[Bug 228475] Review Request: hunspell-fr - French hunspell dictionaries
Please 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-fr - French hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228475 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 04:28 EST --- 27896 (hunspell-fr): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228481] Review Request: hunspell-hu - Hungarian hunspell dictionaries
Please 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-hu - Hungarian hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228481 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 04:29 EST --- 27897 (hunspell-hu): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228483] Review Request: hunspell-it - Italian hunspell dictionaries
Please 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-it - Italian hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228483 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 04:34 EST --- 27898 (hunspell-it): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229291] Review Request: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229291 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 04:35 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: thinkfinger Short Description: A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-6 FC-5 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229319] New: Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine
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=229319 Summary: Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.snoekie.com/rpm/dekorator.spec SRPM URL: http://www.snoekie.com/rpm/dekorator-0.3-1.src.rpm Description: deKorator is a window decoration engine for KDE. deKorator takes several user-defined images and presents them as a window decoration. It loads its images from a user-defined directory (similar to iceWM), thus everything is themeable in no time and no programming knowledge is needed. Package builds in mock (fc6/i386) and on x86_64. rpmlint gives: W: dekorator file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/dekorator-0.3/themes/ugly-theme.tar.gz -- this is because the file is a tarball (its an example/tutorial theme for dekorator) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229321] New: Review Request: pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL
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=229321 Summary: Review Request: pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL 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://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/pgpool-II/pgpool-II.spec SRPM URL: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/pgpool-II/postgresql-pgpool-II-1.0.2-1.src.rpm Description: pgpool-II is a connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL. pgpool-II runs between PostgreSQL's clients(front ends) and servers (backends). A PostgreSQL client can connect to pgpool-II as if it were a standard PostgreSQL server. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229321] Review Request: pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229321 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora_requires_release_note ||+, fedora-review+, fedora- ||cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229322] New: Review Request: pgpool-II : Pgpool-HA uses heartbeat to keep pgpool from being a single point of failure
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=229322 Summary: Review Request: pgpool-II : Pgpool-HA uses heartbeat to keep pgpool from being a single point of failure 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://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/pgpool-II/postgresql-pgpool-ha.spec SRPM URL: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/pgpool-II/postgresql-pgpool-ha-1.0.0-2.src.rpm Description: Pgpool-HA combines pgpool with heartbeat. Pgpool is a replication server of PostgreSQL and makes reliability, but the pgpool server is always a single point failure. Pgpool-HA uses heartbeat to eliminate 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 229322] Review Request: pgpool-II : Pgpool-HA uses heartbeat to keep pgpool from being a single point of failure
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pgpool-II : Pgpool-HA uses heartbeat to keep pgpool from being a single point of failure https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229322 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora_requires_release_note ||+, fedora-review+, fedora- ||cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229323] New: Review Request: PgpoolAdmin - web-based pgpool administration
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=229323 Summary: Review Request: PgpoolAdmin - web-based pgpool administration 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://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/pgpool-II/postgresql-pgpoolAdmin.spec SRPM URL: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/pgpool-II/postgresql-pgpoolAdmin-1.0.0-5.src.rpm Description: The pgpool Administration Tool is management tool of pgpool-II. It is possible to monitor, start, stop pgpool and change settings of pgpool-II. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 05:24 EST --- Thanks for the review! On buildroots we recently voted against that buildroot and currently I'm trying to get the mandatory insanity of the guidelines, so let's keep it open for now, I hope for the best ;) On the license: There is a COPYING file that explicitely states GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 And the README says libcdaudio is distributed under the GNU Library General Public License, included in this package under the top level source directory in the file COPYING. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226445] Merge Review: symlinks
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: symlinks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||needinfo? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 176712] Review Request: i386-rtems4.7-gcc-newlib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: i386-rtems4.7-gcc-newlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176712 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 05:56 EST --- No feedback for 1 year. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197974] Tracking bug for reviews stalled pending the adoption of guidelines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Tracking bug for reviews stalled pending the adoption of guidelines Alias: FE-GUIDELINES https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197974 Bug 197974 depends on bug 176712, which changed state. Bug 176712 Summary: Review Request: i386-rtems4.7-gcc-newlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176712 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||CANTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 176697] Review Request: i386-rtems4.7-binutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: i386-rtems4.7-binutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176697 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 05:57 EST --- No feedback 1 year. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197974] Tracking bug for reviews stalled pending the adoption of guidelines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Tracking bug for reviews stalled pending the adoption of guidelines Alias: FE-GUIDELINES https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197974 Bug 197974 depends on bug 176697, which changed state. Bug 176697 Summary: Review Request: i386-rtems4.7-binutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176697 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||CANTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 176712] Review Request: i386-rtems4.7-gcc-newlib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: i386-rtems4.7-gcc-newlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176712 Bug 176712 depends on bug 176697, which changed state. Bug 176697 Summary: Review Request: i386-rtems4.7-binutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176697 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||CANTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222521] Review Request: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222521 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 06:01 EST --- Hello all. Sorry the late reply. 1.3.0 seems to suffer from a lack of documentation (on what changed between 1.2.30 and 1.3.x) which is not very reassuring. In my view, people that require IceWM (for old machines, server) will most likely require a stable DE instead of a cutting edge one. According to the owner's list, while not longer maintained upstream, imlib, gtk+ and glib are all actively maintained; hopefully, they'll remain active long enough for 1.3.x to mature. - Gilboa -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222523] Review Request:gmrun - A lightweight Run program window with TAB completion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request:gmrun - A lightweight Run program window with TAB completion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 06:02 EST --- Done. Thanks for the review. - Gilboa -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225299] Merge Review: automake15
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: automake15
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225299
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 06:10 EST ---
automake15-1.5-19 uses ./configure instead of %configure. Maybe I'll replace
config.{guess,sub} with more recent ones when I have some spare time as I need
to do a test build of some packages then.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 223588] Review Request: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223588 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 06:29 EST --- Matt? What is the status of this package? The package doesn't seem be imported into FE's cvs, yet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 06:30 EST --- Yes, I tried to build the rawhide libusb on FC6 and it failed in the documentation generation phase because of some jade inconsistency. The question is whether this is related to merge review as we focus on F7 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 225655] Merge Review: coreutils
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: coreutils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 06:31 EST ---
Requires(post): grep, /sbin/install-info, coreutils
I am not sure that coreutils in Requires(post) makes sense...
Depending on itself: Er.. can you be more specific?
The build is depending on coreutils commands, like mkdir
Are we talking about BuildRequires tags or Requires tags? Please be specific
with the changes you'd like me to make -- also it would help if you number
them. :-)
There is still one /usr/bin:
for i in env cut; do ln -sf ../../bin/$i $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/bin; done
Take a look at the wider picture there: we are making compatibility symlinks for
binaries that used to be in /usr/bin but are now in /bin. We explicitly know
from the history of the packages where these binaries used to be. Changing a
variable is not going to change that. Changing /usr/bin here to be %{_bindir}
would be incorrect.
remove / in RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}
Fixed.
Also I don't think that /etc/profile.d/ content should be
(noreplace) and I even think that making it %(config) is dubious.
Fixed.
Tagged and built as 6.7-8.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 226502] Merge Review: transfig
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: transfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226502 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||209865 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-02-20 06:39 EST --- Sorry, I don't have a rawhide system installed. = Somebody else will have to take over the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2007-02-20 06:48 EST --- Ralf, thanks for your comments and review. Maybe mock will help you here to do a rawhide build if you are still interested. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 06:58 EST --- Created an attachment (id=148408) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148408action=view) Patch implementing most of the following review suggestions Review to follow shortly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 07:00 EST ---
Review:
===
- rpmlint output already covered in Comment #2
- package and spec naming OK
- package generally meets guidelines
- license is Sendmail, not listed on FSF list of licenses page but
sendmail *is* listed in the FSF directory of free software
(http://directory.fsf.org/sendmail.html)
- license correctly tagged in spec but license text needs to be packaged
- spec written in English but legibility could be improved
- sources match upstream
- package builds OK on i386 and x86_64 in mock for rawhide
- buildreqs OK
- no locale data included
- no shared libraries included
- not relocatable
- no directory ownership problems
- no permissions problems
- %clean section present and correct
- macro usage is reasonably consistent
- code, not content
- large docs in -doc subpackage
- docs don't affect runtime
- header files and static libraries included in -devel subpackage
(no upstream support for dynamic libraries)
- no pkgconfig files
- devel package has proper versioned dependency on main package
- no libtool archives
- not a GUI app, no desktop file needed
- scriptlets are complex, but well-tested
- all subpackages have proper versioned dependencies on main package
Needs Work:
* LICENSE file must be included as %doc in the main package I think.
