[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 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 03:40 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) - the /usr/lib/kde3/*.la files should be deleted Please ensure, that K3B really doesn't need it, else you will have a vague of bug report from users. Since KDE3 itself is heavily dependent on .la files. http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=139445 If you are removing those .la files, ensure proper testing has been carried 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
fedora-review requested: [Bug 226529] Merge Review: vixie-cron
Bug 226529: Merge Review: vixie-cron Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226529 ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226529] Merge Review: vixie-cron
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: vixie-cron https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226529 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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
fedora-review requested: [Bug 226505] Merge Review: ttcp
Bug 226505: Merge Review: ttcp Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226505 ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226505] Merge Review: ttcp
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: ttcp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226505 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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
fedora-review requested: [Bug 226480] Merge Review: tclx
Bug 226480: Merge Review: tclx Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226480 ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226480] Merge Review: tclx
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: tclx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226480 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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
fedora-review requested: [Bug 226164] Merge Review: mtr
Bug 226164: Merge Review: mtr Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226164 ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226164] Merge Review: mtr
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: mtr https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226164 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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
fedora-review requested: [Bug 226123] Merge Review: man-pages-de
Bug 226123: Merge Review: man-pages-de Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226123 ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226123] Merge Review: man-pages-de
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: man-pages-de https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226123 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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
fedora-review requested: [Bug 225910] Merge Review: ipv6calc
Bug 225910: Merge Review: ipv6calc Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225910 ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225910] Merge Review: ipv6calc
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: ipv6calc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225910 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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
fedora-review requested: [Bug 225907] Merge Review: iptraf
Bug 225907: Merge Review: iptraf Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225907 ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225907] Merge Review: iptraf
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: iptraf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225907 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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
fedora-review requested: [Bug 225859] Merge Review: groff
Bug 225859: Merge Review: groff Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225859 ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225859] Merge Review: groff
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: groff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225859 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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
fedora-review requested: [Bug 225662] Merge Review: crontabs
Bug 225662: Merge Review: crontabs Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225662 ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225662] Merge Review: crontabs
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: crontabs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225662 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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
fedora-review requested: [Bug 225288] Merge Review: at
Bug 225288: Merge Review: at Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225288 ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225288] Merge Review: at
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: at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225288 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 04:03 EST --- All problems except of permission problem - which is reported by rpmlint are fixed in less-394-7.fc7. It is a problem to change permissions in cvs so the best solution I see is to leave them as they are. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221884] Review Request: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup 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: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221884 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 04:05 EST --- Just thought I'd let you know I haven't disappeared off the face of the earth. I haven't made a new release for a while but in svn there have been some interesting changes such as added i18n support. I've also sent some patches to rdiff-backup to fix some deeper bugs and started a branch to redo the GUI, refactor the code, and generally make improvements that would be hard to do by patching the trunk in its current state. I'm busy with course work at the moment but I'll let you know when I make a new release. I've also signed up on the Fedora accounts system as andyp, if that helps at all. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226669] Merge Review: zip
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: zip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226669 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 223008] Review Request: perl-File-Copy-Recursive - Perl extension for recursively copying files and directories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-File-Copy-Recursive - Perl extension for recursively copying files and directories https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version||0.30-2 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 04:15 EST --- Must have missed to close this - packages had been build and pushed for quite a while. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227309] Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227309 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 04:36 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) * License added LICENSE (GPLv2) btw, quicklz is licensed under the GPL, so that shouldn't be a problem. * Timestamps No reason to add '-p' when installing seom.pc, because that file is auto-generated. But I added '-p' when installing the headers.. -$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS) -L.libs -o $@ src/$@/main.c -lseom $([EMAIL PROTECTED]) +$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(EXTRA_CFLAGS) $(INCLUDES) $(LDFLAGS) -L.libs -o seom-$@ src/$@/main.c -lseom $([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 'seom-$@' is ok in the srpm, but when compiling seom from sources more than once it's bad because then make will recompile the apps every time make is executed.. and, what's wrong with 'libtool --mode=install'? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225734] Merge Review: esound
