[Bug 226892] Review Request: kpowersave - kde power control applet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kpowersave - kde power control applet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226892 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 05:27 EST --- Needs work: * Please remove /usr/lib/libkdeinit_kpowersave.la, it should be useless (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries). /usr/lib/kde3/kpowersave.la is probably needed however, please keep it. * As kpowersave ships icons in the hicolor directory, it should have Requires: hicolor-icon-theme https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-September/msg00282.html Everything else looks OK, good job. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225126] Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225126 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 05:31 EST --- * FC-5 branch exists already. You can update it yourself within CVS. ( http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/UsingCvsFaq ) * The tracebacks are due to CVS ACL and mail-notification changes from Jan 31st. Packages, which are still orphaned, apparently give such a traceback. * Editing owners/owners.list in CVS is no longer possible since Jan 31st: - owners.list and owners.epel.list are now locked down. To request changes, please send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (This may be replaced with the wiki or the ticketing system really fast.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226729] Review Request: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena Alias: duel3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226729 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 05:49 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) MUST FIX - Requires icon cache package to pull in icon dir Done - Include artwork license in %doc I assume you mean the music license as the rest of the artwork is under the same license as the source - done. New version here: Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/duel3.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/duel3-0.1-0.2.20060225.fc7.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 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 06:06 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) Well, for -2.1: * License: I doubt that this is licensed under GPL. All texts which include explicit license terms refer to the same sentences, however, I just don't know how this license is called... Please check: ./analyzer/anXhelper.c for example. (Note: license for files created by autotools should be ignored). under scripts/irsim.spec.in you will see GPL. However, I've asked upstream for more clarity on this. Here is what he answered: - The only copyright notices that appear are in the C code itself. For a typical example (they're all the same as far as I saw): /base/rsim.c has the following copyright notice: * * Copyright (C) 1988, 1990 Stanford University. * * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this * * software and its documentation for any purpose and without* * fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright * * notice appear in all copies. Stanford University * * makes no representations about the suitability of this* * software for any purpose. It is provided as is without * * express or implied warranty. Export of this software outside * * of the United States of America may require an export license.* * From my meager understanding of software copyright law, the fact that the Stanford copyright is less restrictive than GPL means that the GPL license may be applied to the package without any problem. I can add the standard GPL copyright notice to the distribution, if you would like. Regards, Tim -- So eventually, I asked him to add the GPL notice to the package. * Some documentation I wonder if the 3 documentation - /usr/lib/irsim/doc/irsim-analyzer.doc /usr/lib/irsim/doc/irsim.doc /usr/lib/irsim/doc/netchange.doc - are really needed because: * they are the same as man pages installed. * it seems that they are not used at runtime. You are right about it, I'll remove them. ? Would you give me some examples so that I can check if this program works well? ? I just wonder if the following compilation flag is proper: - DPACKAGE_BUGREPORT=\[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Should this be your mail address? I'll point it to http://bugzilla.redhat.com ? By the way, what are the files under other/ directory? Generally in this type of packages, they are contributed codes that - we don't know their license - they are not currently maintained - we don't know about their accuracy/precision on their methods -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227198] New: Review Request: jpgalleg - JPEG library for the Allegro game 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=227198 Summary: Review Request: jpgalleg - JPEG library for the Allegro game 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.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/jpgalleg.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/jpgalleg-2.5-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: jpgalleg is a jpeg library for use with the Allegro game library. It allows using jpeg's as Allegro bitmaps. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222960] Review Request: XenMan - Graphical management tool for Xen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: XenMan - Graphical management tool for Xen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222960
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 07:05 EST ---
Spec URL: http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/SPECS/xenman.spec
SRPM URL:
http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/RPMs/xenman-0.6-3.fc6.src.rpm
Added Logfile as mentioned in xenman.conf file in /etc/
(in reply to comment #8)
Just create it in %install and simply add
%{_sysconfdir}/log/%{name} to %files.
better place in, %{_localstatedir}/log/%{name}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225280] Merge Review: aspell-pl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: aspell-pl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225280 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 07:42 EST --- I'll attach a new spec file which fixes many things in this spec file, but its great feature is that it makes output file much smaller: 20M /repo/core/RPMS.core/aspell-pl-0.51-5.2.2.x86_64.rpm 2,3M/home/ecik/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/aspell-pl-6.0-1.20061121.x86_64.rpm This is done due to using of affix compression. I've also made some fixes to make this package fit for 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 225280] Merge Review: aspell-pl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: aspell-pl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225280 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 07:44 EST --- Created an attachment (id=147271) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147271action=view) New 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 226229] Merge Review: pango
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: pango https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226229 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 07:54 EST --- BLOCKER: MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. The license is actually more complicated than the LGPL that the spec file currently says. See bug 224135. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225126] Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225126 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 08:06 EST --- Seems to be working OK now on fc6 x86_64. 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 191036] Review Request: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container format https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191036 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 08:25 EST --- Hey, no problem, I've been busy, too. Review will follow soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: bitmap-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225617 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 08:41 EST --- Change fedora-review to negative and assign to owner for fixing 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 225618] Merge Review: bitstream-vera-fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: bitstream-vera-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225618 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 08:56 EST --- Is this package still necessary? I mean, doesn't dejavu-lgc-fonts deprecate 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 226517] Merge Review: urw-fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: urw-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226517
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 09:12 EST ---
Random notes:
* As upstream version is 1.0.7pre40, I believe EVR should be changed to
1:1.0.7-0.1.pre40
* Summary ends with a period. It shouldn't.
* Remove the comma after Free in the description field.
* Should not mention the copyright holder in the License field.
