[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] 2006-09-08 02:56 EST --- I'm also for the Lets not ship the gimp plugin for now route. Maybe we even can get this package as a proper Fedora Core update with the plugin later in FC6 after the package got a bit of testing in Extras. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-09-08 02:57 EST --- Hi, The only change is that I've enabled Autoreq. All issues raised should be fixed now. 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-1.1.6-7.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 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] 2006-09-08 04:27 EST ---
(In reply to comment #18)
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.
I certainly wouldn't have accepted that kind of packaging without
disagreeing. And this is a core package, so there hasn't been any review.
But others reviewers may disagree with me, it wouldn't be the first
time that it happens ;-). Admitedly, this is not an easy choice,
because this is code and doc.
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?
For the 'internal' modules, plugins dealing with the dump file
format will have to require a -devel package. This is not what
is done in most cases, it seems to me that it breaks the user
expectations. So I think each internal modules should be
in a distinct package with the interpreter name in the package name.
Alternatively they may be in the main package, but the interpreters
should be required. This is not the job of the users to have proper
dependencies, it is the packager job.
For the plugins, since they are more or less examples, I think that
a subpackage containing all of them called
gwyddion-plugin-examples
which would require all the internal module packages could do the
trick. You should anyway add a README file, called for example
README.fedora or README.plugins explaining what you said here, something
along:
Those plugins are examples of what can be done with plugins, and
they all perform the same task. The use of plugins is discouraged,
however, so you should use plugins only if you really need to.
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.
The internal modules and the plugins are not something done by users but
shipped by pakckagers, so you, as a packager must ensure that the
dependencies are met.
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
Ok, that's because these are arch dependent modules. But look
at the python modules in /usr/lib/python2.4, these are the noarch
modules. Arch independent files should not be in arch-dependent
dirs. You can prefer /usr/lib/something on 386 and x64, rather
than /usr/share, like what is done for noarch python and perl
packages, but don't put them in an arch-dependent directory.
The case of your package is really different from the python
case. python is an interpreter written in C, with many modules
written in C, so arch dependent. Admitedly arch dependent part
of a module may be mixed up with arch independent part of the
same module, but noarch modules are in a distinct place.
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).
These are arch-dependent python modules. The gwyddion module is
noarch and isn't a python module, it is an internal module.
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.
Arch independent files should not be in an arch-dependent
directory. The FHS isn't very clear about where those files
should be, but it shouldn't be in lib64:
/usr/libqual performs the same role as /usr/lib for an alternate binary
format, except that the symbolic links /usr/libqual/sendmail and
/usr/libqual/X11 are not required. [26]
/usr/lib (for all the arches) and /usr/share seems to me to be
possible places. I have checked what is currently done
on my computer, and all the internal perl modules are in %_datadir,
except one, which is arch-dependent. There are also more
internal python
[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] 2006-09-08 04:46 EST --- (In reply to comment #20) The internal modules and the plugins are not something done by users but shipped by pakckagers, so you, as a packager must ensure that the dependencies are met. The dependencies are always met. Any 3rd party perl plug-in requires perl itself as any other perl script does. Any 3rd party python plug-in requires python itself, etc. The dependency chain is plug-in - gwyddion, perl not plug-in - gwyddion - perl Anyway, I did some less controversial changes meanwhile: Spec URI: http://gwyddion.net/download/test/gwyddion.spec SRPM URI: http://gwyddion.net/download/test/gwyddion-1.99.9-3.src.rpm * Fri Sep 08 2006 David Necas (Yeti) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1.99.9-3 - Moved auxiliary plug-in modues to libs subpackage to fix dependency of modules on devel - Added gwyddion.vim to devel as documentation -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-09-08 05:34 EST --- ** I've seen you have updated the src.rpm Next time, do update the release version as well. ** %defattr(-,root,root,-) %defattr(-,root,root) Duplicates ** chitlesh(rum-1.0.0-1)[0]$rpmlint /home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/SRPMS/rum-1.0.0-1.src.rpm W: rum summary-not-capitalized rum is a rug-like interface for yum Capitalized the R of rum E: rum description-line-too-long rum is a rug-like interface for yum (Yellow dog Updater, Modified). rug is the command-line frontend for rcd (Red Carpet Daemon). Divide it into 2 lines ** /usr/bin/install -c -m 644 'i18n.py' '/var/tmp/rum-1.0.0-1-root-chitlesh/usr/share/rum/i18n.py' /usr/bin/install -c -m 644 'rumcommand.py' '/var/tmp/rum-1.0.0-1-root-chitlesh/usr/share/rum/rumcommand.py' /usr/bin/install -c -m 644 'rummain.py' '/var/tmp/rum-1.0.0-1-root-chitlesh/usr/share/rum/rummain.py' preserves the files' timestamps make INSTALL=install -p install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT ** Like Brian said : 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 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] 2006-09-08 06:14 EST ---
(In reply to comment #22)
Indeed this should be the case, but the gwyddion internal
modules requires the interpreter, so they should pull it in.
The presence or absence of the interpreters has absolutely no effect of the
function of the main package. So how it comes it requires it?
It starts having an effect only after you add something else -- that however
requires the appropriate interpreter itself.
Not quite. The dependency chain is
plug-in - gwyddion 'internal' module usefull externally,
unfortunately not packaged as a normal perl module - perl
Do you mean mean a perl script requires perl indirectly via modules it uses?
Does it imply if a perl script uses no modules it does not require perl?
The direct plug-in - perl dependency obviously exists, so listing it elsewhere
down the chain is redundant.
Otherwise, you can simplify the spec file by having
...
Well, I prefer the explicit form. Also if installed directories contain files,
I prefer
%{pkglibdir}/somedir/*
%dir %{pkglibdir}/somedir
to
%{pkglibdir}/somedir/
as the former fails when nothing gets installed to somedir by accident while the
latter happily packages empty directory.
Another comment, it seems to me that gwyddion-doc shouldn't own
%{_datadir}/gtk-doc/
but it issems to be casually done by other packages, so it may be
kept as is.
This surfaced on FE list more than once, but I don't recall any good solution.