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: esound https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225734 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 06:10 EST --- New Initial Owner: [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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 06:11 EST --- To recap: just waiting on availability of the 1.5.0 .phar from upstream; Tim are you able to push that 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 226034] Merge Review: libmusicbrainz
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: libmusicbrainz https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226034 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 06:11 EST --- New Initial Owner: [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 226374] Merge Review: rhythmbox
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: rhythmbox https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226374 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 06:12 EST --- New Initial Owner: [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 226500] Merge Review: totem
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: totem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 06:12 EST --- New Initial Owner: [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 225981] Merge Review: lcms
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: lcms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225981 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 06:17 EST --- Fixed in 1.16-3. -- 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 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media
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: gnome-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 06:27 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) A couple of issues for gnome-media; NEEDSWORK: * rpmlint (on the binary package, the -devel subpackage, and the srpm) produces a number of warnings/errors. Most of it can possibly be ignored, but I think the rpath issue need to be fixed [EMAIL PROTECTED] reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-2.17.90-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm E: gnome-media tag-not-utf8 %changelog Fixed E: gnome-media obsolete-not-provided gnome E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libglade/2.0/libgnome-media-profiles.so ['/usr/lib64'] E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome-audio-profiles-properties ['/usr/lib64'] E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome-cd ['/usr/lib64'] E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/libexec/cddb-track-editor ['/usr/lib64'] W: gnome-media non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/CDDB-Slave2.schemas W: gnome-media non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-audio-profiles.schemas W: gnome-media non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-volume-control.schemas W: gnome-media non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-cd.schemas Fixed. [EMAIL PROTECTED] reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-devel-2.17.90-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm E: gnome-media-devel tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: gnome-media-devel no-documentation [EMAIL PROTECTED] reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-2.17.90-1.fc7.src.rpm E: gnome-media tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: gnome-media non-utf8-spec-file gnome-media.spec Fixed. W: gnome-media unversioned-explicit-obsoletes gnome W: gnome-media macro-in-%changelog _datadir Fixed. W: gnome-media mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 12, tab: line 22) Fixed. * scrollkeeper-update is not being properly called in the post and postun sections according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=showredirect=ScriptletSnippets#head-a4ea5e1946bc113d19d24b4f5bfb543c579e5fc8 Fixed * --add-category X-Redhat-Base option to desktop-file-install is no longer necesary That's commented. Not so importantly, the disable-schemas-install option can be pass to the configure script instead of setting and unsetting GCONF_DISABLE_MAKEFILE_SCHEMA_INSTAL env. Fixed. All of this is fixed in gnome-media-2.17.90-3.fc7, I'll need to work on the rpath issue now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 06:32 EST --- Spec: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi.spec SRPMS: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi-3.1.5-1.src.rpm Updated. Tested the build in mock, and olso on various arches: i386,x86_64,sparc,alpha,ppc becouse it required an extra -fPIC flag to link objects correctly, i make those test across arches. Only minor issue, to add -soname versioning, anyway rpmlint complain as W: only.I will add soname versioning but not right now, anyway the project seem to update their source once in severeal year, so -soname doesnt make sense for an exact -compat versioning between releases. can review please ? thank you, /cristian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227811] New: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227811 Summary: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-af.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-af-0.20060117-1.src.rpm Description: Afrikaans hunspell dictionary 1) http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Dictionaries#Afrikaans_.28South_Africa.29 2) LGPL 3) splits this dictionary out of OOo to becomes a standalone package which can be independently updated and reused by other applications, e.g. firefox when it moves to hunspell -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227811] Review Request: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227811 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: main |Review Request: hunspell-af |package name here - short |- Afrikaans hunspell |summary here |dictionary -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 07:05 EST ---
Hm. I've looked at other packages with logfiles in /var/log, and several
actually owned those files:
pam: %ghost %verify(not md5 size mtime) /var/log/faillog
scrollkeeker: %ghost %{_localstatedir}/log/scrollkeeper.log
setup: %ghost %attr(0644,root,root) %verify(not md5 size mtime) /var/log/lastlog
So there are a few other examples where the logfile is at least being referenced
by a package using a %ghost entry.
I mean, it boils basically down to what files a package should own. And
typically (and historically) those consisted of the files that were clearly and
distinctly connected to that package. There could be the packaged files or, like
e.g. for /var/cache files created during the lifetime of a package on a system.
