[Bug 199108] Review Request: gutenprint: Printer Drivers Package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gutenprint: Printer Drivers Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199108 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 02:31 EST --- Here is updated package but still mock build is really failing now. previous releases it was not the case. If i manually build rpm using rpmbuild -ba gutenprint.spec then its executing gimp2 dir and installing /usr/lib/gimp/2.0/plug-ins/print file, but same will not be happening in mock. That means i am missing some BR. I confused becuase i have already added all BRs. Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/gutenprint/gutenprint.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/gutenprint/gutenprint-5.0.0-0.9.fc6.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 205249] Review Request: perl-Data-OptList - Parse and validate simple name/value option pairs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Data-OptList - Parse and validate simple name/value option pairs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205249 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 03:12 EST --- * rpmlint is silent * package named according to guidelines * free software, without licence files included * meets packaging guidelines * spec legible * source match upstream 6e9bb994a8716112a78c1306261f4164 Data-OptList-0.101.tar.gz * sane provides Provides: perl(Data::OptList) = 0.101 * %files right 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 205306] Review Request: perl-SUPER - Control superclass method dispatch
Please 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-SUPER - Control superclass method dispatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205306 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 03:36 EST --- The description ends with a :, this is certainly wrong... perl(DB) should certainly filtered out. It may be relevant to Requires: perl(DB) perl(UNIVERSAL) even if they are in perl core, maybe with a explanatory comment. Otherwise * rpmlint ignorable: W: perl-SUPER strange-permission filter-provides.sh 0755 * package named according to guidelines * free software, without licence files included * meets packaging guidelines * spec legible * source match upstream 591389c353df308ee9e70d38f0e3570b SUPER-1.14.tar.gz X insane provides Provides: perl(DB) perl(SUPER) = 1.14 * %files right -- 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 205314] Review Request: perl-Class-C3 - Pragma to use the C3 method resolution order algorithm
Please 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-Class-C3 - Pragma to use the C3 method resolution order algorithm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205314 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 03:56 EST --- There is a missing BuildRequires perl(Sub::Name) for a test t/33_next_method_used_with_NEXT.t. And also certainly perl(UNIVERSAL::can) for t/01_MRO.t and t/30_next_method.t There is also a rpmlint warning which is certainly right: E: perl-Class-C3 description-line-too-long This is a pragma to change Perl 5's standard method resolution order from depth- -- 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 204832] Review Request: wxMaxima - wxWidgets interface for maxima
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wxMaxima - wxWidgets interface for maxima https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204832 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199108] Review Request: gutenprint: Printer Drivers Package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gutenprint: Printer Drivers Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199108 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 04:33 EST --- Got it. I need to add gimp as BR instread to make it as Requires : gimp Updated package Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/gutenprint/gutenprint.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/gutenprint/gutenprint-5.0.0-0.10.fc6.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 187294] Review Request: gwyddion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gwyddion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187294 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 05:40 EST --- New upstream version is available, so I repackaged the src.rpm, there are no other changes: Spec URI: http://gwyddion.net/download/test/gwyddion.spec SRPM URI: http://gwyddion.net/download/test/gwyddion-1.99.9-1.src.rpm * Thu Sep 07 2006 David Necas (Yeti) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1.99.9-1 - rebuilt with upstream 1.99.9 -- 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 203520] Review Request: evolution-brutus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: evolution-brutus Alias: evolution-brutus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203520 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 06:22 EST --- (In reply to comment #18) Just a quick check of 1.1.6-5. * Well, this package does not aimed for FC5 at all? It is. I have rpms for FC6, FC5 as well as FC4 on the site below. This package can be rebuilt in mock under 20060906 rawhide, however this package cannot be rebuilt under FC5 (with 20060906 updates) with following error: This has been fixed in the new SRPM. No Package Found for evolution-data-server-devel = 1.8 Mea culpa. I generated the required e-d-s version during configure from the version present in the build requirement. This is obviously wrong since a make dist package generated on, say, FC6, then can't build on FC4 or FC5 as they have different versions of e-d-s installed. This has been fixed. No Package Found for ORBit2-devel = 2.14.1 This is correct. evolution-brutus requires at least ORBit2 2.14.1 due to a handfull of fixes and features that aren't present in earlier versions. Please grep for my name in the ORBit2 and libIDL ChangeLogs for the details. FC4 and FC5 RPMs for the required versions of ORBit2 and libIDL are available in the FC4 and FC5 directories respectively here: http://www.omesc.com/content/downloads/dist/ * rpmlint for FC6-devel-built rpms complaints: W: evolution-brutus macro-in-%changelog makeinstall Fixed in the new package. * Why does this package use Autoreq: no ? This description forbids finding libraries requirements, which I think is quite unwilling. Even if you want to specify version-related requirements, Autoreq: no is unnecessary because you can simply add the requirements in addition to auto-finding requirements. Please believe me when I say that I didn't do this lightly. The thing that forced me to disable Autoreg is that at least one of the libraries (libebook if I rememver correctly) that are provided internally by e-d-s changed version from one stable release to another. I observed that when I: 1) Installed evolution-brutus for testing 2) Un-installed evolution-brutus 3) did yum update 4) Attempted to install evolution-brutus once more. This was now not possible due to Autoreq finding that one of the internal e-d-s libraries had changed version. The only way that I could fix this (please correct me if I'm wrong) was to disable Autoreq. Well, new packages with all fixes: Spec URL: http://www.omesc.com/content/downloads/dist/Fedora%20Core%206/SPECS/evolution-brutus.spec SRPM URL: http://www.omesc.com/content/downloads/dist/Fedora%20Core%206/SRPMS/evolution-brutus-1.1.6-6.src.rpm Thanks, jules -- 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 205309] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-C3 - Module for merging hierarchies using the C3 algorithm
Please 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-Algorithm-C3 - Module for merging hierarchies using the C3 algorithm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205309 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 06:38 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #4) Thanks for the most excellent summary, Jose :) Would you mind if I posted that on the wiki somewhere? Not at all! Go ahead. The Packaging/Perl page would have been the obvious place but it's immutable to everyone outside the packaging committee now. One other thing that I should be placing in the wiki is this rather outdated document http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/perl/specfiles/. Do you know a good tool to convert HTML pages into wiki formats? I'll volunteer to transcribe it if you like. Might be better to update it and/or strip out the outdated bits first though. -- 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 203520] Review Request: evolution-brutus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: evolution-brutus Alias: evolution-brutus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203520 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 07:05 EST --- (In reply to comment #19) * Why does this package use Autoreq: no ? This description forbids finding libraries requirements, which I think is quite unwilling. Even if you want to specify version-related requirements, Autoreq: no is unnecessary because you can simply add the requirements in addition to auto-finding requirements. Please believe me when I say that I didn't do this lightly. The thing that forced me to disable Autoreg is that at least one of the libraries (libebook if I rememver correctly) that are provided internally by e-d-s changed version from one stable release to another. I observed that when I: 1) Installed evolution-brutus for testing 2) Un-installed evolution-brutus 3) did yum update 4) Attempted to install evolution-brutus once more. This was now not possible due to Autoreq finding that one of the internal e-d-s libraries had changed version. The only way that I could fix this (please correct me if I'm wrong) was to disable Autoreq. This sounds to me like a regular shared library update that would require this package to be rebuilt against the updated e-d-s? What's different here that makes this not the case? -- 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 187294] Review Request: gwyddion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gwyddion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187294
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 07:17 EST ---
i am not a sponsor, so I cannot approve the package but I have
some comments:
gwyddion-devel shouldn't own %{_libdir}/pkgconfig, but instead
Requires: pkgconfig
The shebangs removal seems to be done now, so the following is certainly
not relevant anymore (as said in the comment ;-):
# Remove shbangs from modules (upstream 1.99.8 will fix that)
sed -i '1s/^#!.*//' ruby/gwyddion/dump.rb python/Gwyddion/dump.py
For the desktop file you should have a look at:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-254ddf07aae20a23ced8cecc219d8f73926e9755
There is something very strange, an include file below %_libdir:
/usr/lib/gwyddion/include/gwyconfig.h
I guess it is there because it is a generated include file so it
could include some platform-dependant informations... I have seen
that other libraries do the same, so I guess it is ok.
