[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: codeblocks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 06:10 EST ---
Updated SRPM URL:
http://fedora.danny.cz/codeblocks-1.0-0.8.20060909svn2965.src.rpm
Updated spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/codeblocks.spec
- update to revision 2965
- use %%configure macro
- properly install the desktop file
- update the mime database after install and uninstall
- do not own only %%{_libdir}/codeblock/plugins, but also %%{_libdir}/codeblock
- added a script for retrieving and packing a revision from the SVN repo
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204605] Review Request: geda-gsymcheck - Symbol checker for electronics schematics editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda-gsymcheck - Symbol checker for electronics schematics editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204605 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 06:42 EST --- Closing as CLOSED 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 196101] Review Request: mimedefang
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: mimedefang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196101
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 06:55 EST ---
Jason, could you please add --with-milterlib=%{_libdir} to %configure for
testing whether it resolves the problem and building of mimedefang works?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196591] Review Request: bitlbee
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bitlbee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196591 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 06:57 EST --- Paul...ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205891] Review Request: rpl - Intelligent recursive search/replace 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: rpl - Intelligent recursive search/replace utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205891 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 07:19 EST --- Thanks for the feedback and comments, and for the review Dan. Imported into Extras and built for devel (FC-5 branch requested) Jason, your comments re:env made sense, so I removed the hack in favour of Requires: python. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205929] New: Review Request: libfreebob - FreeBoB firewire audio driver 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=205929 Summary: Review Request: libfreebob - FreeBoB firewire audio driver 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://people.redhat.com/green/FE/devel/libfreebob.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/devel/libfreebob-1.0-1.src.rpm Description: libfreebob implements a userland driver for BeBoB-based fireware audio devices. Once approved, jack-audio-connection-kit should BuildRequire this. I've also already submitted a patch for qjackctl. I've tested all this with a presonus firebox and it works. Note that this requires libavc1394 be upgraded to version 0.5.3. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205929] Review Request: libfreebob - FreeBoB firewire audio driver 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: libfreebob - FreeBoB firewire audio driver library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205929 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||202928 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205929] Review Request: libfreebob - FreeBoB firewire audio driver 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: libfreebob - FreeBoB firewire audio driver library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205929 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|202928 |205928 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195365] Review Request: etcnet - /etc/net network configuration 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: etcnet - /etc/net network configuration system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195365 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||205932 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203662] Review Request: dx - Open source version of IBM's Visualization Data Explorer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dx - Open source version of IBM's Visualization Data Explorer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203662 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 11:00 EST --- Have you updated the spec and srpms? If you have, please can you post the URL for them? If it's only the spec file which has altered, you only need to upload that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205073] Review Request: MudMagic Mud Client - Onlnie Text Game 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: MudMagic Mud Client - Onlnie Text Game Client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205073 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 11:23 EST --- The bug needs to be reassigned and someone else takes it on. If you send an email to the fedora-extras mailing list, point them at this bug number and say that most of the hard work has been done, I'm pretty sure someone will take it up. If someone does take it up, reassign the bug to them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 11:24 EST --- Anymore progress on this package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205300] Review Request: gtk-sharp - a set of mono bindings for gtk1.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtk-sharp - a set of mono bindings for gtk1.2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205300 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205300] Review Request: gtk-sharp - a set of mono bindings for gtk1.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtk-sharp - a set of mono bindings for gtk1.2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205300 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 11:45 EST --- #2, are you using FC5 or 6? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195365] Review Request: etcnet - /etc/net network configuration 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: etcnet - /etc/net network configuration system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195365 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 12:24 EST --- A Makefile was added. Meaningful rpmlint errors were fixed. Some other enhancements were done (see ChangeLog). I expect this snapshot to have little difference from soon 0.8.4 release. SPEC: http://etcnet.org/files/Fedora.spec SRPM URL: http://etcnet.org/files/etcnet-0.8.4-0.test7.src.rpm The package requires initscripts split. I have updated my initscripts patch to the 8.39-1 version and set up a repository of initscripts+net-scripts+etcnet here: http://etcnet.org/repo/fc6/ Thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205300] Review Request: gtk-sharp - a set of mono bindings for gtk1.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtk-sharp - a set of mono bindings for gtk1.2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205300 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 12:40 EST --- mock under fc6/devel. Happy to provide any further information... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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|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 196591] Review Request: bitlbee
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bitlbee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196591 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 13:13 EST --- Did you create a new package for me to try out with the fixes? Can you give me a url. Don't forget to increase the release number. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196591] Review Request: bitlbee
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bitlbee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196591 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 13:28 EST --- Paul, you didn't answer my questions regarding ntsysv, perl calls and proxy stuff from comment #19. Until these things aren't clarified, I'll build no new package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-09-10 13:50 EST ---
Here we go:
1. package meets naming guidelines, but not packaging guidelines.