And imo /var/log/acpid is pretty clearly connected to one specific package,
namely acpid. ;)
Maybe this point should really be brought up at the next Fedora meeting to see
what the opinion of others are on it. The above is just my personal view after
maintaining packages for quite some time, but i'd have no problem if the general
rule would be to keep /var/log files unreferenced.
Read ya, Phil
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225609] Merge Review: bash
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: bash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225609 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 07:13 EST --- 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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 07:14 EST --- What do you mean? These is install -c -p -m 0644 used for man page in spec file. Is there any place I don't preserve timestamps? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227570] Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227570 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 07:22 EST --- Oh, good point. It actually has an internal readline alternative it can use. I'll check with the author about the licensing and readline, and if there's no ability to make a change I'll modify it to not use readline. 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 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media
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: gnome-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 07:25 EST --- And fixed the rpath issue in gnome-media-2.17.90-4.fc7. Let me know if anything else needs work. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225838] Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor
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: gnome-system-monitor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225838 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 07:25 EST --- Another needswork; g-s-monitor use of %makeinstall macro should be changed to make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install, according to the guildelines @ http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0dbcfbdd2fcb7791dd002 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227570] Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227570 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 07:39 EST --- Oh, wait, no coffee yet this morning. The LGPL allows conversion to GPL, so technically I can do that without any upstream input. So really the consideration here comes down to how much using gnu readline benefits the program. Right now, since there's actually no dynamic library, using LGPL over GPL provides no benefit at all to anyone, so I might as well make the conversion. Further, it's probable that the calc library itself could remain under the gpl with just the calc command-line binary converted -- the best of both worlds. Because probably online the command-line util actually links against readline. (Or am I missing something there?) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227570] Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227570 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 07:52 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) Oh, wait, no coffee yet this morning. The LGPL allows conversion to GPL, so technically I can do that without any upstream input. Yes, AFAICT, _YOU_ could re-licence/re-publish the whole package under the GPL (With all implications of it - You'd be the upstream, shipping a derived product). Yet another solution would be not to link against readline. Further, it's probable that the calc library itself could remain under the gpl with just the calc command-line binary converted -- the best of both worlds. Because probably online the command-line util actually links against readline. One would have to check the sources for details - Unfortunately this package applies a pretty ugly and not easy to understand build/make-system (Or am I missing something there?) I don't think so. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227717] Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227717 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 223023] Review Request: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223023 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 08:06 EST --- Works here with slides.xml. I get '(nXML Valid)' in the mode bar, and 'Using schema /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/nxml-mode/schema/docbook.rnc' in the minibuffer. Perhaps you have a .emacs file that is preventing things from working correctly? Do you have the psgml package installed, possibly overriding our own mode? FWIW, I get nxml-mode for .xml, .xsl, .rng and .xhtml, which is precisely the set of modes expected: (setq auto-mode-alist (cons '(\\.\\(xml\\|xsl\\|rng\\|xhtml\\)\\' . nxml-mode) auto-mode-alist)) SGML and HTML already have handlers (sgml-mode), and I'm not sure we want to override that (do we?). http://cyberelk.net/tim/data/nxml-mode/emacs-nxml-mode.spec http://cyberelk.net/tim/data/nxml-mode/emacs-nxml-mode-0.20041004.1-3.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
[Bug 226053] Merge Review: libusb
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: libusb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226053 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 08:07 EST --- Please check the latest libusb (7.fc7). I added the static subpackage there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227570] Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227570 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 08:11 EST --- Yeah, rather than using autoconf, it does a similar bunch of tests in its makefile. Good times. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media
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: gnome-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 [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 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
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 08:18 EST ---
check if the -devel package needs to Require the main package,
and if so, change it to Requires: bzip2 = %{version}-%{release}
- Remove the Requires: bzip2-libs = %{version}
The -devel packages does NOT need the main package, but the
bzip2-libs package (comment #2):
Requires: bzip2-libs = %{version}-%{release}
in the -devel package. The %release in there makes sure that -devel
and -libs package are in sync always (think run-time bug-fixes +
%changelog of both packages), also for a yum install bzip2-devel
when an older bzip2-libs is installed already. Without the strict
dependency it would be possible to install the latest bzip2-devel
while keeping an older bzip2-libs which e.g. has bugs.
The main package depends on the -libs package through an automatic
dependency on libbz2.so.1, created by rpmbuild. If there is
reason to not trust the accuracy of that dependency, an explicit
dependency on a specific package %version-%release would be needed.