There is a missing Requires on ruby and python in -devel (I would
have guessed that they were autodetected, but that's not
the case???).
However, the plugins should certainly be in a separate subpackage,
called maybe gwyddion-plugin-examples, together with all the
internal ruby/perl/python modules. Another benefit of doing
a subpackage is that this subpackage could have only
code in the public domain (as it seems to me, but I haven't checked
everything) and could have a a licence marked as such.
These perl/ruby/python modules should certainly be in a
platform independent location (I would chose %{pkgdatadir}).
Since the perl module is an internal module, the man page should
certainly not be shipped, and the automatically determined
Provides perl(Gwyddion::dump) should not be present
Removing the provides may be achieved by
%define __perl_provides %{nil}
Wouldn't it be better if the perl/python/ruby modules where real
modules?
I am not convinced that the -devel package should require the base package,
if plugin examples are removed.
but it should certainly require the libs package, so I propose changing
Requires: %{name} = %{version}
to
Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}
The %post/%postun should be for the libs subpackage and not the main package.
There are %post scriptlets missing for mime handling, you should have
a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=showredirect=ScriptletSnippets#head-de6770dd9867fcd085a73a4700f6bcd0d10294ef
and
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=showredirect=ScriptletSnippets#head-5f93ed83c968bb73b052c06ba0d7139e28f35d93
Otherwise it built and run on a Fc devel i386.
If I'm not wrong you are the upstream for this project,
maybe you could supply an example data file gwyddion can
handle for potential users to test.
Poking around in the source files, I have seen something that looks
like a file for vim, if you feel like it you can make another subpackage
for that file.
--
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 203520] Review Request: evolution-brutus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: evolution-brutus Alias: evolution-brutus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203520 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 07:21 EST --- (In reply to comment #20) (In reply to comment #19) * Why does this package use Autoreq: no ? This description forbids finding libraries requirements, which I think is quite unwilling. Even if you want to specify version-related requirements, Autoreq: no is unnecessary because you can simply add the requirements in addition to auto-finding requirements. Please believe me when I say that I didn't do this lightly. The thing that forced me to disable Autoreg is that at least one of the libraries (libebook if I rememver correctly) that are provided internally by e-d-s changed version from one stable release to another. I observed that when I: 1) Installed evolution-brutus for testing 2) Un-installed evolution-brutus 3) did yum update 4) Attempted to install evolution-brutus once more. This was now not possible due to Autoreq finding that one of the internal e-d-s libraries had changed version. The only way that I could fix this (please correct me if I'm wrong) was to disable Autoreq. This sounds to me like a regular shared library update that would require this package to be rebuilt against the updated e-d-s? What's different here that makes this not the case? That is surely one way to fix it. My gripe with this is that perfectly fine RPMs that installed with, say, eds-1.4.1 won't install with eds-1.4.1 due to the changed version of some internal library in eds. I wouldn't mind to just rebuild the RPMs if the library in question had API changes, but API changes in a stable eds release serie should'nt happen, right? Anyway, I won't mind one bit to re-enable Autoreq if that is the right thing to do. Thoughts? jules -- 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 203520] Review Request: evolution-brutus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: evolution-brutus Alias: evolution-brutus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203520 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 07:24 EST --- (In reply to comment #21) that installed with, say, eds-1.4.1 won't install with eds-1.4.1 due to the ^ eds-1.4.2 not eds-1.4.1. sorry, jules -- 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 205537] Review Request: perl-Test-Object - Thoroughly testing objects via registered handlers
Please 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-Test-Object - Thoroughly testing objects via registered handlers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205537 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 07:50 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) Notes to reviewer(s): * The requirement 'Test::Builder' = '0.62' is wrong. I believe the author wanted the version to be 0.32 (the module version included in perl 5.8.8). I am inclined to agree, but I'd patch Makefile.PL and BR: perl(Test::Builder) = 0.32, to make this discrepancy apparent. Anyway, decision left to you ... 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 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 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version||4.20-5.fc5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193897] Review Request: mysql-connector-java - Official JDBC driver for MySQL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mysql-connector-java - Official JDBC driver for MySQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193897 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 08:30 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) The package now builds for me in mock, I guess the problem with ant-contrib was some sort of mirror inconsistency. Awesome. This builds in mock and is almost perfect. I think there are just two minor changes. 1. I gave you bad advice on using Development/Libraries. This should be System Environment/Libraries. Sorry about that! 2. In the spec file you wrote: # NOTE # The following files have been removed from the tarball since they are # distributed under the LGPL and the upstream provider does not distribute # any sources with them. Not all of these files are LGPL. I forget which one(s) it was. Just say something like... # The following files have been removed from the tarball to avoid licensing # issues. Did you find out about the Provides: mm.mysql Obsoletes: mm.mysql ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177105] Review Request: gnomeradio - Graphical FM-Tuner program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnomeradio - Graphical FM-Tuner program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177105 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 08:57 EST --- I don't think it is appropriate for this package to own /usr/share/omf. Maybe scrollkeeper should own 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 187294] Review Request: gwyddion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gwyddion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187294 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 09:08 EST --- (still working on the technical points) (In reply to comment #13) If I'm not wrong you are the upstream for this project, maybe you could supply an example data file gwyddion can handle for potential users to test. I am indeed upstream. If you mean to supply in the package, I don't think it's a good idea (they tend to be large, interested people tend to have lots of SPM files themselves, and one can just import a PNG, JPEG, TIFF, ..., as a [bogus] heightfield to play with the tools). If you mean it generally, a handful of sample files is available on the web: http://gwyddion.net/download.php#sample-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 205537] Review Request: perl-Test-Object - Thoroughly testing objects via registered handlers
Please 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-Test-Object - Thoroughly testing objects via registered handlers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205537 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 09:31 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) (In reply to comment #1) Notes to reviewer(s): * The requirement 'Test::Builder' = '0.62' is wrong. I believe the author wanted the version to be 0.32 (the module version included in perl 5.8.8). I am inclined to agree, but I'd patch Makefile.PL and BR: perl(Test::Builder) = 0.32, to make this discrepancy apparent. Anyway, decision left to you ... I will patch the Makefile.PL. APPROVED Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205127] Review Request: ekg - A client compatible with Gadu-Gadu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ekg - A client compatible with Gadu-Gadu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205127 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 09:32 EST --- Imported and built for devel. FC-5 branch requested. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205136] Review Request: gg2 - GNU Gadu 2 - free talking