The directory is primarily owned by gtk-doc, but
Requires: gtk-doc
is wrong because the documentation is already compiled to HTML and does not
require gtk-doc.
Requires: %{_datadir}/gtk-doc
is wrong for the same reason (could be fixed by adding it to filesystem or a
similar base package). So AFAIK all packages that own subdirectories of this
directory currently own it too.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205031] Review Request: python-telepathy - Python libraries for Telepathy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-telepathy - Python libraries for Telepathy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205031 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 07:03 EST --- GOOD - 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. - source files match upstream: 39a07295c78699da6efc1e4638c53688 - BuildRequires are proper. - package builds in mock (x86_64). - rpmlint is silent. - final provides and requires are sane: python-telepathy-0.13.2-1.fc6.noarch.rpm python-telepathy = 0.13.2-1.fc6 = python(abi) = 2.4 - no shared libraries are present. - package is not relocatable. - owns the directories it creates. - doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. - no duplicates in %files. - file permissions are appropriate. - %clean is present. - no scriptlets present. - code, not content. - documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. - %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. - no headers. - no pkgconfig files. - no libtool .la droppings. - not a GUI app. - not a web app. 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 204417] Review Request: telepathy-gabble - A Jabber/XMPP connection manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: telepathy-gabble - A Jabber/XMPP connection manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204417 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 07:12 EST --- Ok, I am approving this package with the note: - doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. I was wrong there. It does own a dir that it shouldn't, and that will be dealt with as soon as the first other telepatthy connection manager will be packaged. Since there are none at the moment I will approve now -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 07:23 EST --- I cannot rebuild this in mock: checking for X11/extensions/scrnsaver.h... yes checking for GTK... yes checking for DBUS... no configure: error: DBUS_PKG_ERRORS error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.38783 (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.38783 (%build) config.log says: configure:34077: checking for DBUS configure:34085: $PKG_CONFIG --exists --print-errors dbus-1 dbus-glib-1 Package dbus-glib-1 was not found in the pkg-config search path. Perhaps you should add the directory containing `dbus-glib-1.pc' to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable No package 'dbus-glib-1' found configure:34088: $? = 1 configure:34103: $PKG_CONFIG --exists --print-errors dbus-1 dbus-glib-1 Package dbus-glib-1 was not found in the pkg-config search path. Perhaps you should add the directory containing `dbus-glib-1.pc' to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable No package 'dbus-glib-1' found configure:34106: $? = 1 No package 'dbus-glib-1' found configure:34134: result: no configure:34147: error: DBUS_PKG_ERRORS -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-09-08 07:45 EST --- Hi. Well, ORBit2 on FC5 is now 2.14.0-1. So this package still cannot be rebuilt on FC5 (with full updates). If this package really requires ORBit2 = 2.14.1, then you have to ask for FC ORBit2 maintainer to upgrade FC5 ORBit2 ??? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-09-08 07:53 EST --- Hi, Yes, it really requires =2.14.1. OK, I'll ask the maintainer but I'm really aiming more at inclusion in FC6 extras. BTW, you can get ORBit2-2.14.1 and libIDL-0.8.7 for FC5 here: http://www.omesc.com/content/downloads/dist/Fedora%20Core%205/SRPMS/ORBit2-2.14.1-omc.1.src.rpm http://www.omesc.com/content/downloads/dist/Fedora%20Core%205/SRPMS/libIDL-0.8.7-omc.1.src.rpm Best regards, 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] 2006-09-08 07:55 EST ---
Also you use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}
Just pick one of those and use it always for consistency
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205755] New: Review Request: elsa - manages group of processes and allows accounting
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=205755 Summary: Review Request: elsa - manages group of processes and allows accounting Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.bullopensource.org/elsa-srpm/elsa.spec SRPM URL: http://www.bullopensource.org/elsa-srpm/elsa-1.3.0-2.src.rpm Description: The goal of ELSA (Enhanced Linux System Accounting) is to be able to know how ressources are used by a group of processes. ELSA is based on BSD Process Accounting to get information about the use of ressources. We also need to be able to manage groups of processes as it's clear that a major accounting improvement is the per-job accounting. I don't know if job is the right noun. The property needed here is that if a process is in a container (group of processes), its children will be in the same container. In this project we propose a user space solution for managing groups of processes. Therefore, most of the enhanced accounting will be done in user space. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-09-08 08:20 EST --- Done. New packages here: 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-1.1.6-8.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 205343] Review Request: cohoba - Cohoba is a GNOME interface for Telepathy. It aims to be innovative and simple
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cohoba - Cohoba is a GNOME interface for Telepathy. It aims to be innovative and simple https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205343 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 08:24 EST --- Spec URL: http://fedora.hoentjen.eu/telepathy/cohoba.spec SRPM URL: http://fedora.hoentjen.eu/telepathy/cohoba-0.0.3-2.src.rpm added gnome-python2-applet to requires, gnome-python2 will get pulled in as a dep -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-09-08 08:36 EST --- For time-being, here is the update which is based on following text from README * Gutenprint permits installation of Gimp-Print 4.2 alongside Gutenprint 5.0, and in the future will permit concurrent installation of different stable versions of Gutenprint with different minor version numbers. Gutenprint uses the old-style kernel numbering system, whereby even numbered minor versions are stable (4.2, 5.0, 5.2) and odd numbered minor versions are development (4.3, 5.1). Therefore, you should consider allowing Gutenprint 5.0 and Gimp-Print 4.2 to be installed concurrently. For CUPS sub-package === Installing the CUPS driver for Gutenprint 5.0 will not interfere with your ability to continue using the Gimp-Print 4.2 CUPS driver. AND * All files and directories with versioned names (e. g. cups-genppdupdate, rastertogutenprint, the PPD files) may be installed concurrently with other versions of Gimp-Print and Gutenprint as described above. Other executables (such as the Canon and Epson back ends, and cups-calibrate) are not versioned, but are not linked against libgutenprint and do not have any other dependencies on Gutenprint. For plugin sub-package which is disabled in SPEC becuase of === However, the gimp plugin appears problematic: * The GIMP plugin, unlike the core library and the Foomatic and CUPS drivers, may not be installed concurrently with other versions. For example, you may not install both the Gimp-Print 4.2 and the Gutenprint 5.0 version of the Print plugin, as they use different configuration file formats. I have disabled all conflicting files to be installed. Updated package have same versioning Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/gutenprint/gutenprint.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/gutenprint/gutenprint-5.0.0-0.11.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 195223] Review Request: pavucontrol: Volume control for PulseAudio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pavucontrol: Volume control for PulseAudio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195223