* Change BuildRoot to
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* Perhaps the individual fonts that are listed as Source1 to Source8 could be
made into a tarball, which also makes the SPEC file (%install section) more
readable.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225280] Merge Review: aspell-pl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: aspell-pl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225280 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 09:14 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) Created an attachment (id=147271) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147271action=view) [edit] New spec file Uhmm... you can't remove epoch tag now, because it will break update path from FC6 to F7. BTW It's not a blocker but it would be nicer to change order of tags to be compatible with default Fedora's spec template (/etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-minimal.spec from rpmdevtools 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 223588] Review Request: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223588 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 10:13 EST --- Not necessary - I am going to sponsor you. Please proceed with step 10 as described on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225247] Merge Review: anacron
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: anacron https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225247 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 224245] Merge Review: squirrelmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: squirrelmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224245 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: squirrelmail|Merge Review: squirrelmail --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 10:23 EST --- Changed Summary for the Big Merge -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225235] Merge Review: a2ps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: a2ps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225235 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 10:24 EST --- I will review this package. Please do address the 203536 bug about splitting out a -devel 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 226571] Merge Review: xorg-x11-apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xorg-x11-apps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226571 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 226533] Merge Review: vsftpd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: vsftpd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226533 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 225847] Merge Review: gnupg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: gnupg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225847
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 10:32 EST ---
Hi Nalin. Here's a review for gnupg.
MUST items verified
* Adheres to naming guidelines
* Specfile name matches package name
* Meets packaging guidelines (see below for comment on %{_libexecdir} usage
* License meets open-source requirements
* License included in %doc
* License field matches the upstream license
* Specfile is in American English
* Specfile is legible
* Source matches upstream (sha1: 9cbbef5c94f793867ff3ae4941816962311a0563)
* Builds, installs, and works (tested on FC6, i386)
* Owns directories that it creates
* Does not own files or directories of other packages
* File list has no duplicates
* File perms are sane
* Specfile includes %clean section
* Macros used consistently
* Package contains code or permissible content
SHOULD items verified
* Builds in mock against fedora-{5,6}-i386-core targets
* Package functions correctly (tested on FC6, i386)
NEEDSWORK items
* rpmlint produces several warnings and errors on the srpm
$ rpmlint gnupg-1.4.6-3.src.rpm
W: gnupg summary-ended-with-dot A GNU utility for secure communication and data
storage.
E: gnupg tag-not-utf8 %changelog
E: gnupg non-utf8-spec-file gnupg.spec
W: gnupg buildprereq-use autoconf, automake, bzip2-devel, expect, ncurses-devel
W: gnupg buildprereq-use openldap-devel, readline-devel, zlib-devel,
gettext-devel
W: gnupg buildprereq-use curl-devel
W: gnupg buildprereq-use libusb-devel
W: gnupg unversioned-explicit-provides gpg
W: gnupg unversioned-explicit-provides openpgp
W: gnupg prereq-use /sbin/install-info
W: gnupg make-check-outside-check-section make check
E: gnupg use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR
W: gnupg mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 73, tab: line 50)
All except the unversioned-explicit-provides on the virtual gpg and openpgp
packages should be corrected.
The binary rpm produces one warning:
$ rpmlint gnupg-1.4.6-4.fc6-results/gnupg-1.4.6-4.fc6.i386.rpm
W: gnupg file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man1/gpg.ru.1.gz
I don't know Russian so I couldn't verify if iconv would properly converted the
man page so I left it alone.
* Scriplets are sane
The scriptlets to install info pages could be simplified somewhat and made more
consistent with the examples in Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
Comments/Questions/Notes
There are a number of unneeded configure flags to enable zlib, bzip, readline,
and curl. These are all enabled by default in the current gnupg so they can be
removed.
Why is %{_libdir} used for %{_libexecdir}? Packaging/Guidelines allow the use
of this dir and it is what upstream does by default. %{_libdir}/gnupg is used
for extensions, though none are currently shipped with this package (or by any
others in Fedora AFAIK).
The CFLAGS are set explicitly to prevent the binaries from having text
relocations, as per BZ#145836 (in case anyone wonders about that).
Another very a minor point, the preferred value for the BuildRoot tag is
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
This is not a blocker.
I was unable to build this in mock for the development target due to expect
having a broken dep on libtcl8.4.so at the moment.
NEEDSWORK
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225713] Merge Review: dvgrab
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: dvgrab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225713 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 225847] Merge Review: gnupg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gnupg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225847 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 10:37 EST --- Created an attachment (id=147274) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147274action=view) patch correcting small issues mentioned above Here's a patch to correct the (relatively minor) issues mentioned above. Feel free to ditch my changelog entry if you use any parts of the patch. I'll take the blame for things I break but I don't care about getting credit. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225671] Merge Review: curl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: curl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225671 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 225736] Merge Review: evince
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: evince https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225736 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 225794] Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225794
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 10:42 EST ---
Random notes:
* URL field points to an empty page. Should perhaps be changed to
http://www.gnu.org/software/ghostscript/ghostscript.html
* New upstream version (6.0) is available from
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/ghostscript/
* BuildRoot should be changed to
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* The Requires: on ghostscript is probably unnecessary.