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gg2 - GNU Gadu 2 - free talking https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205136 Bug 205136 depends on bug 205127, which changed state. Bug 205127 Summary: Review Request: ekg - A client compatible with Gadu-Gadu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205127 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200436] Review Request: gaim-gadugadu - Gadu-Gadu support in Gaim IM client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gaim-gadugadu - Gadu-Gadu support in Gaim IM client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200436 Bug 200436 depends on bug 205127, which changed state. Bug 205127 Summary: Review Request: ekg - A client compatible with Gadu-Gadu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205127 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205537] Review Request: perl-Test-Object - Thoroughly testing objects via registered handlers
Please 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-Test-Object - Thoroughly testing objects via registered handlers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205537 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 09:51 EST --- The author has released version 0.07 a few hours ago with perl(Test::Builder) = 0.33 as the build requirement. I will open a new RT ticket about it (trying to have the version changed to 0.32). Meanwhile I import and patch Test::Object 0.07 (I will delay branching until a hear from upstream). References: * Diff from Test-Object-0.06 to Test-Object-0.07 http://search.cpan.org/diff?from=Test-Object-0.06to=Test-Object-0.07 -- 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 205029] Review Request: autobuild-applet - a GNOME applet for monitoring Test-AutoBuild build status
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: autobuild-applet - a GNOME applet for monitoring Test-AutoBuild build status https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205029 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 10:03 EST --- Has this been built yet? If so, this bug can be closed. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors#head-6b9db491a77039613eb0ba70b30fedb4b73eb7b9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193897] Review Request: mysql-connector-java - Official JDBC driver for MySQL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mysql-connector-java - Official JDBC driver for MySQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193897 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 11:56 EST --- New files: http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/mysql-connector-java-3.1.12-1jpp_4fc.i386.rpm (In reply to comment #12) (In reply to comment #11) The package now builds for me in mock, I guess the problem with ant-contrib was some sort of mirror inconsistency. Awesome. This builds in mock and is almost perfect. I think there are just two minor changes. 1. I gave you bad advice on using Development/Libraries. This should be System Environment/Libraries. Sorry about that! Fixed 2. In the spec file you wrote: # NOTE # The following files have been removed from the tarball since they are # distributed under the LGPL and the upstream provider does not distribute # any sources with them. Not all of these files are LGPL. I forget which one(s) it was. Just say something like... # The following files have been removed from the tarball to avoid licensing # issues. Fixed. Changed to: # The following files have been removed from the tarball to avoid licensing # issues due to the fact that they are not distributed with their source. Did you find out about the Provides: mm.mysql Obsoletes: mm.mysql ? See comment #4 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193897#c4) above. I also formatted the preamble section so it doesn't look like a puzzle anymore :-). -- 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 205309] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-C3 - Module for merging hierarchies using the C3 algorithm
Please 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-Algorithm-C3 - Module for merging hierarchies using the C3 algorithm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205309 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 12:06 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #4) Thanks for the most excellent summary, Jose :) Would you mind if I posted that on the wiki somewhere? Not at all! Go ahead. The Packaging/Perl page would have been the obvious place but it's immutable to everyone outside the packaging committee now. And at least a member of the packaging committee :( One other thing that I should be placing in the wiki is this rather outdated document http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/perl/specfiles/. Do you know a good tool to convert HTML pages into wiki formats? I'll volunteer to transcribe it if you like. Might be better to update it and/or strip out the outdated bits first though. Thanks! That would be great. I will start updating 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 181035] Review Request: luks-tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luks-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181035 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 12:06 EST --- Good: + Source match with upstream. + Mock build works fine. Bad: - Rpmlint complaints luks-tools W: luks-tools non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/gnome-luks-format.pyo 0644 W: luks-tools non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/gnome-luks-format.pyc 0644 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193897] Review Request: mysql-connector-java - Official JDBC driver for MySQL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mysql-connector-java - Official JDBC driver for MySQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193897 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 12:30 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) New files: http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/mysql-connector-java-3.1.12-1jpp_4fc.i386.rpm Where is the SRPM? -- 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 205249] Review Request: perl-Data-OptList - Parse and validate simple name/value option pairs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Data-OptList - Parse and validate simple name/value option pairs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205249 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 12:31 EST --- +Import to CVS +Add to owners.list +Bump release, build for devel +Request branching (FC-5) +Close bug Thanks for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205269] Review Request: perl-Sub-Exporter - Sophisticated exporter for custom-built routines
Please 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-Sub-Exporter - Sophisticated exporter for custom-built routines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205269 Bug 205269 depends on bug 205249, which changed state. Bug 205249 Summary: Review Request: perl-Data-OptList - Parse and validate simple name/value option pairs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205249 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205319] Review Request: perl-Params-Coerce - Allows your classes to do coercion of parameters
Please 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-Params-Coerce - Allows your classes to do coercion of parameters https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205319 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 12:42 EST --- +Import to CVS +Add to owners.list +Bump release, build for devel +Request branching (FC-5) +Close bug (In reply to comment #1) I have to say that the %description leaves a bit to be desired. Could you perhaps add the second paragraph from the DESCRIPTION section of the documentation? Added. -- 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 205321] Review Request: perl-Moose - Complete modern object system for Perl 5
Please 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-Moose - Complete modern object system for Perl 5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205321 Bug 205321 depends on bug 205319, which changed state. Bug 205319 Summary: Review Request: perl-Params-Coerce - Allows your classes to do coercion of parameters https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205319 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197411] Review Request: php-pear-Date - PEAR: Date and Time Zone Classes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Date - PEAR: Date and Time Zone Classes Alias: php-pear-Date https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197411 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 13:02 EST --- Hmm. It doesn't have a make check but there must be some way to run the tests. Also, I don't see the point of packaging the tests. Are they somehow useful to the installed module? However, for some reason some Python modules do the same thing, and it seems to be accepted, so I don't suppose it's a blocker. So, 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 190101] Review Request: php-pear-Log
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Log
Alias: php-pear-Log
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190101
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 13:04 EST ---
SPEC : http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pear-Log.spec
SRPM : http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pear-Log-1.9.8-4.fc5.src.rpm
Mock : http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pear-Log-build.log
Note :
- i didn't use %{ClassName} as it's very useful on a template but not on a
generated specfile.