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 08:47 EST ---
You would simply add something like:
desktop-file-install --vendor fedora --delete-original \
--dir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications \
--add-category X-Fedora \
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop
to the install section of your spec 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 195223] Review Request: pavucontrol: Volume control for PulseAudio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pavucontrol: Volume control for PulseAudio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195223 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 09:09 EST --- So that the .desktop file (name) doesn't vary from upstream, I'd suggest using: --vendor= instead. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195223] Review Request: pavucontrol: Volume control for PulseAudio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pavucontrol: Volume control for PulseAudio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195223
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 09:14 EST ---
spec looks clean,simple, just
* MUST: add to %install section
desktop-file-install \
--dir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications \
--add-category=X-Fedora --vendor= \
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop
do that, and pending my confirmation for building in mock and rpmlint sanity
checking, I'll APPROVE this.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205343] Review Request: cohoba - Cohoba is a GNOME interface for Telepathy. It aims to be innovative and simple
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cohoba - Cohoba is a GNOME interface for Telepathy. It aims to be innovative and simple https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205343 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 09:22 EST --- I'll do a review on this later today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202901] Review Request: pgFouine - PostgreSQL log analyzer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pgFouine - PostgreSQL log analyzer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202901 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 09:45 EST --- Based on the comments above, here are the new files: Spec URL: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/pgfouine/pgfouine.spec SRPM URL: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/pgfouine/pgfouine-0.7-4.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 205031] Review Request: python-telepathy - Python libraries for Telepathy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-telepathy - Python libraries for Telepathy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205031 [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 205343] Review Request: cohoba - Cohoba is a GNOME interface for Telepathy. It aims to be innovative and simple
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cohoba - Cohoba is a GNOME interface for Telepathy. It aims to be innovative and simple https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205343 Bug 205343 depends on bug 205031, which changed state. Bug 205031 Summary: Review Request: python-telepathy - Python libraries for Telepathy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205031 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 202901] Review Request: pgFouine - PostgreSQL log analyzer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pgFouine - PostgreSQL log analyzer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202901
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 09:58 EST ---
Here is the details of what we fixed and how we fixed it in the spec/src.rpm
Devrim just posted (0.7-4):
* Source does not match upstream tarball.
It was an error of mine when I sent the first tarball to Devrim. It's now fixed
- the src.rpm contains a vanilla 0.7 release.
* Macros are used everywhere except in the patch file.
We use a sed command in the %prep as you suggest it.
* INSTALL is not needed in the package as it doesn't give any information that
would be relevant to someone who installed via the rpm. ChangeLog could go
in but that depends on how useful you think it will be to users of the
package.
INSTALL removed, ChangeLog added - it can be useful to check if a problem has
been solved in the parser.
* Why are the tests installed into %{_datadir}/pgfouine? Are they necessary
for the package to run? If not, they should be installed to %doc (if they
are useful for the user to know how to run the programs) or left out.
They are useless for the user. We removed them.
Cosmetic:
* There's no need to check that the buildroot is not / before rm'ing it
because you are already setting the buildroot in the spec file. So:
[ %{buildroot} != / ] rm -rf %{buildroot}
can be reduced to:
rm -rf %{buildroot}
Fixed.
* I favor more verbose Changelog entries. Since the previous reviewing
occurred on IRC rather than bugzilla, it would be especially nice
(When in bugzilla, you can reference the bugzilla number; when on IRC,
things
can get lost.)
OK. We will take that into account.
Regards,
--
Guillaume
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 10:02 EST --- Thanks for the review. I removed the pkgconfig BR, because it's redundant on FC5 as well. Package 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 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
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 10:33 EST ---
New files:
http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/libreadline-java-0.8.0-11.src.rpm
http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/libreadline-java.spec
(In reply to comment #6)
Hmm, this builds but will not install on current rawhide:
Error: Missing Dependency: readline = 5.0 is needed by package
libreadline-java
Rawhide has readline 5.1; I changed readline_ver to match and it seems to be
OK.
Fixed.
Also, there are a few rpmlint warnings; I think it now checks for more than it
did when I first looked at this package.
W: libreadline-java macro-in-%changelog _jnidir
W: libreadline-java macro-in-%changelog _libdir
You need to double any percent symbols that appear in the changelog, lest
they be expanded in the final RPM.
Fixed.
E: libreadline-java no-cleaning-of-buildroot
You need rpm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install.
Fixed.
W: libreadline-java mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
It's complaining about a couple of tabs after Group: (use less -U to see
them). This isn't a blocker.
Fixed.
The debuginfo package is now missing the source again. I'm at a loss as to
why
this is continually a problem, but it's not really a blocker. Perhaps some
day
someone will actually understand what's going on here.
Hopefully. :-)
You need to include COPYING.LIB as %doc.
Fixed.
Shouldn't the jar file go in /usr/share/java? If not, nothing in your
dependency chain owns /usr/lib/java.
You are right, I'm not sure why it was in /usr/lib/java. Fixed.
* source files match upstream:
501720ddded45eaedf429b7cc356107c libreadline-java-0.8.0-src.tar.gz
X package meets naming and packaging guidelines (non-numeric release bits).
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
X dist tag is present.
Fixed.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
X license text upstream but not included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
? debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint has valid complaints
X final provides and requires are sane:
libreadline-java = 0.8.0-10jpp_3fc
=
X readline = 5.0
/sbin/ldconfig
java-gcj-compat = 1.0.31
/bin/sh
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* a shared library is present and ldconfig is called properly.
* 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 OK (ldconfig, gcj-db)
* code, not content.