* May need to add some requirements for post and postun scripts.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226725] Review Request: netgen - LVS netlist comparison tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: netgen - LVS netlist comparison tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226725 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 10:45 EST --- Updated: Spec URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/netgen.spec SRPM http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/netgen-1.3.7-2.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 225777] Merge Review: gawk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: gawk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 10:54 EST ---
few notes
- %makeinstall should not be used
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0dbcfbdd2fcb7791dd002)
- make check should go into %check
- can parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} be used in %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 225671] Merge Review: curl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: curl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225671 [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 226181] Merge Review: nano
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: nano https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 225618] Merge Review: bitstream-vera-fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: bitstream-vera-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225618 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 10:56 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) Is this package still necessary? I mean, doesn't dejavu-lgc-fonts deprecate this? So it can live in Extras? :) Many people still use Bitstream Vera because DejaVu is poorly hinted. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226229] Merge Review: pango
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: pango https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226229 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 10:58 EST --- So, LGPL plus/minus exception? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225713] Merge Review: dvgrab
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: dvgrab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225713 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 10:58 EST --- Hi folks, this package looks good wrt builds and rpmlint as shown at: http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i386/dvgrab-2.1-2.fc7.src.rpm/result/ and the only minor nits I see in the spec file are: - not the preferred BuildRoot - the URL is no longer functional, please use: http://www.kinodv.org/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225286] Merge Review: aspell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225286 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 11:00 EST --- Which huge perl requirement? rpm -q --requires aspell | grep perl /usr/bin/perl -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225671] Merge Review: curl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: curl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225671 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 11:08 EST --- * RPM name is OK * Source curl-7.16.1.tar.bz2 is the same as upstream * This is the latest version * Builds fine in mock * File list of curl-devel looks OK * File list of curl looks OK Needs work: * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros (wiki: QAChecklist item 7) * The %makeinstall macro should not be used (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#MakeInstall) * rpmlint of curl-devel: rpmlint not clean: W: curl-devel summary-ended-with-dot Files needed for building applications with libcurl. * rpmlint of curl: rpmlint not clean: W: curl one-line-command-in-%post /sbin/ldconfig. Minor: * Duplicate BuildRequires: pkgconfig (by libidn-devel) Notes: * Requires: openssl is not needed (Wiki: Extras/FullExceptionList) * in %package devel: Requires should probably be BuildRequires * Please use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225784] Merge Review: gdbm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gdbm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225784 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 11:09 EST --- The package should be updated, because the version Fedora ships seems to be outdated - or asked the other way round: Is this package really required? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225784] Merge Review: gdbm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gdbm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225784 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 11:13 EST --- Ah well, if cyrus-sasl, python and perl must depend to gdbm and gdbm-devel further on, I would take care of it - when allowed and possible of course. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225847] Merge Review: gnupg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gnupg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225847 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226022] Merge Review: libgpod
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: libgpod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226022 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225774] Merge Review: ftp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: ftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225774 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 225777] Merge Review: gawk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 11:15 EST --- rpmlint on the srpm gives 4 warnings: W: gawk summary-ended-with-dot The GNU version of the awk text processing utility. W: gawk no-url-tag W: gawk make-check-outside-check-section make check (already mentioned in #1) W: gawk mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 86, tab: line 21) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226112] Merge Review: lv
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: lv https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226112 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225736] Merge Review: evince
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: evince https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225736 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 11:20 EST --- Good: * Tarball matches upstream * Source URL is canonical * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines * Group Tag is from the official list * Buildroot has all required elements * All paths begin with macros * Desktop entry is fine * All directories are owned by this or other packages * All necessary BuildRequires listed. * Post scriptlets conforms to packaging guidelines Minor: * You could use the disable-static flag with configure and not even bother with building the static libs. * Following rpmlint errors, which can be ignored: W: evince non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/evince-thumbnailer.schemas W: evince non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/evince.schemas +1 Approve -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226424] Merge Review: sound-juicer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: sound-juicer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226424 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 225770] Merge Review: freetype
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: freetype https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225770 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 11:21 EST --- IIRC freetype has some rpath issues. I don't know how easily they can be rid of. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225957] Merge Review: k3b
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: k3b https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225957 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 225774] Merge Review: ftp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: ftp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225774
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 11:27 EST ---
* RPM name is OK
* Source netkit-ftp-0.17.tar.bz2 is the same as upstream
* Builds fine in mock
* File list looks OK
rpmlint is not silent:
Source RPM:
W: ftp summary-ended-with-dot The standard UNIX FTP (File Transfer Protocol)
client.
W: ftp no-url-tag
W: ftp hardcoded-path-in-buildroot-tag /var/tmp/%{name}-root
Needs work:
* BuildRoot should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot)
* BuildRequires: gcc should not be included
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#Exceptions)
* BuildRequires: perl should not be included
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#Exceptions)
* The package should contain the text of the license
(wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines)
* Your debuginfo package is empty. This is because binaries are installed with
install -s
* You're missing the URL tag
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226533] Merge Review: vsftpd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: vsftpd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226533
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 11:33 EST ---
Good:
+ License GPL
+ Follows naming guidelines
+ URL to source
+ %clean section
+ use of %doc macro
Fix these and it's approved:
- Use %{_var}, %{_sysconfdir}, and %{_sbindir} macros for %files and %install
- Change Prereq to Requires. Also use Requires (post) and Requires (preun) style
for chkconfig and service requirements.
- use preferred BuildRoot of
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Also drop this stuff, unneeded:
- [ $RPM_BUILD_ROOT != / ] in %clean
- Requires: openssl, pam, libcap
- usermod requirement, not used (commented out).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225038] Review Request: medit - Another very nice Gtk+ text 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: medit - Another very nice Gtk+ text editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225038 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 11:33 EST --- new changes - Fix desktop-file - Add post and postun section about gtk-update-icon-cache and mimeinfo - Fix files section New Spec : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/medit/medit.spec New SRPM : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/medit/medit-0.8.1-2.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 226729] Review Request: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena Alias: duel3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226729 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 11:34 EST --- Hans, please in the future follow the new guidelines outlined here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/WarrenTogami/ReviewWithFlags And ASSIGN this bug back to me when the ball is back in my court. I happened to catch this e-mail by chance since it wasnt ASSIGNED to me. I know this is a total pain, please comment on fedora-packaging if you do not like the new process (I did). Anyway, all must items fixed. 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 225984] Merge Review: lftp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: lftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225984 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 225235] Merge Review: a2ps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: a2ps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225235
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 11:37 EST ---
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
See Below - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
0c8e0c31b08c14f7a7198ce967eb3281 a2ps-4.13b.tar.gz
0c8e0c31b08c14f7a7198ce967eb3281 a2ps-4.13b.tar.gz.1
fee1456d0e6e94af4fc5b5a1bb9687b7 i18n-fonts-0.1.tar.gz
fee1456d0e6e94af4fc5b5a1bb9687b7 i18n-fonts-0.1.tar.gz
See below - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
See below - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
See below - .a/.la files are removed.