- i didn't check for package.xml/package2.xml as auto-generation knows which
one use
- i create docdir in the main build directory (cleaner, i think)
--
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 205617] FC: add buildos RPM to Fedora Core
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: FC: add buildos RPM to Fedora Core https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205617 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||205620 -- 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 205620] New: FC: Package Review Request: buildos
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=205620 Summary: FC: Package Review Request: buildos Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] The buildos RPM is a script I wrote a while back as a wrapper to anaconda to quickly build new OS distros. The script executes the createrepo and the buildinstall commands, as well as building a DVD or CD distribution. buildos SRPM attached. --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 13:16 EST --- Created an attachment (id=135789) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=135789action=view) buildos SRPM -- 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 205620] FC: Package Review Request: buildos
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: FC: Package Review Request: buildos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205620 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 13:27 EST --- *** Bug 205617 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 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 205620] FC: Package Review Request: buildos
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: FC: Package Review Request: buildos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205620 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 13:18 EST --- I tested this out on ppc, ppc64, i386, i686, x86_64, and ia64 arches. P. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193897] Review Request: mysql-connector-java - Official JDBC driver for MySQL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mysql-connector-java - Official JDBC driver for MySQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193897 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 13:48 EST --- reply to comment #14) Where is the SRPM? Oops, wrong file uploaded. http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/mysql-connector-java-3.1.12-1jpp_4fc.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 205620] Fedora Extras: Package Review Request: buildos
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Fedora Extras: Package Review Request: buildos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205620 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|FC: Package Review Request: |Fedora Extras: Package |buildos |Review Request: buildos Product|Fedora Core |Fedora Extras Component|Package Review |Package Review -- 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 205620] FC: Package Review Request: buildos
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: FC: Package Review Request: buildos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205620 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 13:40 EST --- I'd rather see this in Extras space, and if you go the extras route, you can get it available for FC6. -- 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 190101] Review Request: php-pear-Log
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Log Alias: php-pear-Log https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190101 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 14:24 EST --- Looking good, please change: - Summary should not have PEAR, a summary should be as short as possible while still being descriptive enough to convey what it is. Extra stuff like A or The or PEAR should be removed from summaries. - Set BuildRequires: php-pear = 1:1.4.9-1.2 Normally I would approve it now and request you make the changes in CVS, but the BuildRequires is a blocker and must be fixed before I can approve 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 204525] Review Request: eclipse-gef - Eclipse Graphical Editing Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eclipse-gef - Eclipse Graphical Editing Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204525 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 14:28 EST --- Built. Thanks, Anthony! -- 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 204832] Review Request: wxMaxima - wxWidgets interface for maxima
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wxMaxima - wxWidgets interface for maxima https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204832 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 14:40 EST --- typo fixed, imported, +owners.list, built for devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205029] Review Request: autobuild-applet - a GNOME applet for monitoring Test-AutoBuild build status
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: autobuild-applet - a GNOME applet for monitoring Test-AutoBuild build status https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205029 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 14:42 EST --- There was a little delay before I got access to plague. The RPM finally got built yesterday and should now be in 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 190101] Review Request: php-pear-Log
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Log Alias: php-pear-Log https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190101 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 14:49 EST --- SPEC : http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pear-Log.spec SRPM : http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pear-Log-1.9.8-5.fc5.src.rpm I've change then BR, but i really think it's not a BR - 1.4.9 is required to have --packagingroot working - 1.4.9-1.1 is required for memory limit, but 8M enough for this extension - 1.4.9-1.2 is required for macros, which are embeded in the spec. so... -- 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 196827] Review Request: php-pear-Image-GraphViz - PEAR: Interface to ATT's GraphViz tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Image-GraphViz - PEAR: Interface to ATT's GraphViz tools Alias: pear-Image-GraphViz https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196827 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 15:04 EST --- Shouldn't this package have some kind of dependency on graphviz? -- 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 199108] Review Request: gutenprint: Printer Drivers Package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gutenprint: Printer Drivers Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199108 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 15:17 EST --- Excellent. I am still seeing: W: gutenprint mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs from rpmlint. You might replace the tabs with spaces in the spec... but thats not a blocker. It looks like the package conflicts with the gimp-print-plugin package in core: file /usr/lib/gimp/2.0/plug-ins/print from install of gutenprint-5.0.0- 0.10.fc6 conflicts with file from package gimp-print-plugin-4.2.7-20.1 Extras packages must not conflict with core packages. Is there some way to move the file or otherwise prevent the conflict? -- 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 204694] Review Request: zvbi - Raw VBI, Teletext and Closed Caption decoding library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zvbi - Raw VBI, Teletext and Closed Caption decoding library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204694 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 15:20 EST --- Excellent, looks good, APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205504] Review Request: rum - rug-like interface for yum
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rum - rug-like interface for yum https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205504 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 15:34 EST --- Let me know when you've created an account, sent in the CLA, etc, and I'll move you over to sponsored status. -- 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 203694] Review Request: rawstudio - digital camera raw-image converter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rawstudio - digital camera raw-image converter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203694 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187294] Review Request: gwyddion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gwyddion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187294
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 15:42 EST ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Part I: Fixed stuff.