* javadocs split out into separate jackage.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* unversioned .so in -devel subpackage.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [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 202006] Review Request: fmio - FM radio card manipulation utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fmio - FM radio card manipulation utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 11:12 EST --- Thanks for 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 205798] New: Review Request: xine-lib - The Xine library
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=205798 Summary: Review Request: xine-lib - The Xine library Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/xine-lib.spec SRPM URL: http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/xine-lib-1.1.2-12.src.rpm Description: This package contains the Xine library. Xine is a free multimedia player. It can play back various media. It also decodes multimedia files from local disk drives, and displays multimedia streamed over the Internet. It interprets many of the most common multimedia formats available - and some of the most uncommon formats, too. Non-default rpmbuild options: --without imagemagick: Disable ImageMagick support --withdirectfb: Enable DirectFB support -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 12:16 EST --- The latest spec-file http://ensc.de/fedora/distcc/distcc-2.18.3-1.8.fc5x.src.rpm can not be built under a FC5 system because of the fedora-usermgmt-devel requirement. According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageUserCreation there could be a workaround for systems which do not provide the usermgmt requirement (section 'Alternatives'). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 12:25 EST --- Everything looks good with the new perl-DateTime-Format-MySQL package that you pushed. * source files match upstream: 2357e2a18025f62d9068766298e7bbc6 Moose-0.12.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(Moose) = 0.12 perl(Moose::Meta::Attribute) = 0.06 perl(Moose::Meta::Class) = 0.07 perl(Moose::Meta::Instance) = 0.01 perl(Moose::Meta::Method::Overriden) = 0.01 perl(Moose::Meta::Role) = 0.04 perl(Moose::Meta::Role::Method) = 0.01 perl(Moose::Meta::TypeCoercion) = 0.01 perl(Moose::Meta::TypeConstraint) = 0.04 perl(Moose::Meta::TypeConstraint::Union) = 0.01 perl(Moose::Object) = 0.06 perl(Moose::Role) = 0.05 perl(Moose::Util::TypeConstraints) = 0.07 perl-Moose = 0.12-1.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(B) perl(Carp) perl(Class::MOP) perl(Moose) perl(Moose::Meta::Attribute) perl(Moose::Meta::Class) perl(Moose::Meta::Instance) perl(Moose::Meta::Role) perl(Moose::Meta::TypeCoercion) perl(Moose::Meta::TypeConstraint) perl(Moose::Object) perl(Moose::Util::TypeConstraints) perl(Scalar::Util) perl(Sub::Exporter) perl(Sub::Name) perl(UNIVERSAL::require) perl(base) perl(metaclass) perl(strict) perl(warnings) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful, 1 test skipped. Files=60, Tests=1543, 10 wallclock secs ( 8.03 cusr + 1.25 csys = 9.28 CPU) (one skipped test due to a prerequisite which cannot be packaged for extras) * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. 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 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 12:37 EST --- +Import to CVS +Add to owners.list +Bump release, build for devel +devel build succeeds +Request branching (FC-5) +Close bug Thanks for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192418] Review Request: xbae - Xbae widget set
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xbae - Xbae widget set
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192418
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 12:45 EST ---
Review for release 3:
* RPM name is OK
* Source xbae-4.60.4.tar.gz is the same as upstream
* This is the latest version
* Builds fine in mock
* rpmlint of xbae looks OK
* rpmlint of xbae-devel looks OK
* File list of xbae looks OK
* File list of xbae-devel looks OK
* License is OK (BSD), text in %doc, matches source
* Spec is readable and written in American English
* no missing BR
* no unnecessary BR
Notes:
Any reason for
Obsoletes: Xbae %{version}-%{release}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 13:12 EST --- Built fine in mock, rpmlint is mostly harmless: $rpmlint kdetv-0.8.9-3.fc6.i386.rpm E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_tomsmocomp.la E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_chromakill.la E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_v4l.la E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_xmlchannels.la W: kdetv dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/sv/kdetv/common ../common E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_mirror.la E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_overscan.la E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_colourinversion.la E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_xv.la E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_simon.la W: kdetv dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/nl/kdetv/common ../common E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_bilinear.la E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/libkvideoio.la E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_haze.la E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_libzvbidecoder.la E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_elegant.la E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/libkdetv.la E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_kwintvchannels.la W: kdetv dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/et/kdetv/common ../common E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_greedyh.la E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_v4l2.la E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_xawtvchannels.la E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_none.la E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_zappingchannels.la W: kdetv devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libkdetvvideo.so E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_linearblend.la W: kdetv dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/da/kdetv/common ../common E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/libkdetvvideo.la E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_oss.la E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_greedy2frame.la W: kdetv dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/fr/kdetv/common ../common W: kdetv devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libkdetv.so W: kdetv dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/pt/kdetv/common ../common W: kdetv dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/kdetv/common ../common W: kdetv dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/ru/kdetv/common ../common E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_sharpness.la E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_telex.la W: kdetv dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/it/kdetv/common ../common E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_greedy.la W: kdetv devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libkvideoio.so E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_channelsuite.la E: kdetv script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/kde3/kdetv_csvchannels.la You can omit: BuildRequires: libXext-devel since that's already pulled in by qt-devel. Else, 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 205798] Review Request: xine-lib - The Xine 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: xine-lib - The Xine library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205798 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|[EMAIL PROTECTED] | BugsThisDependsOn||182235 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 13:17 EST --- This probably needs an ack from legal before it makes much sense to spend time on a review - adding blocker on FE-Legal. (Removing explicit Cc to me, I already receive the traffic through the fedora-package-review list.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205798] Review Request: xine-lib - The Xine 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: xine-lib - The Xine library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205798 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 13:28 EST --- as with other media packages you will need to use a modified tarball with all of the patented codec support removed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205798] Review Request: xine-lib - The Xine 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: xine-lib - The Xine library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205798 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|182235 | OtherBugsDependingO||182235 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 205798] Review Request: xine-lib - The Xine 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: xine-lib - The Xine library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205798 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 13:39 EST --- That is already done, see comments in the specfile. I think a legal ack is needed nevertheless. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [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 174883] Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 13:52 EST --- It seems that 'fedora-usermgmt-devel' should be 'fedora-usermgmt' -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205798] Review Request: xine-lib - The Xine 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: xine-lib - The Xine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205798
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 13:54 EST ---
Source0:
http://download.sourceforge.net/xine/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
Patch4: xine-lib-1.1.2-new-ffmpeg.patch
doesn't look like it
I see the comment in %prep it should be up with the sources.