The simple Requires: bzip2-libs = 1.0.4 does not add any value
except that it doesn't trust an automatic upgrade from 1.0.3 to 1.0.4.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media
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: gnome-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 08:20 EST --- And will really be fixed in gnome-media-2.17.90-5.fc7, I forgot to *actually* apply the configure changes... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
fedora-review denied: [Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media
Bug 225822: Merge Review: gnome-media Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Deji Akingunola [EMAIL PROTECTED] has denied Matthias Clasen [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 --- Additional Comments from Deji Akingunola [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was looking at the cvs commit mail, and it seems you forgot to actually commit the change ;). I'm waiting for anonymous cvs to sync up so I can properly test it. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225838] Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor
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: gnome-system-monitor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225838
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 08:27 EST ---
* call to scrollkeeper-update in post section is inclomplete, should be
called
like; scrollkeeper-update -q -o %{_datadir}/omf/%{name} || :
There is no need to slavishly follow the examples in the guidelines to the
letter.
The current call works fine
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225838] Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor
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: gnome-system-monitor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225838 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 08:38 EST --- * The post and postun Requires on desktop-file-utils is not necessary There is no such requires in my checkout of the 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 225838] Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor
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: gnome-system-monitor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225838 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 08:46 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) * The post and postun Requires on desktop-file-utils is not necessary There is no such requires in my checkout of the spec file ? Yeah, it's truly not there, i must have confused it with some other 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 225838] Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor
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: gnome-system-monitor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225838 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 08:58 EST --- * Thu Feb 8 2007 Matthias Clasen [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2.17.6-2 - Remove an obsolete Obsoletes: - Don't add X-Redhat-Base to the desktop file anymore -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review?
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 09:01 EST ---
Thanks for all comments - problems from review in comment 4 are fixed in
aspell-0.60.5-3.fc7.
In this version aspell-import has changed permissions - so the perl is not
required.
aspell dictationaries are arch dependent - so there is no problem in their
location in {_libdir}/aspell-0.60.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227717] Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227717 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 09:06 EST --- unable to get srpm file -- error 550 will you check it out please ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226351] Merge Review: qt
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: qt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226351 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 09:07 EST --- I think this would break designer Help-Manual menu How so? It would be no less broken than the current situation (or when qt-devel-docs wasn't installed). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225875] Merge Review: gtksourceview
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: gtksourceview https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225875 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 09:10 EST --- Not clear to me what the next step is here... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media
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: gnome-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 09:13 EST --- The rpath issue is still present; [EMAIL PROTECTED] reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-2.17.90-5.fc7.x86_64.rpm E: gnome-media tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: gnome-media obsolete-not-provided gnome E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libglade/2.0/libgnome-media-profiles.so ['/usr/lib64'] E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome-audio-profiles-properties ['/usr/lib64'] E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome-cd ['/usr/lib64'] E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/libexec/cddb-track-editor ['/usr/lib64'] W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/CDDB-Slave2.schemas W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-audio-profiles.schemas W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-cd.schemas W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-volume-control.schemas The problem is caused by the package using it's local copy of libtool, as can be seen from the build log (excerpt below). I believe this can be fixed by having a buildrequire on libtool and forcing the build to use the system libtool (make LIBTOOL=/usr/bin/libtool ...) ( /bin/sh ../libtool --mode=install /usr/bin/install -c 'cddb-slave2-properties' '/var/tmp/gnome-media-2.17.90-5.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/bin/cddb-slave2-properties' /usr/bin/install -c cddb-slave2-properties /var/tmp/gnome-media-2.17.90-5.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/bin/cddb-slave2-properties test -z /usr/libexec || mkdir -p -- /var/tmp/gnome-media-2.17.90-5.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/libexec /bin/sh ../libtool --mode=install /usr/bin/install -c 'CDDBSlave2' '/var/tmp/gnome-media-2.17.90-5.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/libexec/CDDBSlave2' /usr/bin/install -c CDDBSlave2 /var/tmp/gnome-media-2.17.90-5.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/libexec/CDDBSlave2 /bin/sh ../libtool --mode=install /usr/bin/install -c 'cddb-track-editor' '/var/tmp/gnome-media-2.17.90-5.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/libexec/cddb-track-editor' ) Probably an upstream issue, I noticed the install section of the build doesn't respect the configure option to disable scrollkeeper; it still variously attempts to update the scrollkeeper. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227717] Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227717 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 09:17 EST --- Sorry about that, should be there now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227719] Review Request: gpixpod - An ipod photo organizer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gpixpod - An ipod photo organizer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227719 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227719] Review Request: gpixpod - An ipod photo organizer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gpixpod - An ipod photo organizer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227719 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 09:20 EST --- mock build is fine rpmlint is silent. will review tomorrow -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
fedora-review requested: [Bug 225863] Merge Review: gsl
Bug 225863: Merge Review: gsl
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Component: Package Review
José Matos [EMAIL PROTECTED] has asked for fedora-review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225863
--- Additional Comments from José Matos [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have some suggestions regarding the spec file:
- Use the BuildRoot defined in the guidelines (this is suggested but in no way
a blocker)
- for gsl-devel require gsl = %{version}-%{release} it is better to be
safe :-)
- make %{?_smp_mflags} - it works, I have tested it
- in %install it is necessary to clean the buildroot and also %makeinstall
can be replaced with make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT, again I have tested
an it works.