Spec URI: http://gwyddion.net/download/test/gwyddion.spec
SRPM URI: http://gwyddion.net/download/test/gwyddion-1.99.9-2.src.rpm
* Thu Sep 07 2006 David Necas (Yeti) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1.99.9-2
- Removed `remove shbangs from modules', not needed anymore
- Fixed requirements of devel subpackage: require libs, not main; require
pkgconfig; added missing gtkglext-devel (required since we build with it)
- Don't own %%{_libdir}/pkgconfig directory
- Avoided automated Provides: perl(Gwyddion::dump)
- Moved ldconfig execution to libs subpackage scriptlet
- Added desktop, MIME database handling scriptlets from Fedora wiki
- Patch ltmain.sh instead of ex-post .la file removal (taken from FreeBSD port)
gwyddion-devel shouldn't own %{_libdir}/pkgconfig, but instead
Requires: pkgconfig
Fixed.
The shebangs removal seems to be done now, so the following is certainly
not relevant anymore (as said in the comment ;-):
# Remove shbangs from modules (upstream 1.99.8 will fix that)
sed -i '1s/^#!.*//' ruby/gwyddion/dump.rb python/Gwyddion/dump.py
Fixed.
For the desktop file you should have a look at:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-254ddf07aae20a23ced8cecc219d8f73926e9755
Hopefully fixed.
There is something very strange, an include file below %_libdir:
/usr/lib/gwyddion/include/gwyconfig.h
I guess it is there because it is a generated include file so it
could include some platform-dependant informations... I have seen
that other libraries do the same, so I guess it is ok.
Yes, it is a page taken from GLib book and it is there exactly for
this reason, although it currently contains no *architecture*-dependent
bits. But one should be able to install for example 32bits
gwyddion libs with GtkGLExt enabled and 64bit with GtkGLExt disabled
(not that concerns Fedora much but it explains the file).
Since the perl module is an internal module, the man page should
certainly not be shipped, and the automatically determined
Provides perl(Gwyddion::dump) should not be present
Removing the provides may be achieved by
%define __perl_provides %{nil}
Fixed.
I am not convinced that the -devel package should require the base package,
if plugin examples are removed.
but it should certainly require the libs package, so I propose changing
Requires: %{name} = %{version}
to
Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}
Fixed.
The %post/%postun should be for the libs subpackage and not the main package.
Fixed.
There are %post scriptlets missing for mime handling, you should have
a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=showredirect=ScriptletSnippets#head-de6770dd9867fcd085a73a4700f6bcd0d10294ef
and
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=showredirect=ScriptletSnippets#head-5f93ed83c968bb73b052c06ba0d7139e28f35d93
Hopefully 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 193896] Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline
library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 15:46 EST ---
Somehow this slipped through the cracks, but I'll take it for review now.
The no-soname issue is, as far as I can tell, not a blocker. The jpp stuff in
the release, however, is. You should just use a a plain integer release (with
the appended dist tag).
The simplest way to do this and interleave cleanly with the jpackage release
number is to use, in this case, 0.8.0-11{?%dist} (i.e. drop the jpp, increment
the release by one, and append the dist tag.) Or you can divorce yourself from
the jpackage numbering altogether; it's your choice.
--
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 196827] Review Request: php-pear-Image-GraphViz - PEAR: Interface to ATT's GraphViz tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Image-GraphViz - PEAR: Interface to ATT's GraphViz tools Alias: pear-Image-GraphViz https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196827 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 15:50 EST --- Yeah, youre probably right. I added graphviz to the Requires. -- 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 203694] Review Request: rawstudio - digital camera raw-image converter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rawstudio - digital camera raw-image converter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203694 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 15:51 EST --- MD5Sums: 391f2a08ef0e9dd32b8de51347420d7b rawstudio-0.3.tar.gz Good: * Source URL is canonical * Upstream source tarball verified * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines * Group Tag is from the official list * Buildroot has all required elements * All paths begin with macros * All directories are owned by this or other packages * All necessary BuildRequires listed. * All desired features are enabled * Builds in mock fine * rpmlint produces no errors +1 APPROVE, and I'll also be your sponsor. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors#head-a89c07b5b8abe7748b6b39f0f89768d595234907 -- 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 190101] Review Request: php-pear-Log
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Log Alias: php-pear-Log https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190101 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 15:54 EST --- Yeah, I just logged in to approve this anyway because you had already defined the macros. Looks good now anyway, 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 15:56 EST --- Well, it looks like all of the dependencies have been approved and should be in the repo soon. So who has what it takes to properly review this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190101] Review Request: php-pear-Log
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Log Alias: php-pear-Log https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190101 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 15:58 EST --- BTW, could you be so kind and sync and build this package for FC5? I'm going to need this for some of my packages which I want to build on FC5. Thanks for all your work on this and the other php packages. :D -- 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 205306] Review Request: perl-SUPER - Control superclass method dispatch
Please 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-SUPER - Control superclass method dispatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205306 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 16:08 EST --- Updated: SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-SUPER-1.14-2.fc5.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-SUPER.spec I'm not explicitly requiring perl(DB) perl(UNIVERSAL) right now as a) they don't look to be required, and b) in any case they're in core, so I can quash this question on the ground it's moot anyways ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177105] Review Request: gnomeradio - Graphical FM-Tuner program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnomeradio - Graphical FM-Tuner program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177105 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 16:16 EST --- Looks like scrollkeeper has been fixed in rawhide. That leaves FC5, but it's at best a minor issue and I don't think it should block this package. 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 205504] Review Request: rum - rug-like interface for yum
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rum - rug-like interface for yum https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205504 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 16:19 EST --- Quick note: the Source should be a full 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 205314] Review Request: perl-Class-C3 - Pragma to use the C3 method resolution order algorithm
Please 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-Class-C3 - Pragma to use the C3 method resolution order algorithm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205314 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 16:22 EST --- Updated: SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-Class-C3-0.13-2.fc5.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-Class-C3.spec (also checked build in mock, now grin) -- 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 192606] Review Request: yafc: yet another ftp client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: yafc: yet another ftp client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192606 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 16:22 EST --- I think I addressed the requested issues. rpmlint is quiet now, too. spec: http://rpm.forevermore.net/yafc/yafc.spec srpm: http://rpm.forevermore.net/yafc/yafc-1.1.1-4.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 205306] Review Request: perl-SUPER - Control superclass method dispatch
Please 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-SUPER - Control superclass method dispatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205306 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 16:25 EST --- The provides are right now, but the description is still weird... -- 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 205314] Review Request: perl-Class-C3 - Pragma to use the C3 method resolution order algorithm
Please 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-Class-C3 - Pragma to use the C3 method resolution order algorithm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205314 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 16:27 EST --- Why don't you BR perl(UNIVERSAL::can)? -- 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 190101] Review Request: php-pear-Log
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Log Alias: php-pear-Log https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190101 [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 196847] Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit2 - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit2 - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests Alias: php-pear-PHPUnit2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196847 Bug 196847 depends on bug 190101, which changed state. Bug 190101 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Log https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190101 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 Bug 189195 depends on bug 190101, which changed state. Bug 190101 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Log https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190101 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196837] Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit2-alpha - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit2-alpha - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests Alias: pear-PHPUnit2-alpha https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196837 Bug 196837 depends on bug 190101, which changed state. Bug 190101 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Log https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190101 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187294] Review Request: gwyddion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gwyddion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187294
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 16:42 EST ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Part II: Unclear stuff.