I'd also suggest moving FAQ, KNOWNBUGS, README, RELEASE_NOTES in the
same way
* non-standard buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-root
Guidelines now mandate:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* directory creation near the top of %install not using the same macros as
later parts of %install
Suggestions:
* Group: for devel package should be Development/Libraries I think
* %post script could return non-zero exit code - add exit 0 at end?
* symlinks for the sendmail-specific versions of files managed using
alternatives should point to the sendmail-specific targets rather than the
generic targets, i.e.
/usr/bin/mailq.sendmail - ../../usr/sbin/sendmail
/usr/bin/newaliases.sendmail - ../../usr/sbin/sendmail
/usr/lib/sendmail.sendmail - ../sbin/sendmail
should instead be:
/usr/bin/mailq.sendmail - ../../usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail
/usr/bin/newaliases.sendmail - ../../usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail
/usr/lib/sendmail.sendmail - ../sbin/sendmail.sendmail
* all of the alternatives-managed files should be provided by sendmail.
Currently, the following are provided:
%{_sbindir}/sendmail
%{_bindir}/mailq
%{_bindir}/newaliases
%{_bindir}/rmail
%{_mandir}/man1/mailq.1.gz
%{_mandir}/man1/newaliases.1.gz
%{_mandir}/man5/aliases.5.gz
Also needed are:
/usr/lib/sendmail
%{_sysconfdir}/pam.d/smtp
%{_mandir}/man8/sendmail.8.gz
* general legibility improvements:
- group the RPM tags at the top of the spec into general, build-time, and
run-time sections
- extra comments, particularly in %install
- dispense with here documents
- consistent indentation
- replace initdir with prefdefined initrddir macro
- use the symlinks program to fix up symlinks rather than the scripted
routine that figures out how deep in the hierarchy a particular target
directory is
* removal of old cruft
- the symbols _FFR_WORKAROUND_BROKEN_NAMESERVERS, _FFR_SMTP_SSL,
_FFR_BLOCK_PROXIES, _FFR_UNSAFE_SASL, _FFR_MILTER_ROOT_UNSAFE
no longer appear in the sendmail source and hence can be removed from the
spec
- the MySQL stuff in the spec appears to be there to support building with a
patch maintained outside of the upstream sendmail source:
http://www.palsenberg.com/index.php/plain/projects/sendmail_mysql_map_class
This patch is not included in the Fedora package so why is the rest of the
mysql support included?
* addition of old cruft
- if %{old_setup} is supported, include the aliases file so that just changing
the macro value and rebuilding the spec will work. Otherwise, drop
%{old_setup} altogether.
* is it worth packaging /usr/share/sendmail-cf/cf/README ?
* macro usage:
- should /etc/alises be %{_sysconfdir}/aliases ?
- should /etc/mail be %{_sysconfdir}/mail ?
- should /etc/pam.d be %{_sysconfdir}/pam.d ?
- should /etc/smrsh be %{_sysconfdir}/smrsh ?
- should /var/spool be %{_localstatedir}/spool ?
- files are installed to macro-ised directories in %install but the %files
list has hardcoded directory names like /usr/bin
* timestamps - I suggest trying to preserve all timestamps in upstream files
that get packaged
* scripted edits are done in %install using a mixture of perl and sed scripts,
though they're all just straightforward search and replace changes. Best to
just use sed for that.