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
See below - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane:
SHOULD Items:
OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described.
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
- check for outstanding bugs on package.
Issues:
1. You use RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}. Would be good to stick to one style?
2. Is there a bug filed for the
# Temp exclude on ppc64 as no emacs there right now
ExcludeArch: ppc64
3. Should fix the buildroot to the standard.
4. Should the .a .la files be shipped?
I suppose if there is a devel package, the .a might be usefull.
5. Our good friend rpmlint says:
E: a2ps-debuginfo tag-not-utf8 %changelog
Not sure where the non utf8 in the changelog is... do you see it?
E: a2ps-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/a2ps-4.13/lib/basename.c
E: a2ps-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/a2ps-4.13/lib/xmalloc.c
Permissions wrong on those source files?
W: a2ps summary-ended-with-dot Converts text and other types of files to
PostScript(TM).
Don't end summary with .
E: a2ps tag-not-utf8 %changelog
E: a2ps non-utf8-spec-file a2ps.spec
Ah, the entire spec seems to be non utf8...
W: a2ps prereq-use sed, coreutils
W: a2ps unversioned-explicit-obsoletes a2ps-i18n
W: a2ps unversioned-explicit-provides a2ps-i18n
Perhaps should have versions where that was obsoleted and provide the next
version?
Of course that may have been so long ago that we can just remove these now.
W: a2ps macro-in-%changelog files
Thats in one of the very first changelogs from 1998:
- narrower range of %files splats.
W: a2ps mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 169, tab: line 211)
Pick tabs or spaces for cleanness?
E: a2ps file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/a2ps/afm/fonts.map
This looks like it can be ignored.
W: a2ps devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/liba2ps.a
Should be removed or moved to devel.
W: a2ps file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/a2ps.info.gz
Need to run iconv on the info file before install?
W: a2ps devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/liba2ps.h
Should be removed or moved to devel.
W: a2ps dangerous-command-in-%post mv
Could the ./make_fonts_map.sh be modified to handle the moving the new maps
file in
place logic?
6. Instead of 'exit 0' at the end of the scriptlets, perhaps add '|| :'
to the scriplets? Although it's not clear if thats cleaner.
7. You are missing:
Requires(post): /sbin/install-info
Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info
8. I assume upstream is dead and you can't get any patches pushed up?
9. 3 outstanding bugs, might look at that, especially the hebrew support
and splitting -devel 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 227210] New: Review Request: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash
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=227210 Summary: Review Request: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash 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/notting/review/gnucash-docs.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/ Description: docs from gnucash I split these off from gnucash as suggested in bug 222388. rpmlint seems clean, unless I botched 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 225500] Review Request: cycle - Calendar program for women
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cycle - Calendar program for women https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 11:38 EST --- Resetting fedora-review flag to BLANK since this is not part of the Core-Extras Merge 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 222388] Review Request: gnucash - personal finance management
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnucash - personal finance management https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222388 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 11:39 EST --- gnucash-docs split off, bug 227210. New gnucash spec srpm uploaded to reflect 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 225236] Merge Review: acl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: acl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225236 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 11:46 EST --- I'll review 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 226112] Merge Review: lv
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: lv https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226112 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 11:47 EST --- Good. * License - I don't see why the license should be written as distributable, rather than GPL as license text says. Please change the license to GPL. * BuildPrereq - BuildRequires 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 225984] Merge Review: lftp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: lftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225984 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 11:47 EST --- Pending issues from ticket https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211483 * Requirements and build requirement: comment #7 * Rpath problems: comments #9 and # 10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226571] Merge Review: xorg-x11-apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: xorg-x11-apps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226571
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 11:51 EST ---
* The licensing of this package is odd afaics:
* xcursorgen-1.0.1/COPYING - I asked on #fedora-extras and jeremy replied:
reworded MIT. would be worth sending mail to the upstream and asking if it can
be switched to the standard wording
* All the other contain a COPYING file that contains
{{{
This is a stub file. This package has not yet had its complete licensing
information compiled. Please see the individual source files for details on
your rights to use and modify this software.
Please submit updated COPYING files to the Xorg bugzilla:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=xorg
All licensing questions regarding this software should be directed at the
Xorg mailing list:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
}}}
That really should be fixed upstream. Most the .c .h files seems to contain a
MIT license in the header. But those not:
{{{
./xpr-1.0.1/x2pmp.c
./xpr-1.0.1/pmp.h
./xpr-1.0.1/xpr.h
./luit-1.0.1/locale.c
./xeyes-1.0.1/transform.c
./xeyes-1.0.1/Eyes.h
./xeyes-1.0.1/EyesP.h
./xeyes-1.0.1/transform.h
./xload-1.0.1/get_rload.c
./xload-1.0.1/xload.h
}}}
* rpmlint
E: xorg-x11-apps obsolete-not-provided XFree86
E: xorg-x11-apps obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11
E: xorg-x11-apps obsolete-not-provided XFree86-tools
E: xorg-x11-apps obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11-tools
- These were probably needed during the switch to modular X -- are they still
needed? Maybe just drop them. Providing those probably does not make sense
anymore.