# The tarball is generated from the upstream tarball using
# the script in SOURCE1. It prunes potentially patented code
comment should be moved and id have a guess that the ffmpeg patch dropped
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-09-08 14:26 EST ---
One final thing and this is APPROVED. See the line starting in 'X'.
Also, why are you packaging version 3.1.12 when the most recent version is
5something. We normally require that the most recent version be packaged.
* package meets and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
X dist tag is not present. Add %{?dist} to Release tag.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* License text included in package.
* source files match upstream (although they are modified to remove binary jars.
upstream makes no source only release).
? latest version is not being packaged. Upstream is at version 5. Why aren't we
packaging version 5?
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane
mysql-connector-java-3.1.12-1jpp_4fc.i386.rpm
=
mm.mysql
mysql-connector-java-3.1.12.jar.so
mysql-connector-java = 1:3.1.12-1jpp_4fc
=
java-gcj-compat = 1.0.31
jta = 1.0
log4j
* shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required.
* 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.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present
* scriptlets OK
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app (no .desktop file required).
* not a web app.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 14:54 EST --- Prarit, FYI, the help for buildos shows an argument called --productversion however the code appears to actually use --version. -- 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 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 16:08 EST --- * source files match upstream: 70be4bfc7cf759e3451fb4f8faf251cb Validate-0.6.4.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 the bogus warning) * final provides and requires are sane: php-pear(Validate) = 0.6.4 php-pear-Validate = 0.6.4-1.fc6 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/pear php-pear(Date) php-pear(PEAR) * %check is not present; there are tests but it is not possible to execute them automatically. * 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 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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 16:11 EST --- I neglected to mention that the Summary: is a bit lacking. And for the %description, datas isn't a word. Neither keep this package from being approved, but you might want to flesh out the Summary a bit and s/datas/data/ in %description. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197420] Review Request: php-pear-Payment-Process - PEAR: Unified payment processor
Please 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-Payment-Process - PEAR: Unified payment processor Alias: pear-Payment-Process https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197420 [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 192418] Review Request: xbae - Xbae widget set
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xbae - Xbae widget set
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192418
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 16:26 EST ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Review for release 3:
Notes:
Any reason for
Obsoletes: Xbae %{version}-%{release}
It is to replace Xbae packages that have been provided up to
fedora core 2.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197814] Review Request: autogen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: autogen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197814 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 16:28 EST --- http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/autogen.spec Fixes #29 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-09-08 16:30 EST --- http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/mysql-connector-java-3.1.12-1jpp_5fc.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/mysql-connector-java.spec (In reply to comment #16) One final thing and this is APPROVED. See the line starting in 'X'. Fixed Also, why are you packaging version 3.1.12 when the most recent version is 5something. We normally require that the most recent version be packaged. As far as I understand 5something is the -devel version, and so I'm not sure that's the best thing to package. But I'll investigate it later and update if I think it makes sense. I think having this package in for the time being so that other packages can use it is good. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204975] Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204975 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 16:49 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) Thanks for sponsoring me, I'm reading through the docs now. %defattr(-, root, root,-) Done. 2. This package appears to be able to use 'boost python'. Might look into submitting boost and boost-python? I've looked into it and the --with-boostpython option is obsolete, there is now a separate vigrapython package: https://mailhost.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/pipermail/vigra/2006-March/000199.html I've also extended the BuildRequires, as vigra needs fftw = 3 and gcc-c++ isn't installed on a standard system: Spec URL: http://bugbear.blackfish.org.uk/~bruno/apt/SPECS/vigra.spec SRPM URL: http://bugbear.blackfish.org.uk/~bruno/apt/fedora/linux/5/x86_64/SRPMS.panorama/vigra-1.4.0-3.fc5.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 16:52 EST --- 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 200064] Review Request: libpano12 : Library and tools for manipulating panoramic images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpano12 : Library and tools for manipulating panoramic images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200064 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 16:52 EST --- Excellent! Please feel free to import this into Fedora Extras - remember to close this bug and set the RESOLVE BUG to NEXT_RELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189150] Review Request: mod_mono
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mod_mono https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189150 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 16:52 EST --- Fixed all the bits. The source is actually permitted as it stands (I queried this over another package a while back and it was fine) rpmlint is now clean mock is happy (i386) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195223] Review Request: pavucontrol: Volume control for PulseAudio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pavucontrol: Volume control for PulseAudio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195223 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 17:00 EST --- Spec URL: http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/pulseaudio/pavucontrol.spec SRPM URL: http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/pulseaudio/pavucontrol-0.9.4-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197565] Review Request: buildbot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: buildbot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197565
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 17:24 EST ---
You still have several unowned directories under %{python_sitelib}/buildbot.
Why can't you just have a %files section like:
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc ChangeLog NEWS README docs
%{_bindir}/buildbot
%{python_sitelib}/buildbot
%{_datadir}/%{name}
instead of all of those globs.
Also, could you comment on the test suite issue I brought up in comment 14?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205343] Review Request: cohoba - Cohoba is a GNOME interface for Telepathy. It aims to be innovative and simple
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: cohoba - Cohoba is a GNOME interface for Telepathy.
It aims to be innovative and simple
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205343
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 17:31 EST ---
MD5Sums:
9993159e90791fa8ebb57b4b0839e3bb cohoba-0.0.3.tar.gz
Good:
* Source URL is canonical
* Upstream source tarball verified
* Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines
* Buildroot has all required elements
* All paths begin with macros
* All necessary BuildRequires listed.
* All desired features are enabled
* Package builds in Mock.
* rpmlint produces no error.
Bad:
* There is an ownership problem with the '%{_libdir}/cohoba' directory.
* I believe you still need a requires on pygtk2, since I don't see anything that
will pull in this requirement.
* rpmlint produces the following error:
E: cohoba only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
* The biggest issue was that I could never create an account to get it working
on FC5. The problem seemed to be due to account dialog's network spinner button
not being populated. I was only allowed to add my account password, and not
the network.