* the alternatives call in %post assumes that manpages are compressed using
gzip, and will fail if for
[Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
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: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 07:06 EST --- Note: I don't understand how to use this at all!! * Parallel provides v.s. Requirement - Well, generally I don't know how other people try to resolve this. Main package requires one -database-driver package and there are 3 package which provides this package (BTW dbmail-database-driver-driver on -mysql package is a typo, isn't it?). Then: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# yum install dbmail Loading installonlyn plugin Setting up Install Process Setting up repositories Reading repository metadata in from local files Parsing package install arguments Resolving Dependencies snip Dependencies Resolved = Package Arch Version RepositorySize = Installing: dbmail i386 2.2.2-7.1.fc7LOCAL 325 k Installing for dependencies: dbmail-mysqli386 2.2.2-7.1.fc7LOCAL 16 k mysql-serveri386 5.0.33-1.fc7 development10 M Transaction Summary = Install 3 Package(s) Update 0 Package(s) Remove 0 Package(s) --- i.e. yum install dbmail always try to install dbmail-mysql because on using yum the shorter name package, and the alphabetically prior package (if name length is same) wins yum game. Well, for people who want to use postgresql-based dbmail, he/she can do this by explicitly directing -pgsql package, i.e. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# yum install dbmail dbmail-pgsql Loading installonlyn plugin Setting up Install Process Setting up repositories Reading repository metadata in from local files Parsing package install arguments Resolving Dependencies snip Dependencies Resolved = Package Arch Version RepositorySize = Installing: dbmail i386 2.2.2-7.1.fc7LOCAL 325 k dbmail-pgsqli386 2.2.2-7.1.fc7LOCAL 16 k Installing for dependencies: postgresql-server i386 8.2.3-2.fc7 development 4.1 M Transaction Summary = Install 3 Package(s) Update 0 Package(s) Remove 0 Package(s) --- Anyway main package requires -pgsql or -mysql or -sqlite package and I think this must explicitly selected by the sysadmin who want to use this. So: I think it is better that * -pgsql or -mysql or -sqlite package does not provide -database-driver package * main package does not require -database-driver package If do so, yum install dbmail only installs dbmail package * You write README.fedora which explains that to use dbmail on Fedora sysadmin has to install -pgsql or -mysql or -sqlite package by himself according to what database he wants to use. I think this is no problem because dbmail cannot be used only by just installing your binary rpms and needs some settings anyway. For two packages I reviewed, this situation occurred, and in both cases submitters added README.fedora to explain this. * Permission --- E: dbmail non-readable /etc/dbmail.conf 0660 --- - Just explain why * others should not able to read this file * and group should have write permission * Documentation - README.solaris should perhaps be removed (because we are not on solaris). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228243] Review Request: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 07:18 EST --- Packages for devel, FC-5 and FC-6 have been built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[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 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 07:25 EST --- That's not review as in guidelines, I'm waiting with fix for whole 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 225302] Merge Review: automake
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: automake https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225302 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 07:43 EST --- fixed in automake-1.10-4 -- 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 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top
command
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 08:08 EST ---
Well, for 0.2.20060218cvs:
* cvs custom
- Well, it is a custom when using CVS source to do
in %prep stage:
find . -name CVS | sort -r | xargs rm -rf
to avoid cvs stuff accidentally installed.
* BuildRequires:
- On FC-devel, tcp_wrapper-devel is already out
(anyway tcp_wrapper-devel is required by net-snmp-devel
so this is redundant. However, it is not bad to write
explicitly tcp_wrapper-devel BuildRequires because
configure explicitly requires this for one of the
options). You may write
%if 0%{?fedora} = 7
Requires: tcp_wrappers-devel
%else
Requires: tcp_wrappers
%endif
- BR: glib2-devel is redundant. gdome2-devel requires it.
* Documentation-seeming files
- By the way, are the files under /usr/share/ntop/html always
required by this package?