W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86
W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11
W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86-tools
W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11-tools
- That should be fixed, in case we sometime in the future want to provide
packages with those names again
W: xorg-x11-apps invalid-license MIT/X11
- please use MIT
W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides luit
W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides oclock
W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides x11perf
W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xbiff
W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xclipboard
W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xclock
W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xconsole
W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xcursorgen
W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xeyes
W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xkill
W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xload
W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xlogo
W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xmag
W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xmessage
W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xpr
W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xwd
W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xwud
- Those packages have versions upstream, we should provide them
* MISC:
* From files:
%dir %{_datadir}/X11
- a lot of packages own that dir. It should be owned by only one package (maybe
by the filesystem)
* From files:
%{_datadir}/X11/app-defaults/
- Owning %dir %{_datadir}/X11 but not it's subdir app-defaults/ is
interesting
* Hmm, a lot of apps, but no docs? At least x-Message has a README that maybe
should be shipped
* A lot of GUI apps, but no desktop files. Quoting the guidelines:
- MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of
Packaging Guidelines. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not
need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your
explanation.
* the pkgname macro -- why define a macro if it's used only in one place?
Please consider getting rid of.
* besides that:
package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
build root is correct.
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
license is open source-compatible.
BuildRequires are proper.
final provides and requires are sane:
no shared libraries are present.
package is not relocatable.
no duplicates in %files.
file permissions are appropriate.
%clean is present.
no scriptlets present.
code, not
[Bug 226572] Merge Review: xorg-x11-docs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xorg-x11-docs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226572 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 226295] Merge Review: php-pear
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225957] Merge Review: k3b
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: k3b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225957
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 12:01 EST ---
Hi there, The following are the review items that stand out. I realize
that almost all of the includes are prefixed with k3b but nonetheless
it would be nice to put all of them in a subdir such as: /usr/include/k3b/
Anyway, the list of items is:
- please use the preferred BuildRoot
- rpmlint complains about a number of things:
- devel content in non-devel package (many files)
- please consider creating a sub-dir such as /usr/include/k3b
to contain all the k3b headers
- dead patches are still being carried around and should
probably be deleted:
W: k3b patch-not-applied Patch1: k3b-0.11.3-kde32.patch
W: k3b patch-not-applied Patch2: k3b-0.11.6-desktopfile.patch
W: k3b patch-not-applied Patch5: k3b-0.11.14-version.patch
W: k3b patch-not-applied Patch7: k3b-0.11.17-dao.patch
W: k3b patch-not-applied Patch6: k3b-0.11.14-suid.patch
W: k3b patch-not-applied Patch9: k3b-0.11.23-proxy.patch
W: k3b patch-not-applied Patch8: k3b-0.12.2-statfs.patch
- please remove prereq-use /sbin/ldconfig
- I don't really understand this--can someone else please
help explain it:
/tmp/k3b-0.12.17-1.i386.rpm.30099/usr/share/applications/kde-k3b.desktop:
warning: file contains key DocPath, this key is currently reserved for use
within KDE, and should in the future KDE releases be prefixed by X-
- please consider adding %{?dist} to 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 225984] Merge Review: lftp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: lftp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225984
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 12:03 EST ---
* RPM name is OK
* Source lftp-3.5.1.tar.bz2 is the same as upstream
* Builds fine in mock
* File list looks OK
Needs work:
* BuildRoot should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot)
* Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake)
* Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros
(wiki: QAChecklist item 7)
* BuildRequires: gettext is missing (required to build the translations)
* The %makeinstall macro should not be used
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#MakeInstall)
* rpmlint is not silent, see below
Minor:
* Duplicate BuildRequires: autoconf (by automake), automake (by libtool)
* Please honor $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
rpmlint of lftp-3.5.1-2.fc6.i386.rpm:E: lftp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
/usr/lib/liblftp-tasks.so.
0.0.0 ['/usr/lib']
E: lftp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/lftp/3.5.1/proto-ftp.so
['/usr/lib/lftp/3.5.1', '/usr/lib']
E: lftp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/lftp/3.5.1/proto-fish.so
['/usr/lib/lftp/3.5.1', '/usr/lib']
E: lftp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/lftp/3.5.1/proto-http.so
['/usr/lib/lftp/3.5.1', '/usr/lib']
E: lftp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/lftp/3.5.1/liblftp-network.so
['/usr/lib']
E: lftp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/lftp/3.5.1/proto-sftp.so
['/usr/lib/lftp/3.5.1', '/usr/lib']
W: lftp conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/lftp.conf
W: lftp devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/liblftp-jobs.so
W: lftp devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/liblftp-tasks.so
E: lftp library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/liblftp-jobs.so.0.0.0
E: lftp library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/liblftp-jobs.so.0.0.0
E: lftp library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/liblftp-tasks.so.0.0.0
E: lftp library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/liblftp-tasks.so.0.0.0
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lftp]$ rpmlint lftp-3.5.1-2.fc6.src.rpm
W: lftp mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 11, tab: line 1)
W: lftp patch-not-applied Patch2: lftp-3.4.1-dont_core.patch
W: lftp patch-not-applied Patch181694: lftp-3.4.2-fix-redirect-coredump.patch
W: lftp patch-not-applied Patch173276: lftp-3.3.5-bz173276.patch
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225286] Merge Review: aspell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225286 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 12:03 EST --- perl package itself is 30MB, not counting its deps. But this does not matter; problem is, that 'aspell-import' (which is the only part which requires perl) is not needed for core functionality. See http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2006-August/msg00735.html 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 225857] Merge Review: grep
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: grep https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225857 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 225247] Merge Review: anacron
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: anacron https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225247 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 12:05 EST --- Created an attachment (id=147276) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147276action=view) spec file diff of doom. This has all the changes that need to be made to pass the merge review This has all the changes that need to be made to pass the merge 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 225247] Merge Review: anacron
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: anacron https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225247 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-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 225236] Merge Review: acl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: acl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225236
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 12:08 EST ---
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (LGPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
4edd450bbee60d6c4b3c51ae80499b00 acl_2.2.39-1.tar.gz
4edd450bbee60d6c4b3c51ae80499b00 acl_2.2.39-1.tar.gz.1
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
See below - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
OK - .so files in -devel subpackage.
