking all Motif based apps in FE, once this package should be released. And there is certainly no need for the 1.x api. Who sais that? 1. There still exist tons of Motif-1.x SW. 2. The Motif-2.x API (==OpenMotif) has changed and extended many times. Lesstif hardly has any chance to follow up these changes, because it's a clone and OpenMotif is the master. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