- finally the file attributes should be %defattr(-,root,root,-)
There are other issues I would like to search, mainly related with the
static libraries, but before going there I would like to hear you on these
changes.
One final note, a matter of style, I like more the description used in the
spec file distributed in the tar ball, while the one present in the spec file
is, maybe, too terse. Again this is a matter of taste so it is in no way a
blocker.
I will put in the next entry a patch with these changes...
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225863] Merge Review: gsl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: gsl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225863
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 09:21 EST ---
I have some suggestions regarding the spec file:
- Use the BuildRoot defined in the guidelines (this is suggested but in no way
a blocker)
- for gsl-devel require gsl = %{version}-%{release} it is better to be
safe :-)
- make %{?_smp_mflags} - it works, I have tested it
- in %install it is necessary to clean the buildroot and also %makeinstall
can be replaced with make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT, again I have tested
an it works.
- finally the file attributes should be %defattr(-,root,root,-)
There are other issues I would like to search, mainly related with the
static libraries, but before going there I would like to hear you on these
changes.
One final note, a matter of style, I like more the description used in the
spec file distributed in the tar ball, while the one present in the spec file
is, maybe, too terse. Again this is a matter of taste so it is in no way a
blocker.
I will put in the next entry a patch with these changes...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225863] Merge Review: gsl
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: gsl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225863 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 09:23 EST --- Created an attachment (id=147653) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147653action=view) patch to satisfy packaging guidelines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media
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: gnome-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 09:27 EST --- I checked with --disable-rpath on i386, and it didn't happen. I'll try and work on that upstream instead for now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 09:29 EST --- Seems to meet packaging guidelines. Licensing is good, copying is in %doc. Spec is in Legible American English. Builds on 1386. Build Deps are good. No locale info, OK. To Be Continued. . . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 09:30 EST --- Got the build error again! [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ rpmbuild -ba methane.spec Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.66581 + umask 022 + cd /usr/src/redhat/BUILD + LANG=C + export LANG + unset DISPLAY + cd /usr/src/redhat/BUILD + rm -rf methane-1.4.7 + /bin/gzip -dc /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/methane-1.4.7.tgz + tar -xf - + STATUS=0 + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']' + cd methane-1.4.7 ++ /usr/bin/id -u + '[' 500 = 0 ']' ++ /usr/bin/id -u + '[' 500 = 0 ']' + /bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w . + echo 'Patch #0 (methane-clanlib08.patch):' Patch #0 (methane-clanlib08.patch): + patch -p1 -b --suffix .cl08 -s + echo 'Patch #1 (methane-highscore.patch):' Patch #1 (methane-highscore.patch): + patch -p1 -b --suffix .highscore -s + echo 'Patch #2 (methane-fullscreen.patch):' Patch #2 (methane-fullscreen.patch): + patch -p1 -b --suffix .fullscreen -s ++ find -type f + chmod -x ./install ./i_win32 ./install.sh ./history ./i_linux ./docs/potion.gif ./docs/zoom.gif ./docs/whirly.gif ./docs/spring.gif ./docs/gamepic.gif ./docs/puff.gif ./docs/backdrop.gif ./docs/turbo.gif ./docs/sucker.gif ./docs/title.gif ./docs/bug.gif ./docs/mbug.gif ./docs/block.gif ./docs/cookie.gif ./docs/gen.gif ./docs/spike.gif ./docs/info.html ./copying ./i_riscos ./source/suck.cpp ./source/game.cpp ./source/player.h ./source/misc.cpp ./source/riscos/swicalls.cpp ./source/riscos/extract ./source/riscos/swicalls.h ./source/riscos/doc.h ./source/riscos/doc.cpp ./source/riscos/makefile ./source/riscos/makeold './source/riscos/!run' './source/riscos/!sprites' './source/riscos/!boot' ./source/gfxoff.cpp ./source/player.cpp ./source/baddie.h ./source/game.h ./source/objlist.h ./source/bitgroup.h ./source/bititem.h ./source/data/gfxdata3.cpp ./source/data/snddata.cpp ./source/data/mapdata.cpp ./source/data/gfxdata.cpp ./source/data/gfxdata2.cpp ./source/global.h ./source/goodie.cpp ./source/maps.cpp ./source/snddef.h ./source/mikmod/audiodrv.h ./source/mikmod/audiodrv.cpp ./source/bititem.cpp ./source/target.cpp ./source/gasobj.h ./source/suck.h ./source/boss.h ./source/power.cpp ./source/weapon.cpp ./source/boss.cpp ./source/bitgroup.cpp ./source/target.h ./source/linux/main.cpp.highscore ./source/linux/main.cpp ./source/linux/makefile.cl08 ./source/linux/font32.cpp ./source/linux/doc.h ./source/linux/doc.cpp ./source/linux/main.cpp.fullscreen ./source/linux/makefile ./source/linux/font32.h ./source/linux/doc.cpp.highscore ./source/objtypes.h ./source/objlist.cpp ./source/gfxdef.h ./source/gasobj.cpp ./source/mapdef.h ./source/baddie.cpp ./source/global.cpp ./source/win32/mfc/methane.ico ./source/win32/mfc/frame.cpp ./source/win32/mfc/methane.sln ./source/win32/mfc/methane.dsp ./source/win32/mfc/methane.vcproj ./source/win32/mfc/help.h ./source/win32/mfc/methane.cpp ./source/win32/mfc/about.cpp ./source/win32/mfc/doc.h ./source/win32/mfc/doc.cpp ./source/win32/mfc/frame.h ./source/win32/mfc/methane.dsw ./source/win32/mfc/view.cpp ./source/win32/mfc/methane.rc ./source/win32/mfc/speed.h ./source/win32/mfc/methane.h ./source/win32/mfc/view.h ./source/win32/mfc/help.cpp ./source/win32/mfc/about.h ./source/win32/mfc/speed.cpp ./source/bitdraw.h ./source/sound.cpp ./source/power.h ./source/sound.h ./source/goodie.h ./source/misc.h ./source/bitdraw.cpp ./source/maps.h ./source/weapon.h ./todo ./authors ./readme + cat /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/methane-help.desktop + sed s/version/1.4.7/ + exit 0 Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.15963 + umask 022 + cd /usr/src/redhat/BUILD + cd methane-1.4.7 + LANG=C + export LANG + unset DISPLAY + pushd source/linux /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/methane-1.4.7/source/linux /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/methane-1.4.7 + make -j2 'CXXFLAGS=-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables' Compiling Super Methane Brothers. Compiling ../gfxoff.cpp... = Compiling ../baddie.cpp... gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables `pkg-config --cflags clanCore-0.8 clanDisplay-0.8 clanApp-0.8 clanGL-0.8` -DMETHANE_MIKMOD `libmikmod-config --cflags` -I ../linux -c ../gfxoff.cpp -o MainSource/gfxoff.o mkdir: cannot create directory `MainSource': File exists make: *** [MainSource/baddie.o] Error 1 make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.15963 (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.15963 (%build) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You
fedora-review granted: [Bug 225838] Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor
Bug 225838: Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Deji Akingunola [EMAIL PROTECTED] has granted Matthias Clasen [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225838 --- Additional Comments from Deji Akingunola [EMAIL PROTECTED] rpmlint now silent on srpm, and gives warnings (which can be ignored) on the binary [EMAIL PROTECTED] reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-system-monitor-2.17.6-2.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: gnome-system-monitor no-documentation W: gnome-system-monitor non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-system-monitor.schemas APPROVED. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225838] Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor
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: gnome-system-monitor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225838 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 09:31 EST --- rpmlint now silent on srpm, and gives warnings (which can be ignored) on the binary [EMAIL PROTECTED] reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-system-monitor-2.17.6-2.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: gnome-system-monitor no-documentation W: gnome-system-monitor non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-system-monitor.schemas 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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 09:32 EST --- Removal of the bindir, etc definitions at the top of the spec file move the cpio binary from /bin to /usr/bin which is a bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226035] Merge Review: libogg
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: libogg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226035 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 09:34 EST --- * Thu Feb 8 2007 Matthias Clasen [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2:1.1.3-3 - Package review cleanups - Don't ship a static library -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 09:35 EST ---
Ah, probably a smp build error, removing %{?_smp_mflags} from the make command
should fix 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 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media
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: gnome-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 09:37 EST --- That explains it, I was testing on x86_64 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 09:41 EST --- It did. You want a patch posted or just to alter your own copy of the .spec? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 09:44 EST ---
the /usr/lib/kde3/*.la files should be deleted
I can vouge that in many cases, kde apps (still) do need these .la files.
These are of the type that cause no harm (vs. those in %_libdir), so I'd
strongly recommend leaving them as-is.
Re: DocPath in .desktop file
Mostly harmless warning.
While on the topic of .desktop files, I'd recommend using this instead (to
preserve upstream .desktop vendor):
desktop-file-install --vendor= \
--dir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/kde \