What is %{_datadir}/autogen/libopts-27.4.2.tar.gz doing there?
You may also shorten the -devel filelist by specifying %{_mandir}/man3/* instead
of enumerating all manpages.
2. specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
3. dist tag is present.
4. build root is correct.
5. license field matches the actual license.
6. license is open source-compatible (GPL). License text included in package.
7. CANNOT check if source files match upstream:
$ spectool -g autogen.spec
--19:12:18-- http://autogen.sourceforge.net/data/autogen-5.8.5.tar.gz
= `./autogen-5.8.5.tar.gz'
Resolving autogen.sourceforge.net... 66.35.250.209
Connecting to autogen.sourceforge.net|66.35.250.209|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found
19:12:19 ERROR 404: Not Found.
NOTE: on the download page, there is also a bzip2'd tarball, why not use that
instead of .gz?
8. latest version is being packaged.
9. BuildRequires are proper.
10. I haven't checked if the package builds in mock yet.
11. rpmlint is silent.
12. final provides and requires are sane:
libguileopts.so.0()(64bit)
libopts.so.25()(64bit)
autogen = 5.8.5-5
=
/bin/sh
/sbin/install-info
/usr/sbin/alternatives
autoconf
ldconfig
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libcrypt.so.1()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libguile-ltdl.so.1()(64bit)
libguile.so.12()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libopts.so.25()(64bit)
libxml2.so.2()(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
autogen-devel = 5.8.5-5
=
/bin/sh
autogen = 5.8.5-5
pkgconfig
13. shared libraries are present and ldconfig is called appropriately
14. package is not relocatable.
15. owns the directories it creates.
16. doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
17. no duplicates in %files
18. file permissions are appropriate.
19. %clean is present.
20. %check is missing and there is a test suite!
21. code, not content.
22. documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
23. %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
24. headers are in -devel
25. pkgconfig files are in -devel and Requires: pkgconfig is present.
26. no libtool .la droppings.
27. not a GUI app.
28. not a web app.
Summary: NEEDSWORK
Points 1,7 and 20.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 182254] Review Request: SS5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: SS5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182254 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 14:03 EST --- Ok, close it as NEXTRELEASE. I'm trying to update the package as you told me. Last help: I wrote twice to logo mailer asking about exposing Fedora Logo on my website, but I didn't yet receive a response. Can you contact them for me please? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-09-10 14:28 EST --- The fedora-usermgmt-devel stuff is for/in the -devel branch. When package gets approved during the FC-5 lifetime, I will use the old style. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189662] Review Request: transconnect -- A function imposter to allow transparent connection over HTTPS proxies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: transconnect -- A function imposter to allow transparent connection over HTTPS proxies https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189662 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 14:33 EST --- arglll... I forgot this review completely :( The only issue remaining is the release. mmh... you said * I like it * it is used in all my other packages * it does not violate the guidelines If you insist. But I think that it really complicates things needlessly. which sounds like I do not like it but go ahead when you really want for me... And I really want... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-09-10 14:43 EST --- 10. package builds in mock/i386 (fc5 fc6). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 175433] Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175433 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 14:44 EST --- I guess I don't see the point in splitting what's certainly going to be required out to a subpackage. ok; package was written when it seemed that 'initng' could replace 'initscripts' in near future. But current development and codebaes shows that they are still in the experimenting phase (e.g. they try crazy things like garbage collector in init). But: I do not see a reason why 'distcc' needs lvm2, udev or e2fsprogs (which would be the case when SysV initscript would be in the main package). So I will keep core functionality and initscripts in separate packages. Things are special for this package because it supports startup with SysV, inetd and ssh. Is there any existing daemon that has its initscripts in a subpackage? ip-sentinel, dhcp-forwarder, milter-greylist -- 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 175433] Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175433 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 14:50 EST --- sorry, comments where made with the wrong package in mind... So, please remove the third paragraph -- 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 205955] New: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here