See below - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
OK - .la files are removed.
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
See below - No rpmlint output.
- final provides and requires are sane:
(include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo
=; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done
manually indented after checking each line. I also remove the rpmlib junk
and anything provided by glibc.)
SHOULD Items:
- Should build in mock.
- Should build on all supported archs
- Should function as described.
- Should have sane scriptlets.
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
- Should have dist tag
- Should package latest version
- check for outstanding bugs on package.
Issues:
1. buildroot should be the standard.
2. Could add smp_mflags to build?
3. The devel package should probibly Requires the full %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
4. Our good friend rpmlint says:
rpmlint on ./libacl-2.2.39-1.1.i386.rpm
W: libacl summary-ended-with-dot Dynamic library for access control list
support.
Remove the .
W: libacl no-documentation
Ignore.
rpmlint on ./acl-2.2.39-1.1.src.rpm
W: acl summary-ended-with-dot Access control list utilities.
Remove .
W: acl prereq-use /sbin/ldconfig
Ignore.
W: acl macro-in-%changelog defattr
Should be %%defattr in the changelog
rpmlint on ./acl-2.2.39-1.1.i386.rpm
W: acl summary-ended-with-dot Access control list utilities.
Remove .
rpmlint on ./libacl-devel-2.2.39-1.1.i386.rpm
W: libacl-devel no-version-dependency-on libacl 2.2.39
Should be full verion...
W: libacl-devel summary-ended-with-dot Access control list static libraries and
headers.
W: libacl-devel symlink-should-be-relative /usr/lib/libacl.so /lib/libacl.so
I think that could be ignored.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225237] Merge Review: acpid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: acpid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225237 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 12:11 EST --- I'll review 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 225957] Merge Review: k3b
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: k3b https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225957 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 12:12 EST --- Bummer. I hit save changes a little too fast. :-) There are a few other things that should have been listed: + Please see builds, logs, and rpmlint output at: http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i386/k3b-0.12.17-1.src.rpm/result/ - the /usr/lib/kde3/*.la files should be deleted - some of the libs (e.g. /usr/lib/*.so) also belong in a separate -devel sub-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 225984] Merge Review: lftp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: lftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225984 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 12:14 EST --- Ruben, Why did you review lftp 3.5.1 from FC-6? Should you have reviewed lftp 3.5.9 available in rawhide (the patches have already been removed) ? jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: glib2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 12:16 EST ---
Passed
==
MUST: NVR is fine (assuming that renaming the package to glib breaks various
things)
MUST: spec filename matches package name
MUST: license is fine (LGPL)
MUST: license field is fine
MUST: license in upstream tarball and marked as %doc
MUST: spec in American English, as far as I can tell
MUST: source matches upstream (both md5sum and sha1sum)
MUST: compiled and built binaries on FC6
MUST: no ExcludeArch
MUST: locales handled finely by %find_lang
MUST: ldconfig called in %post and %postun
MUST: no relocation
MUST: no duplicate files
MUST: file permissions fine
MUST: %clean section exists and fine
MUST: macros fine
MUST: contains code
MUST: no large docs
MUST: %doc files should not be needed to run
MUST: header files and static libs are in -devel
MUST: -devel require pkgconfig
MUST: *.so files are in -devel
MUST: -devel has fully versioned dependency
MUST: *.la file are removed
MUST: not a GUI app
MUST: does not seem to own dirs owned by others
Suggestions and improvements
* rpmlint gives the following errors:
for glib2:
E: glib2 obsolete-not-provided glib-gtkbeta
E: glib2 executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/glib2.sh 0755
E: glib2 executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/glib2.csh 0755
for glib2-devel:
E: glib2-devel obsolete-not-provided glib-gtkbeta-devel
E: glib2-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
I believe all should be fixed.
* The CVS contains several dropped patches that may need to be removed
(depending on how a merge would happen)
* The line BuildRequires: pkgconfig = 0.8 doesn't make sense, specially since
rawhide has had a newer version since Feb 2002 and also that since it has had
that, it also had an epoch of 1. From the requirement from the configure.in
file, it should perhaps be pkgconfig = 1:0.14. Also update the Requires in
-devel to 1:0.14.
* The viewpoint of the summary for the devel sub-package does not match the
viewpoint of the summary of the main package. They should be aligned.
* The Conflicts lines are probably wrong or unnecessary. Even if it's required,
the reason should be documented and the line probably be changed to Requires.
See http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts for details
* Static libraries are enabled, contrary to the Packaging Guidelines. I guess
the reason should be documented (anaconda?).
* The make line in %build does not have %{?_smp_mflags}.
* %check is empty for ppc and ppc64. The reason should perhaps be documented.
* %defattr line should perhaps have an extra dash at the end:
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
* Package places files in /etc/profile.d (which is not in FHS), without owning
the directory itself or having a Requires on a package that does.
* May need to mark %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/* as %doc
Review TODO
===
* Thorough consideration of packaging guidelines (a MUST item)
* Theoretically, all dependenies may not be listed (a MUST item), as I did not
do a Rawhide mock 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 225777] Merge Review: gawk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 12:19 EST --- Is there a reason for including the docs in postscript? I think not, but when it is, then -docs subpackage is required. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225857] Merge Review: grep
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: grep
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225857
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 12:19 EST ---
* RPM name is OK
* Source grep-2.5.1a.tar.bz2 is the same as upstream
* This is the latest version
* Builds fine in mock
Needs work:
* BuildRoot should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot)
* BuildRequires: gzip should not be included
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#Exceptions)
* Encoding should be UTF-8
* Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake)
* The %makeinstall macro should not be used
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#MakeInstall)
* The package should contain the text of the license
(wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines)
* Don't use PreReq for install-info, use Requires(post) and Requires(postun)
* Please don't strip symbols from files (LDFLAGS= -s)
Rpmlint is not silent:
Source RPM:
W: grep summary-ended-with-dot The GNU versions of grep pattern matching
utilities.