--add-category X-Red-Hat-Base \
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/kde/%{name}.desktop
(not sure the point of adding X-Red-Hat-Base, but a comment justifying it's
use in the specfile would be helpful for posterity).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 09:47 EST --- No duplicate files, has a %clean section, perms look OK. No wierd macros. Code, not content. No large or executable docs. Has a .desktop file. Seems to meet all MUSTS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225819] Merge Review: gnome-keyring
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: gnome-keyring https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225819 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 10:01 EST --- GOOD: * Build Ok in mock (x86_64) * License (GPL) and rpm Group tag OK * Naming meets the packaging guildlines * Spec file clean and legible * Handles locales appropriately * Buildrequires properly listed * rpmlint silent/OK (there's an ignorable warning on the -devel subpackages [EMAIL PROTECTED] reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-keyring-devel-0.7.3-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: gnome-keyring-devel no-documentation) * Source file matches upstream 4478d21d3ef56a3992411bee7ab6df73 gnome-keyring-0.7.3.tar.bz2 NEEDSWORK: * Complete url to the SOURCE is not provided. 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
fedora-review granted: [Bug 225819] Merge Review: gnome-keyring
Bug 225819: Merge Review: gnome-keyring Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Deji Akingunola [EMAIL PROTECTED] has granted Deji Akingunola [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225819 --- Additional Comments from Deji Akingunola [EMAIL PROTECTED] GOOD: * Build Ok in mock (x86_64) * License (GPL) and rpm Group tag OK * Naming meets the packaging guildlines * Spec file clean and legible * Handles locales appropriately * Buildrequires properly listed * rpmlint silent/OK (there's an ignorable warning on the -devel subpackages [EMAIL PROTECTED] reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-keyring-devel-0.7.3-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: gnome-keyring-devel no-documentation) * Source file matches upstream 4478d21d3ef56a3992411bee7ab6df73 gnome-keyring-0.7.3.tar.bz2 NEEDSWORK: * Complete url to the SOURCE is not provided. APPROVED. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225819] Merge Review: gnome-keyring
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: gnome-keyring https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225819 [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
fedora-review requested: [Bug 225820] Merge Review: gnome-keyring-manager
Bug 225820: Merge Review: gnome-keyring-manager Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Deji Akingunola [EMAIL PROTECTED] has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225820 ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225820] Merge Review: gnome-keyring-manager
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: gnome-keyring-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225820 [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 226105] Merge Review: logwatch
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: logwatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226105 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 10:12 EST --- Fixed in logwatch-7.3.2-7.fc7. The zero lenght files remains in logwatch (they are necessary - but they will be nonempty 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 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 10:14 EST --- Runs, as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225820] Merge Review: gnome-keyring-manager
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: gnome-keyring-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225820 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 10:15 EST --- GOOD: * Build Ok in mock (x86_64) * License (GPL) and rpm Group tag OK * Naming meets the packaging guildlines * Spec file clean and legible * Handles locales appropriately * Buildrequires properly listed * rpmlint silent on srpm and a warning that can be ignored on the binary [EMAIL PROTECTED] reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-keyring-manager-2.17.0-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: gnome-keyring-manager non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-keyring-manager.schemas * Source file matches upstream 8dc9c133ccdfb2729898a05afa177a0d gnome-keyring-manager-2.17.0.tar.bz2 NEEDSWORK: * Complete url to the SOURCE is not provided. 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
fedora-review granted: [Bug 225820] Merge Review: gnome-keyring-manager