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=205955 Summary: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here 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.soeterbroek.com/linux/fedora/extras/gdal/gdal.spec SRPM URL: http://www.soeterbroek.com/linux/fedora/extras/gdal/gdal-1.3.2-1.src.rpm Description: GDAL is a translator library for raster geospatial data formats. As a library, it presents a single abstract data model to the calling application for all supported formats. The related OGR library (which lives within the GDAL source tree) provides a similar capability for simple features vector data. Some additional information: Picking up where a previous orphaned review request left of (see https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=168719 for history): * Sun Sep 10 2006 Joost Soeterbroek [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.3.2-1 - new upstream version 1.3.2 - excluded *.pyc and *.pyo files - removed patch2, fixed upstream in gdal 1.3.2 - removed ChangeLog, no longer present in from source - add $RPM_OPT_FLAGS to %configure - moved man1/pct2rgb.1.gz, man1/rgb2pct.1.gz to *-python -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205955] Review Request: gdal - A translator library for raster geospatial data formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gdal - A translator library for raster geospatial data formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205955 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: main |Review Request: gdal - A |package name here - short |translator library for |summary here |raster geospatial data ||formats -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205073] Review Request: MudMagic Mud Client - Onlnie Text Game 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: MudMagic Mud Client - Onlnie Text Game Client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205073 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WORKSFORME -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 168719] Review Request: gdal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gdal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=168719 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 15:16 EST --- New review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205955 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 15:23 EST --- Here we go: 1. package meets naming and packaging guidelines. 2. specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. 3. dist tag is present. 4. build root is sane, though not the recommended one 5. license field matches the actual license. 6. ??? license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. 7. source files match upstream: 7df921ab5705af28a75e62a3a8744cb6 libFoundation-1.1.3-r155.tar.gz 8. latest version is being packaged. 9. BuildRequires are proper. 10. package builds in mock ( ). 11. rpmlint warnings as expected. 12. final provides and requires are sane: libFoundation.so.1.1()(64bit) libFoundation = 1.1.3-8 = /sbin/ldconfig libFoundation.so.1.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libobjc.so.1()(64bit) libFoundation-devel = 1.1.3-8 = gcc-objc gnustep-make libFoundation = 1.1.3-8 13. shared libraries are present and ldconfig is called as appropriate 14. package is not relocatable. 15. owns the directories it creates. 16. doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. 17. duplicates in %files: warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/Foundation warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/Foundation/Foundation.h ... warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/Foundation/UnixSignalHandler.h warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/Foundation/exceptions warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/Foundation/exceptions/EncodingFormatExceptions.h ... warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/Foundation/exceptions/StringExceptions.h warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/extensions warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/extensions/DefaultScannerHandler.h ... warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/extensions/support.h warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/lfmemory.h warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/real_exception_file.h 18. file permissions are appropriate. 19. %clean is present. 20. %check is not present nor necessary 21. no scriptlets present. 22. code, not content. 23. documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. 24. %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. 25. headers in devel 26. no pkgconfig files. 27. no libtool .la droppings. 28. not a GUI app. 29. not a web app. Please fix 17. Is the license OSI-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 199168] Review Request: CGAL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: CGAL Alias: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 15:50 EST --- Hi Laurent, there have been no negative comments so I'll APPROVE this package. Please fix the two small needswork items (comment #22) before submitting the first build and please consider adding the CGALQt patch in comment #21. 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 189662] Review Request: transconnect -- A function imposter to allow transparent connection over HTTPS proxies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: transconnect -- A function imposter to allow transparent connection over HTTPS proxies https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189662 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 15:54 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) which sounds like I do not like it but go ahead when you really want for me... That's the right interpretation ;-) However for the release this is currently I do not like it and for me it is a blocker. But I haven't assigned the bug to me such that somebody else can accept what you propose... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181035] Review Request: luks-tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luks-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181035 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 15:59 EST --- Bad: - rpmlint luks-tools complaints: $ rpmlint luks-tools-0.0.10-2.i386.rpm W: luks-tools non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/gnome-luks-format.pyo 0644 W: luks-tools non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/gnome-luks-format.pyc 0644 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205300] Review Request: gtk-sharp - a set of mono bindings for gtk1.