Minor:
* Group Tag should probably be Applications/Communications
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 17:43 EST --- OK, the package builds fine in devel with no problems. rpmlint complains much less (just the two that are OK). The other issues I had are fixed as well. 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 197565] Review Request: buildbot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: buildbot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197565 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 17:44 EST --- Sorry. Missed that. The test stuff is for running tests on a source tree (if availible), like make test. Its part of buildbot's process. Its not a test for buildbot itself. Will wrap up a new srpm shortly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198089] Review Request: padevchooser: Control applet for PulseAudio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: padevchooser: Control applet for PulseAudio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198089 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 17:48 EST --- Spec URL: http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/pulseaudio/padevchooser.spec SRPM URL: http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/pulseaudio/padevchooser-0.9.3-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195222] Review Request: paman: Management tool for PulseAudio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: paman: Management tool for PulseAudio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195222 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 17:52 EST --- Spec URL: http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/pulseaudio/paman.spec SRPM URL: http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/pulseaudio/paman-0.9.3-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 18:02 EST --- Built in -devel, pending FC-5 branch. Closing. 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 193898] Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193898 Bug 193898 depends on bug 193897, which changed state. Bug 193897 Summary: Review Request: mysql-connector-java - Official JDBC driver for MySQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193897 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 197565] Review Request: buildbot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: buildbot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197565 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 18:18 EST --- Updated: Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/buildbot.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/buildbot-0.7.4-2.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 195222] Review Request: paman: Management tool for PulseAudio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: paman: Management tool for PulseAudio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195222 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 18:18 EST --- Looks like you missing a BR on desktop-file-utils. Also, is there any reason why your not setting the vendor to fedora? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195222] Review Request: paman: Management tool for PulseAudio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: paman: Management tool for PulseAudio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195222 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 18:24 EST --- Ah, right, the BR is missing. For the vendor bit, see the discussion in bug 195223. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195223] Review Request: pavucontrol: Volume control for PulseAudio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pavucontrol: Volume control for PulseAudio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195223 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 18:33 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) So that the .desktop file (name) doesn't vary from upstream, I'd suggest using: --vendor= instead. Rex, maybe I'm missing something here. Why does it matter if you are setting the vendor? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202521] Review Request: RutilT
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: RutilT https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202521 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 19:03 EST --- Spec URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/SPECS/RutilT.spec SRPM URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/testing/RutilT-0.12-3_FC5.src.rpm Description: Configuration tool for Ralink Wireless devices. This utility is now required by kmod-rt2500 rpmlint is silent (but debug package is empty - need to be disabled - how?) Not sure about how to link to wireless.h for Fedora Core 5... Need to define kversion (for FC4, FC6). Default is kversion 2.6.17-1.2174_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 195223] Review Request: pavucontrol: Volume control for PulseAudio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pavucontrol: Volume control for PulseAudio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195223 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 19:18 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) Why does it matter if you are setting the vendor? What *matters* is that .desktop files not get renamed, and adding --vendor does just that. I was aware that adding the vendor changes the desktop filename, but I guess my question is why does it matter if the desktop file gets renamed? Plenty of packages in extras do 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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 19:27 EST --- New files: http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/libreadline-java.spec http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/libreadline-java-0.8.0-12.src.rpm I was looking at getting bug #193898 into shape, and saw that I need to switch libreadline-java to use libedit instead of readline due to licensing issues with Jython. I uploaded a new spec and srpm. There are no new rpmlint warnings, and the debuginfo warning has disappeared. Please have a quick look and let me know, if this looks reasonable, and I will build 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 195223] Review Request: pavucontrol: Volume control for PulseAudio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pavucontrol: Volume control for PulseAudio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195223 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 20:23 EST --- why does it matter if the desktop file gets renamed? Lots of reasons, one of which is menu editing. Plenty of packages in extras do it. I know, but they (mostly) shouldn't have. But, since the files were renamed once, they probably ought to stay that way (else we'd comitt the sin of renaming them *again*). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193898] Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193898 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 20:51 EST --- New files: http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/jython-2.2-0.a0.2jpp_2fc.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/jython.spec (In reply to comment #2) Just some quick comments from looking at parts of the spec file.. - Summary is odd: Java source interpreter Fixed - Source lines should be URLs to sources The source appears to be a CVS snapshot, but I'll check to make sure whether it's not downloaded. - Remove Epoch Fixed. - Change Group to Development/Libraries Fixed. - Make BuildRoot standard Fixed. - Remove these lines... Distribution: JPackage Vendor: JPackage Project Fixed. Also fixed: - Add dist tag. - Fix compile line to use the system Python libraries instead of the python2.2 source. - Remove Source1 (python2.2 library). - Move buildroot removal from prep to install. - Use libedit (EditLine) instead of GNU readline. (In reply to comment #3) BTW, I don't think we should be linking libreadline-java with jython since I believe the licenses are incompatible. See this thread for discussion and a potential solution: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=707283 I've built the latest version of libreadline-java against libedit (EditLine) instead of GNU readline, libedit is LGPL, and is what the poster in the thread you mention proposes. So this should be fine. See bug #193896. There are still many issues to resolve with this package, I will try to resolve most of them tomorrow. But I have a few questions which hopefully someone can answer. 1. rpmlint gives me errors like this when running it on the main rpm: E: jython non-executable-script /usr/share/jython/Lib/Cookie.py 0644 It doesn't give it for all the .py files in that directory, even though they all have the same permissions. Should these be 755, or should these files be moved to /usr/lib instead? 