There is a missing Requires on ruby and python in -devel (I would
have guessed that they were autodetected, but that's not
the case???).
However, the plugins should certainly be in a separate subpackage,
called maybe gwyddion-plugin-examples, together with all the
internal ruby/perl/python modules. Another benefit of doing
a subpackage is that this subpackage could have only
code in the public domain (as it seems to me, but I haven't checked
everything) and could have a a licence marked as such.
The most clean solution from the packaging point of view perhaps would be to
split the plug-in stuff by language and require individual interpreters in the
subpackages. In fact, since there are two kinds of ruby plug-ins, there should
be a plain ruby subpackage and a subpackage requiring narray.
However from the upstream point of view this is rather unfortunate. The
plug-ins are examples, they are not meant to be *used* (all perform the same
function). If one installs the interpreter for a language one is interested in,
one just gets as a benefit a working plug-in in that language as it becomes
executable.
The sample plug-ins could be even installed somewhere Gwyddion does not find
them by default and the developer could be required to install them to
~/.gwyddion/plugins or elsewhere manually. But I can see no advantage in this
extra hassle when it Just Works as it is.
These perl/ruby/python modules should certainly be in a
platform independent location (I would chose %{pkgdatadir}).
Perhaps, if differing from every other installation is a good thing. What is
the difference from, e.g., python itself? It has all .py files in /usr/lib64.
Wouldn't it be better if the perl/python/ruby modules where real
modules?
No, but this needs an explanation.
1. All the plug-in stuff is more or less legacy. We will support it while it
will make sense, but I would rather avoid anything that could be interpreted as
encouragement of its use.
2. The modules are intended for dealing with a dumb file format that is only
encountered in temporary files processed by a Gwyddion plug-in. The file format
is not used anywhere else.
Poking around in the source files, I have seen something that looks
like a file for vim, if you feel like it you can make another subpackage
for that file.
Well, is there any precedent? Guidelines? I cannot find any vim subpackage (or
vim-foo where foo is not a vim subpackage) nor anything in Fedora wiki.
Note it is an auxiliary C syntax file which has to be sourced from a main file.
A manual action on user's side is necessary, people should not get
automatically highlighted Gwyddion types and funcs in all C files (unless they
set it up so).
--
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 205314] Review Request: perl-Class-C3 - Pragma to use the C3 method resolution order algorithm
Please 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-Class-C3 - Pragma to use the C3 method resolution order algorithm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205314 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 16:47 EST --- perl(UNIVERSAL::can) is both a module and a method; this code looks to build OK with the can method supplied by perl(UNIVERSAL) in base. (And more to point, doesn't appear to 'use UNIVERSAL::can;' anywhere.) -- 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 205306] Review Request: perl-SUPER - Control superclass method dispatch
Please 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-SUPER - Control superclass method dispatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205306 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 16:54 EST --- That's what I get for being too literal and not reading the text I'm fixing. I'll update to: When subclassing a class, you occasionally want to dispatch control to the superclass -- at least conditionally and temporarily. This module provides an easier, cleaner way for class methods to access their ancestor's implementation. -- 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 205306] Review Request: perl-SUPER - Control superclass method dispatch
Please 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-SUPER - Control superclass method dispatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205306 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 16:56 EST --- Updated: SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-SUPER-1.14-3.fc5.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-SUPER.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 197411] Review Request: php-pear-Date - PEAR: Date and Time Zone Classes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Date - PEAR: Date and Time Zone Classes Alias: php-pear-Date https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197411 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 17:05 EST --- I'm not sure, but the test dir is a standard php-pear dir and is defined in the macros, so I'm sure lots of packages have stuff there. But AFAIK, there is no standard way to run tests that are there. Perhaps we should assess the situation after more php packages have been approved and see if the tests directory is really needed. -- 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 197411] Review Request: php-pear-Date - PEAR: Date and Time Zone Classes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Date - PEAR: Date and Time Zone Classes Alias: php-pear-Date https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197411 [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 197417] Review Request: php-pear-Validate - PEAR: Validation class
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Validate - PEAR: Validation class Alias: php-pear-Validate https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197417 Bug 197417 depends on bug 197411, which changed state. Bug 197411 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Date - PEAR: Date and Time Zone Classes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197411 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187294] Review Request: gwyddion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gwyddion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187294
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 17:43 EST ---
(In reply to comment #16)
(In reply to comment #13)
The most clean solution from the packaging point of view perhaps would be to
split the plug-in stuff by language and require individual interpreters in the
subpackages. In fact, since there are two kinds of ruby plug-ins, there should
be a plain ruby subpackage and a subpackage requiring narray.
However from the upstream point of view this is rather unfortunate. The
plug-ins are examples, they are not meant to be *used* (all perform the same
function). If one installs the interpreter for a language one is interested
in,
one just gets as a benefit a working plug-in in that language as it becomes
executable.