Well, I tested Ctrl-C interrupt for about 30 times, and this
time segv didn't occur.
I want to approve this package after the issues above are
resolved and after I check some other issues (which takes some
time to be checked).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 08:25 EST --- Well, * License - A issue is found. * html/domLib.js html/domTT.js - Apache License, Version 2.0, incompatible with GPL (according to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 09:11 EST --- (In reply to comment #15) Note: I don't understand how to use this at all!! * Parallel provides v.s. Requirement - Well, generally I don't know how other people try to resolve this. Let me tell you what little I know and maybe we can figure it out enough to make a usable package :) Main package requires one -database-driver package and there are 3 package which provides this package Yes, in order to be functional, at least one of them must be installed. (BTW dbmail-database-driver-driver on -mysql package is a typo, isn't it?). Then: yes! i.e. yum install dbmail always try to install dbmail-mysql because on using yum the shorter name package, and the alphabetically prior package (if name length is same) wins yum game. Yes, there's a big discussion on FE mailing list regarding this very issue. Take for example, yum deplist redhat-lsb: cut dependency: /usr/sbin/sendmail provider: sendmail.i386 8.13.8-2 provider: postfix.i386 2:2.3.3-2 provider: esmtp.i386 0.5.1-13.fc6 provider: exim.i386 4.63-5.fc6 provider: ssmtp.i386 2.61-10.fc6 provider: ssmtp.i386 2.61-11.1.fc6 cut So now the Core and Extras are the same, guess what gets installed to replace sendmail by providing a dependency for /usr/sbin/sendmail..? EXIM! Now, I don't agree with changing sendmail by sheer chance, but other seem to think it's ok. But no one is suggesting taking the dependency out and having a sysadmin install whichever mta they want by hand. Well, for people who want to use postgresql-based dbmail, he/she can do this by explicitly directing -pgsql package, i.e. Exactly. Anyway main package requires -pgsql or -mysql or -sqlite package and I think this must explicitly selected by the sysadmin who want to use this. Yes, and here is where my example with sendmail is different. With sendmail, no matter which mta gets installed, it's expected that it will accept mail locally and attampt to deliver it - ie. it's functional out of the box. Dbmail can never be that because it requires a) database backend selection and b) configuration file setup, and c) database installation. These are not trivial things to do, and if you understand that, then package selection will not be a problem for you. However, I do see one added benefit of the requires/provides - and that is if you try to install just dbmail, it will force a driver to install, which may wake up a sysadmin to realize oh, i have to select the driver for the database. Otherwise, if you just install dbmail and set the driver in the config file, when you start you just get a message like /usr/lib/dbmail/libfoo.so was not found and it dies, which doesn't tell you much. But then again, on the other hand it's possible to set the driver to mysql when pgsql is installed and get the same type message. shrug So: I think it is better that * -pgsql or -mysql or -sqlite package does not provide -database-driver package * main package does not require -database-driver package If do so, yum install dbmail only installs dbmail package So after reading my explanation if you still feel this is the right way, I'll go ahead and make that update. I don't feel strongly one way or another, I'm just trying to make sure we understand the consequences of either approach. * You write README.fedora which explains that to use dbmail on Fedora sysadmin has to install -pgsql or -mysql or -sqlite package by himself according to what database he wants to use. I think this is no problem because dbmail cannot be used only by just installing your binary rpms and needs some settings anyway. For two packages I reviewed, this situation occurred, and in both cases submitters added README.fedora to explain this. This is a good idea reagardless of the approach. I'll do that. * Permission --- E: dbmail non-readable /etc/dbmail.conf 0660 --- - Just explain why * others should not able to read this file * and group should have write permission it must be unreadable to others because it contains the database password and login, however it can be 640 or even 600 (it's owner=root, group=root). * Documentation - README.solaris should perhaps be removed (because we are not on solaris). I will remove that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the
[Bug 226800] Review Request: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 09:13 EST --- One new little annoyance... # rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/emacs-bbdb-2.35-3.noarch.rpm W: emacs-bbdb no-version-in-last-changelog I'll go through the full review list on your next update, but I don't believe I can approve this until you've been sponsored for Fedora Extras. I've blocked this bugzilla on FE-NEEDSPONSOR 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 227230] Review Request: emacs-bbdb - contact management utility for Emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: emacs-bbdb - contact management utility for Emacs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227230 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 09:16 EST --- This was already submitted for review. See bugzilla 226800. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 226800 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226800] Review Request: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 09:16 EST --- *** Bug 227230 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 09:16 EST --- (In reply to comment #16) * Permission --- E: dbmail non-readable /etc/dbmail.conf 0660 --- - Just explain why * others should not able to read this file * and group should have write permission it must be unreadable to others because it contains the database password and login, however it can be 640 or even 600 (it's owner=root, group=root). I'm just going to make it 0600 in the next rel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225750] Merge Review: file