2. What should be the group for jython-demo? I put it in Development/Documentation along with the manual and javadoc, but I'm not sure this is 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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 20:55 EST --- Yes, this still builds fine and looks pretty much the same as the previous version outside of a couple of name changes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200941] Review Request: SooperLooper, a realtime software looping sampler (Jack 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: SooperLooper, a realtime software looping sampler (Jack client) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200941 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 21:14 EST --- Created an attachment (id=135893) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=135893action=view) Updated spec file The attached spec file builds cleanly in mock on rawhide. A few other problems/questions 1. glibc reports a bug in liblo when you run it. I have a patch for liblo and will respin a new one for Fedora Extras shortly. 2. The gui comes up and starts the engine, however, very soon afterwards it reports a Lost Connection: Lost connection to SooperLooper engine. See the Preferences-Connections tab to start a new one. Has anybody seen this before? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197565] Review Request: buildbot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: buildbot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197565 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 21:14 EST --- OK, everything looks fine now. THe directories all look to be properly owned, rpmlint is silent and what I thought might be a test suite isn't. 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 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|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 21:19 EST --- Built in development. Closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193898] Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193898 Bug 193898 depends on bug 193896, which changed state. Bug 193896 Summary: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||RAWHIDE 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 200941] Review Request: SooperLooper, a realtime software looping sampler (Jack 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: SooperLooper, a realtime software looping sampler (Jack client) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200941 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 21:28 EST --- (In reply to comment #14) 2. The gui comes up and starts the engine, however, very soon afterwards it reports a Lost Connection: Lost connection to SooperLooper engine. See the Preferences-Connections tab to start a new one. Has anybody seen this before? This was a DNS problem on my system. Ignore. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200941] Review Request: SooperLooper, a realtime software looping sampler (Jack 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: SooperLooper, a realtime software looping sampler (Jack client) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200941 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 192600] Review Request: sflowtool - Command line utility for analyzing sFlow data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sflowtool - Command line utility for analyzing sFlow data https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||182235 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 21:51 EST --- I took a look but the license is beyond me. It's a bit long, but I'll include it here and block FE-Legal with the hope that doing so will actually induce someone who understands this kind of thing to take a look. LICENSE AGREEMENT PLEASE READ THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT (AGREEMENT) CAREFULLY BEFORE REPRODUCING OR IN ANY WAY UTILIZING THE sFlow(R) SOFTWARE (SOFTWARE) AND/OR ANY ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTATION (DOCUMENTATION) AND/OR THE RELATED SPECIFICATIONS (SPECIFICATIONS). YOUR REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THE SOFTWARE AND/OR THE DOCUMENTATION AND/OR THE SPECIFICATIONS CONSTITUTES YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT, YOU MAY NOT REPRODUCE OR IN ANY WAY UTILIZE THE SOFTWARE OR THE DOCUMENTATION OR THE SPECIFICATIONS. 1. Definitions. Documentation means the user manuals, training materials, and operating materials, if any, InMon provides to Licensee under this Agreement. InMon means InMon Corporation, its affiliates and subsidiaries. Intellectual Property Rights means any trade secrets, patents, including without limitation any patents covering the Software, copyrights, know-how, moral rights and similar rights of any type under the laws of any governmental authority, domestic or foreign, including all applications and registrations relating to any of the foregoing. Licensee Hardware means all computers, routers, or other equipment owned or controlled by or on behalf of Licensee. Products means any and all software applications, computers, routers, or other equipment manufactured by or on behalf of Licensee for the purpose of resale or lease to any other third party, or otherwise made available by Licensee free of charge. Software means the sFlow(R) software programs, in source or binary code format, that Licensee licenses from InMon under this Agreement and any bug fixes or error corrections which InMon may provide to Licensee. Specifications means the published specifications provided or otherwise made available by InMon at: http://www.sflow.org. Trademark means InMon's sFlow(R) trademark. 2. License Grant. 2.1 Software, Documentation and Specifications License Grant. InMon hereby grants to Licensee, under all of InMon's Intellectual Property Rights therein, a perpetual (subject to InMon's termination rights under Section 7 below), nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, transferable, sublicensable license, to: (i) use and reproduce the Software, the Documentation, and the Specifications; (ii) modify the Software; (iii) implement the Specifications in the Products; (iv) install the Software, or software in which the Specifications have been implemented, on Licensee Hardware and Products, and (v) distribute any Products that include the Software, the Documentation, or software in which the Specifications have been implemented. 2.2 Trademark License. InMon hereby grants to Licensee a perpetual (subject to InMon's termination rights under Section 7 below), nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, transferable, sublicensable license to use the Trademark on or in connection with the Software, the Documentation, the Specifications and any software that implements the Specifications. 2.3 Restrictions. Licensee agrees that it will not use the Software in a way inconsistent with the license granted in Section 2.1. Further, Licensee agrees that, in exercising its rights under the license granted to it in this Agreement, Licensee will: (i) strictly adhere to and fully comply with the Specifications; (ii) use the Trademark, and no other mark, to identify the Software, the Documentation, the Specifications and any Products that implement the Specifications; (iii) place, in a font or graphic design designated by InMon, the phrase sFlow(R) on any technical documentation, sales/marketing materials, catalogs, or other such materials relating to products it manufactures or markets which it has configured to be compatible with the Software or otherwise implement the Specifications; (iv) in connection with any Products shipped to or sold in other countries that include the Software or any software that implements the Specifications, comply with the patent and trademark laws and practice of such other country; and (v) not alter or impair
[Bug 200941] Review Request: SooperLooper, a realtime software looping sampler (Jack 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: SooperLooper, a realtime software looping sampler
(Jack client)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200941
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 22:03 EST ---
I think there are only a couple of minor issues. See the lines that start with
'X'. This assumes the tweaks in my uploaded spec file are accepted.
* package meets packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* License text included in package.
* source files match upstream. md5sum...
9b34c7cb8fc6daa4c7a9c17004680dac sooperlooper-1.0.8c.tar.gz
* latest version is being packaged.
X BuildRequires are almost proper.
- Look at the changes I made in the spec file I attached in Comment #14 to
handle FC releases 5.
* package builds in mock.
* rpmlint says:
W: sooperlooper mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
I just use the emacs untabify command to clean these things up.