Bug 225820: Merge Review: gnome-keyring-manager Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Deji Akingunola [EMAIL PROTECTED] has granted Deji Akingunola [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225820 --- Additional Comments from Deji Akingunola [EMAIL PROTECTED] GOOD: * Build Ok in mock (x86_64) * License (GPL) and rpm Group tag OK * Naming meets the packaging guildlines * Spec file clean and legible * Handles locales appropriately * Buildrequires properly listed * rpmlint silent on srpm and a warning that can be ignored on the binary [EMAIL PROTECTED] reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-keyring-manager-2.17.0-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: gnome-keyring-manager non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-keyring-manager.schemas * Source file matches upstream 8dc9c133ccdfb2729898a05afa177a0d gnome-keyring-manager-2.17.0.tar.bz2 NEEDSWORK: * Complete url to the SOURCE is not provided. APPROVED. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225838] Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor
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: gnome-system-monitor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225838 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 10:16 EST --- Sorry, the owner actually have a 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 225820] Merge Review: gnome-keyring-manager
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: gnome-keyring-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225820 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 10:18 EST --- Re-assigning back to the owner -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 10:18 EST --- Will the smp build fix still work on uniprocessor machines? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225819] Merge Review: gnome-keyring
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: gnome-keyring https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225819 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 10:20 EST --- Bugzilla needswork; re-assigning to owner -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226035] Merge Review: libogg
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: libogg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226035 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 10:20 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) I think the ruling is still out on forcing everybody who installs an automake macro to require automake. There is no need to require automake, it is also possible to own /usr/share/aclocal/ I personally would let that choice to the packager. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226035] Merge Review: libogg
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: libogg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226035 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 10:23 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #3) I think the ruling is still out on forcing everybody who installs an automake macro to require automake. There is no need to require automake, it is also possible to own /usr/share/aclocal/ I personally would let that choice to the packager. There is no choice but to require automake. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225244] Merge Review: amtu
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: amtu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225244 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 10:31 EST --- amtu-1.0.4-5.fc7 was built to satisfy most of these requests. I looked at AMTUHowTo.txt and don't see anything wrong with it. Neither vi, cat, or gedit have a problem displaying the file...so I am reluctant to make a change for something that's not causing problems. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226035] Merge Review: libogg
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: libogg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226035 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 10:36 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) There is no choice but to require automake. Why? It may be useful, in that people wanting to use the macro in their project don't have to install automake by hand, but automake is not necessarily needed when doing development with a library. automake brings in perl, it is a big dependency. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 10:44 EST --- fixed in -25.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 10:55 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) Will the smp build fix still work on uniprocessor machines? Yes, it will still work fine on uniprocessor machines. Do you want me to upload a new spec + srpm without the spmflags, or do you trust me on my blue eyes that I'll remove that before import and can you approve this? If you approve this please also set the fedora-cvs flag at ?. CVS-admin's I would like an FC-6 + devel tree only. I feel no need to release this for FC-5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
fedora-review granted: [Bug 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers
Bug 227674: Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] has granted Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 --- Additional Comments from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have blue eyes, too, but they're in a jar on my desk. ;) I trust you. APPROVED. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| Flag||fedora-review+, fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-08 10:59 EST --- I have blue eyes, too, but they're in a jar on my desk. ;) I trust you. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