I don't really get what you mean with 'upstream point of view'. If they
are examples they shouldn't be installed (but shipped in docs or the like).
If they are usefull they should be packaged correctly.
The sample plug-ins could be even installed somewhere Gwyddion does not find
them by default and the developer could be required to install them to
~/.gwyddion/plugins or elsewhere manually. But I can see no advantage in this
extra hassle when it Just Works as it is.
Then it should work as it is, but it shouldn't prevent from doing a
clean package. Splitting out a gwyddion-perl-plugin, and so on for
other languages wouldn't do any harm and would be more sensible
for packaging.
These perl/ruby/python modules should certainly be in a
platform independent location (I would chose %{pkgdatadir}).
Perhaps, if differing from every other installation is a good thing. What is
the difference from, e.g., python itself? It has all .py files in /usr/lib64.
That's untrue. Perl and python have 2 macros, one for noarch and
the other for arch dependent stuff. noarch is in /usr/lib/ even
on x64. You can use /usr/lib instead of /usr/share but /usr/share
is cleaner (and I believe that the use of lib for arch independent things
comes from past uses). Internal modules are better in %_datadir,
and some packages indeed use that place for their internal modules,
just try
find /usr/share/ -name '*.py'
find /usr/share/ -name '*.pm'
No, but this needs an explanation.
1. All the plug-in stuff is more or less legacy. We will support it while it
will make sense, but I would rather avoid anything that could be interpreted
as
encouragement of its use.
Once again, if it is packaged, it should be done rightly, even
if it is different from upstream, or it shouldn't be packaged at
all. The best would be to install the modules like any other
module. For perl, however, there is no support upstream for
a classical module install (with Makefile.PL and the like).
So just copying them in a relevant location is all we can do
in fedora (you could also add a Makefile.PL, and patch the
build system to integrate it cleanly, but it is more work
and, as a reviewer I think it shouldn't be a blocker).
In the general case, the choices done upstream are not necessarily
the same that are done when packaging. When packaging, there
should be an adaptation of the package to the distribution.
Upstream is sometime too generic, and specific things are to
be done. When packaging in fedora you may have to change your
point of view and do some things differently than upstream.
Only on relevant details, of course.
2. The modules are intended for dealing with a dumb file format that is only
encountered in temporary files processed by a Gwyddion plug-in. The file
format
is not used anywhere else.
So if plugins are allowed these modules are usefull. Once again,
since there is no support upstream they should be packaged simply.
Poking around in the source files, I have seen something that looks
like a file for vim, if you feel like it you can make another subpackage
for that file.
Well, is there any precedent? Guidelines? I cannot find any vim subpackage
(or
vim-foo where foo is not a vim subpackage) nor anything in Fedora wiki.
You are indeed right. That's very strange as there are a lot of
emacs related subpackages. There is no precedent, but we could
make one. If you don't feel like it, I guess the best would be
to ship the .vim file in a %docs section. If you know vim enough
you can also do a subpackage which would hold the file in a
suitable directory. I have another package with a .vim file in
%docs installed.
Note it is an auxiliary C syntax file which has to be sourced from a main
file.
A manual action on user's side is necessary, people should not get
automatically highlighted Gwyddion types and funcs in all C files (unless they
set it up so).
Ok. I don't know how such file work, but if it is better in the
vim
[Bug 205306] Review Request: perl-SUPER - Control superclass method dispatch
Please 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-SUPER - Control superclass method dispatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205306 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 17:45 EST --- 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 205314] Review Request: perl-Class-C3 - Pragma to use the C3 method resolution order algorithm
Please 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-Class-C3 - Pragma to use the C3 method resolution order algorithm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205314 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 17:49 EST --- Ok, you're right. * rpmlint is silent * package named according to guidelines * free software, without licence files included * meets packaging guidelines * spec legible * source match upstream 95b52572a765b9d9103b264a15e323a1 Class-C3-0.13.tar.gz * sane provides Provides: perl(Class::C3) = 0.01 * %files right 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 181035] Review Request: luks-tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luks-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181035 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 18:05 EST --- Spec Name or Url: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/luks-tools.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/luks-tools-0.0.10-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205318] Review Request: perl-Class-MOP - Class::MOP Perl module
Please 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-Class-MOP - Class::MOP Perl module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 18:13 EST --- Blocker: Test::Pod::Coverage and Test::Pod BR are missing. Otherwise * rpmlint is silent * package named according to guidelines * free software, without licence files included * meets packaging guidelines * spec legible * source match upstream 88ae60fc9fe161598739f3de59d6932e Class-MOP-0.34.tar.gz * sane provides Provides: perl(Class::MOP) = 0.34 perl(Class::MOP::Attribute) = 0.12 perl(Class::MOP::Attribute::Accessor) = 0.01 perl(Class::MOP::Class) = 0.19 perl(Class::MOP::Class::Immutable) = 0.02 perl(Class::MOP::Instance) = 0.03 perl(Class::MOP::Method) = 0.03 perl(Class::MOP::Method::Wrapped) = 0.01 perl(Class::MOP::Module) = 0.02 perl(Class::MOP::Object) = 0.02 perl(Class::MOP::Package) = 0.04 perl(metaclass) = 0.03 * %files right -- 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 205269] Review Request: perl-Sub-Exporter - Sophisticated exporter for custom-built routines
Please 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-Sub-Exporter - Sophisticated exporter for custom-built routines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205269 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 18:27 EST --- * rpmlint is silent * package named according to guidelines * free software, without licence files included * meets packaging guidelines * spec legible * source match upstream 10eaa77a13de4c23640cdd1aaf0f2412 Sub-Exporter-0.970.tar.gz * sane provides Provides: perl(Sub::Exporter) = 0.970 perl(Sub::Exporter::Util) = 0.020 * %files right 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 205318] Review Request: perl-Class-MOP - Class::MOP Perl module
Please 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-Class-MOP - Class::MOP Perl module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205318 Bug 205318 depends on bug 205306, which changed state. Bug 205306 Summary: Review Request: perl-SUPER - Control superclass method dispatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205306 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205306] Review Request: perl-SUPER - Control superclass method dispatch
Please 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-SUPER - Control superclass method dispatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205306 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 19:10 EST --- +Import to CVS +Add to owners.list +Bump release, build for devel +Request branching +Close bug Thanks for the review! :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205314] Review Request: perl-Class-C3 - Pragma to use the C3 method resolution order algorithm
Please 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-Class-C3 - Pragma to use the C3 method resolution order algorithm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205314 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 19:13 EST --- +Import to CVS +Add to owners.list +Bump release, build for devel +Request branching (FC-5) +Close bug Thanks for the review! :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205314] Review Request: perl-Class-C3 - Pragma to use the C3 method resolution order algorithm