E: grep tag-not-utf8 %changelog
E: grep non-utf8-spec-file grep.spec
W: grep prereq-use /sbin/install-info
W: grep make-check-outside-check-section make check
W: grep macro-in-%changelog post
rpmlint of grep:
W: grep summary-ended-with-dot The GNU versions of grep pattern matching
utilities.
E: grep tag-not-utf8 %changelog
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226424] Merge Review: sound-juicer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: sound-juicer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226424
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 12:19 EST ---
Good:
* Tarball matches upstream.
* Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines
* Group Tag is from the official list
* All paths begin with macros
* All necessary BuildRequires listed.
* Package builds in Mock.
Must Fix:
* Source URL is not canonical.
* Missing Package URL. http://www.burtonini.com/blog/computers/sound-juicer
* Sound Juicer shouldn't own the following directories (hicolor-icon-theme
should be the sole owner):
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps
Minor:
* Doesn't use the preferred buildroot:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* Duplicate BuildRequires: GConf2-devel (by gnome-media-devel), gtk2-devel (by
gnome-media-devel), gnome-vfs2-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), glib2-devel (by
libgnomeui-devel), hal-devel (by gnome-vfs2-devel)
* Unnecessary Requires on gstreamer, gtk, libmusicbrainz, and glib2. The BR on
the devel packages should pull these in automatically.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226181] Merge Review: nano
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: nano
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226181
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 12:22 EST ---
Nice, a CC got added and I lost the entire review. Let's try this again in an
external editor.
First, a couple of rpmlint complaints:
W: nano file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/fr/man1/rnano.1.gz
Just needs judicious application of iconf like the other two manpages.
W: nano prereq-use /sbin/install-info
The Prereq: line should be replaced with:
Requires(post): /sbin/install-info
Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info
Other than those two items, the issues are the BuildRoot:, the scriptlets and
perhaps checking to see if it would be reasonable to update to 2.0.3.
Review:
* source files match upstream:
f5537b8a988618fa8524b6a4b0a6950184d37db983b4521ad843b98845da571c
nano-1.3.12.tar.gz
O package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
Release: should probably be an integer, but since the dist tag isn't being
used, this looks like a sub-release bump and I don't believe it violates
any guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
O dist tag is not present.
X build root is not correct; should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Whether this is absolutely mandatory depends on a decision by FESCo, which
should happen over the weekend.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
O latest version is not being packaged.
The current upstream version seems to be 2.0.3.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
nano = 1.3.12-1.1
=
/bin/sh
/sbin/install-info
libncursesw.so.5
* %check is not present, no test suite upstream.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
X scriptlets not OK:
The install-info calls need ||: at the end or a nodocs install will fail.
* 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.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226181] Merge Review: nano
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: nano https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-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 225751] Merge Review: file-roller
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 226182] Merge Review: nasm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: nasm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226182 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 225706] Merge Review: dos2unix
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: dos2unix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225706 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 225804] Merge Review: glib2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 12:34 EST --- * Theoretically, all dependenies may not be listed (a MUST item), as I did not do a Rawhide mock build. Considering that this package has been built many times in brew, you can assume that the BRs are sufficient. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225706] Merge Review: dos2unix
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: dos2unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225706
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 12:35 EST ---
* RPM name is OK
* Builds fine in mock
* File list looks OK
Needs work:
* BuildRoot should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot)
* Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake)
* No downloadable source. Please give the full URL in the Source tag.
* Please use %{dist} in Release tag
* Preserve file timestamps in %install
Rpmlint is not silent:
Source RPM:
W: dos2unix invalid-license Freely distributable
W: dos2unix no-url-tag
W: dos2unix macro-in-%changelog description
rpmlint of dos2unix:
W: dos2unix invalid-license Freely distributable (you can use GPL)
W: dos2unix no-url-tag
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225633] Merge Review: bzip2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: bzip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 225804] Merge Review: glib2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 12:47 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) ... * Static libraries are enabled, contrary to the Packaging Guidelines. I guess the reason should be documented (anaconda?). ... One package that needs the glib2 static library is syslog-ng v2 (a sysklogd replacement). jpo PS - See #219771 for more information regarding syslog-ng 2.0.x. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225237] Merge Review: acpid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: acpid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225237
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 12:49 EST ---
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
See below - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
3aff94e92186e99ed5fd6dcee2db7c74 acpid-1.0.4.tar.gz
3aff94e92186e99ed5fd6dcee2db7c74 acpid-1.0.4.tar.gz.1
OK - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
See below - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
See below - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane:
SHOULD Items:
OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described.
OK - Should have sane scriptlets.
See below - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
10 bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package.
Issues:
1. Buildroot should be changed to standard. Should add smp_mflags?
2. Might include COPYING, README, Changelog, TODO as doc files?
3. rpmlint our pal says:
rpmlint on ./acpid-1.0.4-5.i386.rpm
W: acpid conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/acpi/events/power.conf
W: acpid conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/acpi/events/video.conf
W: acpid conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/logrotate.d/acpid
Should all be noreplace?
E: acpid non-readable /usr/sbin/acpid 0750
E: acpid non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/acpid 0750
Should this really be non readable by anyone? Why?
If so, perhaps a rpmlint bug should be filed?
W: acpid service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/acpid
Should this really be enabled on all machines?
Are there cases where it might not be desired by default?
rpmlint on ./acpid-1.0.4-5.src.rpm
W: acpid strange-permission acpid.init 0755
W: acpid prereq-use /sbin/chkconfig, /sbin/service
Should perhaps be:
Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig
Requires(preun): /sbin/chkconfig
Requires(preun): /sbin/service
See:
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#head-a6d7a1ed9d77dbb8d4af067378a79b838aebb20a
W: acpid setup-not-quiet
Should add -q to setup.