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtk-sharp - a set of mono bindings for gtk1.2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205300 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 16:06 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/gtk-sharp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/gtk-sharp-1.0.10-7.src.rpm Fixes galore! Now builds in mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-09-10 16:11 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/autogen.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/autogen-5.8.5-6.src.rpm Lots of fixes. Lots of them... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 16:15 EST --- 1. package meets naming guidelines and packaging guidelines 7. source matches upstream 23d32772a119dbff4f3ce51a6331e06d autogen-5.8.5.tar.bz2 20. %check is present: Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /home/dominik/build/tmp/rpm-tmp.81014 + umask 022 + cd /home/dominik/build/BUILD + cd autogen-5.8.5 + make check Making check in compat make[1]: Entering directory `/home/dominik/build/BUILD/autogen-5.8.5/compat' make[1]: Nothing to be done for `check'. make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/dominik/build/BUILD/autogen-5.8.5/compat' Making check in snprintfv make[1]: Entering directory `/home/dominik/build/BUILD/autogen-5.8.5/snprintfv' make[1]: Nothing to be done for `check'. make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/dominik/build/BUILD/autogen-5.8.5/snprintfv' Making check in autoopts make[1]: Entering directory `/home/dominik/build/BUILD/autogen-5.8.5/autoopts' Making check in test make[2]: Entering directory `/home/dominik/build/BUILD/autogen-5.8.5/autoopts/test' make check-TESTS make[3]: Entering directory `/home/dominik/build/BUILD/autogen-5.8.5/autoopts/test' PASS: nested.test PASS: argument.test PASS: cond.test PASS: config.test PASS: enums.test PASS: equiv.test PASS: errors.test PASS: getopt.test PASS: guile.test PASS: handler.test PASS: immediate.test PASS: keyword.test PASS: library.test PASS: main.test PASS: nls.test PASS: rc.test PASS: shell.test PASS: stdopts.test PASS: usage.test PASS: vers.test === All 20 tests passed === make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/dominik/build/BUILD/autogen-5.8.5/autoopts/test' make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/dominik/build/BUILD/autogen-5.8.5/autoopts/test' make[2]: Entering directory `/home/dominik/build/BUILD/autogen-5.8.5/autoopts' make[2]: Nothing to be done for `check-am'. make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/dominik/build/BUILD/autogen-5.8.5/autoopts' make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/dominik/build/BUILD/autogen-5.8.5/autoopts' Making check in agen5 make[1]: Entering directory `/home/dominik/build/BUILD/autogen-5.8.5/agen5' Making check in test make[2]: Entering directory `/home/dominik/build/BUILD/autogen-5.8.5/agen5/test' make check-TESTS make[3]: Entering directory `/home/dominik/build/BUILD/autogen-5.8.5/agen5/test' + sed -e '/^srcdir=/s@.*@.@' -e '/^top_srcdir=/s@.*@../..@' ../../autoopts/test/defs + cd . + chmod +x alist.test case.test daemon.test define.test defref.test directives.test dynref.test endmac.test error.test expr.test extract.test forfrom.test forin.test format.test for.test get.test gperf.test heredef.test html.test include.test in.test license.test line.test loop.test make.test match.test opts.test output.test pseudo.test reorder.test shell.test snarf.test stack.test stress.test string.test strtable.test suffix.test PASS: define.test PASS: directives.test PASS: error.test PASS: expr.test PASS: extract.test PASS: include.test PASS: opts.test PASS: output.test PASS: snarf.test PASS: suffix.test PASS: shell.test PASS: alist.test PASS: case.test PASS: defref.test PASS: dynref.test PASS: endmac.test PASS: for.test PASS: forfrom.test PASS: forin.test PASS: format.test PASS: get.test gperf functionality does not work without gperf PASS: gperf.test PASS: heredef.test PASS: html.test PASS: in.test PASS: license.test PASS: line.test PASS: loop.test PASS: make.test PASS: match.test PASS: pseudo.test PASS: reorder.test PASS: stack.test PASS: stress.test PASS: string.test PASS: strtable.test === All 36 tests passed === make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/dominik/build/BUILD/autogen-5.8.5/agen5/test' make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/dominik/build/BUILD/autogen-5.8.5/agen5/test' make[2]: Entering directory `/home/dominik/build/BUILD/autogen-5.8.5/agen5' + for t in '$@' + echo Re-building stamp-man Re-building stamp-man + case $t in + test -z /home/dominik/build/BUILD/autogen-5.8.5/agen5/autogen -o -z /home/dominik/build/BUILD/autogen-5.8.5/columns/columns + eopt='-L ../autoopts -Tagman1 -bautogen' + echo /home/dominik/build/BUILD/autogen-5.8.5/agen5/autogen -L ../autoopts -Tagman1 -bautogen ./opts.def /home/dominik/build/BUILD/autogen-5.8.5/agen5/autogen -L ../autoopts -Tagman1 -bautogen ./opts.def + /home/dominik/build/BUILD/autogen-5.8.5/agen5/autogen -L ../autoopts -Tagman1 -bautogen ./opts.def + '[' '!' -z '' ']' make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/dominik/build/BUILD/autogen-5.8.5/agen5' make[1]: Leaving directory