Please 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-Class-C3 - Pragma to use the C3 method resolution order algorithm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205314 [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 205318] Review Request: perl-Class-MOP - Class::MOP Perl module
Please 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-Class-MOP - Class::MOP Perl module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205318 Bug 205318 depends on bug 205314, which changed state. Bug 205314 Summary: Review Request: perl-Class-C3 - Pragma to use the C3 method resolution order algorithm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205314 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205321] Review Request: perl-Moose - Complete modern object system for Perl 5
Please 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-Moose - Complete modern object system for Perl 5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205321 Bug 205321 depends on bug 205269, which changed state. Bug 205269 Summary: Review Request: perl-Sub-Exporter - Sophisticated exporter for custom-built routines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205269 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205269] Review Request: perl-Sub-Exporter - Sophisticated exporter for custom-built routines
Please 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-Sub-Exporter - Sophisticated exporter for custom-built routines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205269 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 19:19 EST --- +Import to CVS +Add to owners.list +Bump release, build for devel +Request branching (FC-5) +Close 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 205318] Review Request: perl-Class-MOP - Class::MOP Perl module
Please 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-Class-MOP - Class::MOP Perl module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 19:23 EST --- Updated: SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-Class-MOP-0.34-2.fc5.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-Class-MOP.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 205318] Review Request: perl-Class-MOP - Class::MOP Perl module
Please 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-Class-MOP - Class::MOP Perl module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 19:32 EST --- 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 205318] Review Request: perl-Class-MOP - Class::MOP Perl module
Please 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-Class-MOP - Class::MOP Perl module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 19:38 EST --- +Import to CVS +Add to owners.list +Bump release, build for devel +Request branching (FC-5) +Close bug Thanks for the review! :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205321] Review Request: perl-Moose - Complete modern object system for Perl 5
Please 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-Moose - Complete modern object system for Perl 5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205321 Bug 205321 depends on bug 205318, which changed state. Bug 205318 Summary: Review Request: perl-Class-MOP - Class::MOP Perl module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205318 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187294] Review Request: gwyddion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gwyddion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187294
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 20:21 EST ---
(In reply to comment #17)
I don't really get what you mean with 'upstream point of view'. If they
are examples they shouldn't be installed (but shipped in docs or the like).
If they are usefull they should be packaged correctly.
Well, what's for example in /usr/share/cvs/contrib then (or other contrib dirs)?
Mere examples? But they cause cvs - tcsh dependency. User executables? But
they are not in PATH and they are [cite]REALLY UNSUPORTED[/cite]. Auxiliary
executables? But they are not in libexec and they are not used by anything.
Documentation? But they are not in a documentation directory, and a perl script
is hardly documentation it's something that needs documentation itself. Things
have various modes of use, not everything is black and white.
So to get somewhere, what is the scenario under which the current approach
actually breaks? What is the problem users of the current package would
encounter? Or at least, what forbids this mode of use?
I maintain the devel subpackage does not need perl, python nor ruby. It is
however made ready to be used with them *if* one decides so. Someone
implementing a perl script without perl and blaming the packagers for missing
dependencies when it doesn't run is exactly as ridiculous as someone writing an
TeX document without TeX and blaming the packagers for missing dependencies when
it doesn't compile to DVI.
That's untrue.
By python I referred to `python':
$ rpm -ql python | grep '\.py$' | grep -c ^/usr/share
0
$ rpm -ql python | grep '\.py$' | grep -c ^/usr/lib64
550
Internal modules are better in %_datadir,
and some packages indeed use that place for their internal modules,
just try
find /usr/share/ -name '*.py'
find /usr/share/ -name '*.pm
I tried it before and the key word is `some'. There is more than 20x more .py
files in lib64 than in share on my system (some are indirectly arch-dependent,
but anyway).
It is not a problem to put the modules to %{_datadir} instead of %{_libdir}. I
just think one has to have a reason to deviate from upstream. And I cannot see
the reason when the consistency gain is only virtual.
--
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 196827] Review Request: php-pear-Image-GraphViz - PEAR: Interface to ATT's GraphViz tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Image-GraphViz - PEAR: Interface to ATT's GraphViz tools Alias: pear-Image-GraphViz https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196827 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 20:23 EST --- Cool. Builds OK and rpmlint has only it's usual dangerous-command-in-%post spew which should be ignored. * source files match upstream: 8828e58960e0d93820cb3bdcce85e705 Image_GraphViz-1.2.1.tgz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent (except for erroneous warnings) * final provides and requires are sane: php-pear(Image_GraphViz) = 1.2.1 php-pear-Image-GraphViz = 1.2.1-1.fc6 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/pear graphviz php-pear(PEAR) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * 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 are OK (PEAR module installation) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. 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 196843] Review Request: php-pear-Benchmark - PEAR: Framework to benchmark PHP scripts or function calls
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Benchmark - PEAR: Framework to benchmark PHP scripts or function calls Alias: php-pear-Benchmark https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196843 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196827] Review Request: php-pear-Image-GraphViz - PEAR: Interface to ATT's GraphViz tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Image-GraphViz - PEAR: Interface to ATT's GraphViz tools Alias: pear-Image-GraphViz https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196827 [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 196837] Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit2-alpha - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit2-alpha - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests Alias: pear-PHPUnit2-alpha https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196837 Bug 196837 depends on bug 196827, which changed state. Bug 196827 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Image-GraphViz - PEAR: Interface to ATT's GraphViz tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196827 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204694] Review Request: zvbi - Raw VBI, Teletext and Closed Caption decoding library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zvbi - Raw VBI, Teletext and Closed Caption decoding library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204694 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 20:47 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 204421] Review Request: kdetv - KDE application for watching TV
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdetv - KDE application for watching TV https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204421 Bug 204421 depends on bug 204694, which changed state. Bug 204694 Summary: Review Request: zvbi - Raw VBI, Teletext and Closed Caption decoding library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204694 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|NEW |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