4. In the files section:
%verify(not md5 size mtime) %ghost %config(missingok,noreplace) /var/log/acpid
Why all this?
/usr/bin/acpi_listen
/usr/sbin/acpid
Should those have %{_bindir} and %{_sbindir} ?
/usr/share/man/man8/acpid.8.gz
/usr/share/man/man8/acpi_listen.8.gz
Should have %{_mandir} ?
5. You might look at the outstanding bugs on this package.
In particular the bugs asking for better scripts might stand to have a
response like please submit your outstanding scripts for inclusion
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 12:52 EST --- * rpmlint gives the following errors: E: glib2 executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/glib2.sh 0755 E: glib2 executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/glib2.csh 0755 Every single file in /etc/profile.d is currently executable. If that is supposed to be changed, we should probably have a guideline addition about it. E: glib2-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib That is clearly a misleading rpmlint error. This is caused by glib living in /lib now, but the development stuff still being in /usr/lib. I hope nobody advocates moving /usr/lib/glib-2.0/include to /lib -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225633] Merge Review: bzip2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: bzip2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 12:53 EST ---
* RPM name is OK
* Source bzip2-1.0.4.tar.gz is the same as upstream
* This is the latest version
* Builds fine in mock
Needs work:
* BuildRoot should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot)
* Is it necessary to include static libraries? See wiki:
Packaging/Guidelines#Exclusion of Static Libraries
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225656] Merge Review: cpio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: cpio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225656 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 225751] Merge Review: file-roller
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 13:07 EST --- Good: * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines * Group Tag is from the official list * Buildroot has all required elements * All paths begin with macros * All necessary BuildRequires listed. * Package builds in Mock. Must Fix: * Source URL in not canonical * Remove unnecessary Requires: Requires(post): desktop-file-utils Requires(postun): desktop-file-utils Refer to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=showredirect=ScriptletSnippets#head-de6770dd9867fcd085a73a4700f6bcd0d10294ef Minor: * Duplicate BuildRequires: glib2-devel (by pango-devel), pango-devel (by gtk2-devel), gtk2-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), libgnomeprint22-devel (by libgnomeprintui22-devel), autoconf (by libtool) * Could use -disable-static and not bother building static libs. * It looks like the Requires on GConf is unnecessary. * Is the conflicts on nautilus still necessary? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225656] Merge Review: cpio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: cpio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225656
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 13:09 EST ---
* RPM name is OK
* Source cpio-2.6.tar.gz is the same as upstream
* This is the latest version
* Builds fine in mock
* File list looks OK
Needs work:
* BuildRoot should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot)
* Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake)
* BuildRequires: gettext is missing (required to build the translations)
* The %makeinstall macro should not be used
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#MakeInstall)
* The package should contain the text of the license
(wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines)
* Please preserve timestamps when installing files
rpmlint is not silent:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] cpio]$ rpmlint cpio-2.6-23.fc6.src.rpm
W: cpio prereq-use /sbin/rmt
W: cpio prereq-use /sbin/install-info
Use Requires(post) and Requires(preun) instead
W: cpio mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 99, tab: line 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 225239] Merge Review: adjtimex
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: adjtimex https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225239 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 13:14 EST --- I will review this package. Look for a full review in a bit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227221] New: Review Request: arts - aRts (analog realtime synthesizer) - the KDE sound system
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=227221 Summary: Review Request: arts - aRts (analog realtime synthesizer) - the KDE sound system 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://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/arts.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SRPMS/all/arts-1.5.6-3.src.rpm Description: arts (analog real-time synthesizer) is the sound system of KDE 3. The principle of arts is to create/process sound using small modules which do certain tasks. These may be create a waveform (oscillators), play samples, filter data, add signals, perform effects like delay/flanger/chorus, or output the data to the soundcard. By connecting all those small modules together, you can perform complex tasks like simulating a mixer, generating an instrument or things like playing a wave file with some effects. %changelog * Fri Jan 26 2007 Rex Dieter rdieter[AT]fedoraproject.org 8:1.5.6-3 - BR: jack-audio-connection-kit-devel - include libartscbackend.la in main pkg (some legacy arts apps need it) * Wed Jan 24 2007 Rex Dieter rdieter[AT]fedoraproject.org 8:1.5.6-2 - nuke boost references in .la files * Tue Jan 16 2007 Rex Dieter rdieter[AT]fedoraproject.org 8:1.5.6-1 - kde-3.5.6 -- 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 226547] Merge Review: x86info
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: x86info https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226547 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 225983] Merge Review: less
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: less https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225983 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 227221] Review Request: arts - aRts (analog realtime synthesizer) - the KDE sound 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: arts - aRts (analog realtime synthesizer) - the KDE sound system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226573] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drivers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xorg-x11-drivers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226573 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 225804] Merge Review: glib2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 13:21 EST --- One package that needs the glib2 static library is syslog-ng v2 (a sysklogd replacement). I'd consider that a bug of syslog-ng. I did remove the static libraries from glib2 during the FC6 devel cycle, and then various people came out of the woods and admitted that they had linked to glib2 statically (some initscripts things, and at least one pam module). That was the reason we moved glib2 to /lib, so that we can stop shipping 5 statically linked copies of glib in /bin. But then Jeremy said that static glib libraries are also needed for anaconda. Since it is much harder to avoid static linking there, the static libaries were added back. I would be willing to move the static libraries to a -static subpackage if that helps. One bug relevant to this is bug 191678. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225720] Merge Review: eject
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: eject https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225720 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 227221] Review Request: arts - aRts (analog realtime synthesizer) - the KDE sound 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: arts - aRts (analog realtime synthesizer) - the KDE sound system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 13:22 EST --- SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/arts-1.5.6-3.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