[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 [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 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] 2006-09-10 16:45 EST --- % rpm -ivh autogen-5.8.5-6.x86_64.rpm Preparing...### [100%] file /usr/lib64/libopts.so.25 from install of autogen-5.8.5-6 conflicts with file from package libopts-27.1-6.fc5 Looks like I haven't checked thoroughly enough... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181035] Review Request: luks-tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luks-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181035 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 17:16 EST --- Okay, I was not familiar with brp-python-bytecompile. Spec Name or Url: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/luks-tools.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/luks-tools-0.0.11-1.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 203789] Review Request: kshutdown - KShutDown is an advanced shut down utility for KDE.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kshutdown - KShutDown is an advanced shut down utility for KDE. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203789 [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 205300] Review Request: gtk-sharp - a set of mono bindings for gtk1.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtk-sharp - a set of mono bindings for gtk1.2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205300 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177512 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 17:34 EST --- Good. Looks much better now. Please trim down the description for the gapi subpackage though. It is a bit excessivly long. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177512] Review Request: mysql-connector-net
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mysql-connector-net https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177512 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|205300 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205300] Review Request: gtk-sharp - a set of mono bindings for gtk1.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtk-sharp - a set of mono bindings for gtk1.2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205300 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 17:39 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/gtk-sharp.spec Shortened the gapi subpackage 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 205138] Review Request: libjingle - GoogleTalk implementation of Jingle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libjingle - GoogleTalk implementation of Jingle https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205138 [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 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 18:31 EST --- (In reply to comment #30) Anymore progress on this package? Yes! It is now ready for further review at www.iammetal.co.uk/jokosher Regards Chris -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205962] New: Review Request: scribus-1.3.3.3-0.FC5.ppc - latest build of scribus for ppc
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=205962 Summary: Review Request: scribus-1.3.3.3-0.FC5.ppc - latest build of scribus for ppc 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.moodle-fcps1.org/guest_ftp/ SRPM URL: http://www.moodle-fcps1.org/guest_ftp/ Description: scribus-1.3.3.3-0.FC5.ppc | Using an existing .spec file, I built the latest version of scribus, linux desktop publishing, for the ppc because there wasn't a recent build in any repo. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205962] Review Request: scribus-1.3.3.3-0.FC5.ppc - latest build of scribus for ppc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: scribus-1.3.3.3-0.FC5.ppc - latest build of scribus for ppc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205962 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: scribus- |Review Request: scribus- |1.3.3.3-0.FC5.ppc - latest|1.3.3.3-0.FC5.ppc - latest |build of scribus for ppc |build of scribus for ppc Platform|All |powerpc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-11 01:00 EST --- Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde-3.1.3-3.src.rpm Bumped to 3.1.3, updated Requires:, properly tag %doc files. rpmlint is not kind to my noarch.rpm. IMO, all of them relating to /etc/horde can be ignored, including non-standard-[gu]id and non-standard file/dir permissions. The *.dist files are %config, but also IMO replacable as new config directives may trickle down from upstream and can then be compared against the REAL *.php config files. The rest seems like leftover cruft from the way the files were packaged upstream. It it our responsibility to run some obligatory chmod()s before the files get packaged? I set the final permissions for all relevant files during %install... Thanks for the comments Chris, cryptic as they may be. By 'updating with the Requires', I assume you meant 'rename php-pear-Mail_Mime to php-pear-Mail-Mime', which I've done. Sadly I'm not sure what you could mean by 'obviously does not handle locales properly'... this is my first encounter with locale-aware software, and I haven't found any documentation for %find_lang that I can use. Can you be more specific with what this package needs to do differently to avoid 'obviously not handle locales properly', or at least the name of a package that handles locales in a fashion similar to what horde needs? From my Comment #2 that was never answered: * the 'locale/*/horde.mo' files should be annotated with the corresponding %lang() tags; it would be probably the best to move them to the %regular /usr/share/locale and run '%find_lang horde' I've done the first part, labeled all the locales with the %lang() macro, but I'm not sure if %find_lang applied in this situation. All the horde locales are specified as ar_SY, bg_BG, en_US, etc... but most of the locales in /usr/share/locale is just the 2-letter ar, bg, en, etc. Is find_lang smart enough to overcome this, should I run some logic to figure it out myself, or should they be copied in as-is? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192912] Review Request: paps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: paps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192912 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-11 01:46 EST --- I have now ported paps to use the cairo-ps backend instead of libpaps. Unfortunately it triggered a ghostscript bug. See: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8180 Regarding the rest of the changes described in this discussion, please make sure that they are applied to the paps cvs, or filed as bugs/enhancements in the paps sourceforge page. -- 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