* final provides and requires are sane:
sooperlooper-1.0.8-0.2.c.fc6.i386.rpm
sooperlooper = 1.0.8-0.2.c.fc6
=
libasound.so.2
libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)
libjack.so.0
liblo.so.0
libncurses.so.5
libsamplerate.so.0
libsamplerate.so.0(libsamplerate.so.0.0)
libsigc-1.2.so.5
libsndfile.so.1
libsndfile.so.1(libsndfile.so.1.0)
libstdc++.so.6
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)
libwx_baseu-2.6.so.0
libwx_baseu-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)
libwx_baseu_net-2.6.so.0
libwx_baseu_xml-2.6.so.0
libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.6.so.0
libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)
libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0
libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)
libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6.2)
libwx_gtk2u_html-2.6.so.0
libwx_gtk2u_html-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)
libwx_gtk2u_qa-2.6.so.0
libwx_gtk2u_xrc-2.6.so.0
libxml2.so.2
libz.so.1
* shared libraries not present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
X Should Require hicolor-icon-theme since it places an icon in a directory owned
by that package. This is something I just learned about myself, and plan on
cleaning up my old packages.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present
* scriptlets OK.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
X .desktop file is installed properly, but should refer to SooperLooper, not
Sooperlooper.
* not a web app.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200941] Review Request: SooperLooper, a realtime software looping sampler (Jack 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: SooperLooper, a realtime software looping sampler (Jack client) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200941 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||rd.edu) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200941] Review Request: SooperLooper, a realtime software looping sampler (Jack 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: SooperLooper, a realtime software looping sampler (Jack client) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200941 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |rd.edu) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193898] Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193898 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 22:40 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) - Change Group to Development/Libraries Fixed. I'm sorry. This was another mistake of mine. It should be System Environment/Libraries. 1. rpmlint gives me errors like this when running it on the main rpm: E: jython non-executable-script /usr/share/jython/Lib/Cookie.py 0644 It doesn't give it for all the .py files in that directory, even though they all have the same permissions. Should these be 755, or should these files be moved to /usr/lib instead? I think staying in /usr/share is fine. I don't know why it's complaining. 2. What should be the group for jython-demo? I put it in Development/Documentation along with the manual and javadoc, but I'm not sure this is right. Actually, FE has no Development/Documentation group. It should just be Documentation. I can't think of a better place for the demos. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203205] Review Request: eclipse-phpeclipse
Please 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-phpeclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203205 [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 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] 2006-09-08 23:48 EST --- In answer to comment #47: This package builds fine and installs ok alongside gimp-print. Unfortunately, I only have one printer here and it's being cranky. I am able to select the gutenprint drivers in system-config-printer and in the cups admin interface. Can some more of the folks watching this review try the package out and see if they run into any problems? It's looking ok here from prelim testing... In answer to comment #48: fc6 is frozen now, and has gimp-print in it. fc7 will likely have gutenprint, but thats going to be quite a while away for most people to use. If we can get this package in extras to work alongside the gimp-print that helps a lots of people, until it can be merged into core in fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204975] Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vigra - Generic Programming for Computer Vision https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204975 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 23:53 EST --- In reply to comment #7: ok on the defattr change. I just saw the --with-boostpython in the configure script, so I thought I would mention it. No problem if it's obsolete now. Requiring fftw = 3 is fine, but gcc-c++ is part of the base build env: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions so it doesn't need to be listed there. Otherwise the package looks good to go to me. Let me know if you run into any problems with the procedure to import and build. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189150] Review Request: mod_mono
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mod_mono https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189150 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 23:59 EST --- In reply to comment #12: Great. Can you upload the fixed version to look at? :) Is there any reason not to include the full URL in Source0? It does make it easier for someone to download the source without having to hunt around on the site for a download link... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203205] Review Request: eclipse-phpeclipse
Please 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-phpeclipse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203205
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-09 00:27 EST ---
Let's look at the rpmlint output:
E: eclipse-phpeclipse description-line-too-long The PHPeclipse plugin allows
developers to write PHP webpages and scripts in Eclipse.
I've never seen this before. Should be easy to fix.
W: eclipse-phpeclipse non-standard-group Text Editors/Integrated Development
Environments (IDE)
Please use Development/Tools.
W: eclipse-phpeclipse incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.8-6 1.1.8-7
This must be a typo.
W: eclipse-phpeclipse invalid-license Common Public License (CPL) 1.0
Please just use CPL.
W: eclipse-phpeclipse no-documentation
At a minimum, please add the license text as a %doc in the %files section.
W: eclipse-phpeclipse hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/eclipse/plugins/net.sourceforge.phpeclipse.launching_1.1.8/.classpath
W: eclipse-phpeclipse hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/eclipse/plugins/net.sourceforge.phpeclipse.phphelp_1.1.8/.classpath
W: eclipse-phpeclipse hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/eclipse/plugins/net.sourceforge.phpeclipse.debug.core_1.1.8/.project
W: eclipse-phpeclipse hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/eclipse/plugins/net.sourceforge.phpeclipse.debug.core_1.1.8/.template
W: eclipse-phpeclipse hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/eclipse/plugins/net.sourceforge.phpeclipse.debug.core_1.1.8/.classpath
W: eclipse-phpeclipse hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/eclipse/plugins/net.sourceforge.phpeclipse.debug.ui_1.1.8/.template
W: eclipse-phpeclipse hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/eclipse/plugins/net.sourceforge.phpeclipse.launching_1.1.8/.project
W: eclipse-phpeclipse hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/eclipse/plugins/net.sourceforge.phpeclipse.launching_1.1.8/.template
I've never seen these before. Can we delete them, or are they important?
W: eclipse-phpeclipse one-line-command-in-%post /usr/bin/rebuild-gcj-db
W: eclipse-phpeclipse one-line-command-in-%postun /usr/bin/rebuild-gcj-db
Use single lines like this instead:
%post -p %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db
The rest are from the SRPM
E: eclipse-phpeclipse description-line-too-long The PHPeclipse plugin allows
developers to write PHP webpages and scripts in Eclipse.
W: eclipse-phpeclipse non-standard-group Text Editors/Integrated Development
Environments (IDE)
W: eclipse-phpeclipse invalid-license Common Public License (CPL) 1.0
All as above.
W: eclipse-phpeclipse mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
I just use the emacs untabify command for this.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 [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 197420] Review Request: php-pear-Payment-Process - PEAR: Unified payment processor
Please 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-Payment-Process - PEAR: Unified payment processor Alias: pear-Payment-Process https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197420 Bug 197420 depends on bug 197417, which changed state. Bug 197417 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Validate - PEAR: Validation class https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197417 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 197565] Review Request: buildbot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: buildbot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197565 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-09 01:44 EST --- Thanks! imported and built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