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: file https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225750 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||om) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 09:20 EST --- That should be fixed now. Current version is file-4.19-4.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 225300] Merge Review: automake16
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: automake16 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225300 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 09:25 EST --- please check automake16-1.6.3-9 or later as it has fixes for the most common review issues. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229342] New: Review Request: nfs4-acl-tools - ACL utilities for NFSv4
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=229342 Summary: Review Request: nfs4-acl-tools - ACL utilities for NFSv4 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/steved/nfs4-acl-tools/nfs4-acl-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/steved/nfs4-acl-tools/nfs4-acl-tools-0.2.0-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: This package contains commandline and GUI ACL utilities for the Linux NFSv4 client. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229342] Review Request: nfs4-acl-tools - ACL utilities for NFSv4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nfs4-acl-tools - ACL utilities for NFSv4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229342 [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 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 Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||m) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 09:49 EST --- I use rpmlint and fix what I can. I can't change it in src.rpm wrong sources permission. rpmlint at-3.1.10-8.fc7.src.rpm W: at strange-permission atd.init 0775 W: at strange-permission test.pl 0755 In package are strange permission. I think they are ok, because at have special permission for using lock files, pam etc. rpmlint i386/at-3.1.10-8.fc7.i386.rpm E: at non-readable /etc/pam.d/atd 0640 E: at non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/at/spool 0700 E: at non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/at 0700 E: at non-readable /etc/at.deny 0600 W: at hidden-file-or-dir /var/spool/at/.SEQ E: at non-readable /var/spool/at/.SEQ 0600 E: at setuid-binary /usr/bin/at root 04755 E: at non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/at 04755 W: at dangerous-command-in-%post chown W: at service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/atd Should be fixed anything else? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227108] Review Request: plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.b4.3jpp - Plexus XML RPC Component
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.b4.3jpp - Plexus XML RPC Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2007-02-20 10:15 EST --- Now, things are getting interesting ... ATM, *-7.src.rpm doesn't fail in an fc6-mock, but it fails in a normal user environment ... confused/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 10:17 EST --- Well, then if you want to have 3 packages provide -database-driver package, then * Please write README.fedora including the following contents: - main package requires a package which provides -database-driver package - currently 3 package provide it. - sysadmin has to select which package to install according to what database he/she want to use - and anyway another settings are required (and the place where the instruction can be seen should be written) * Add to the description of main package like: Please README.fedora for fedora specific issue -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 10:18 EST --- One more comment - Please include your name in README.fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229250] Review Request: koji - Build system tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: koji - Build system tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229250 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 10:18 EST --- http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/koji/koji-0.9.5-7.src.rpm - Move web files from /var/www to /usr/share - Use -p in install calls - Add rpm-python to requires for koji (note, this isn't pushed to master git yet, I need to review these changes with the other developers before pushing) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-02-20 10:21 EST --- /me suspects some jade config clashes caused by updates -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226494] Merge Review: tk
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: tk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226494 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 10:23 EST --- W: tk dangerous-command-in-%pre rm It should remove old directory before installation, if exists. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227095] Review Request: plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Plexus Application Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Plexus Application Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227095 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 10:32 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) Thanks for the review! No problem, sorry it sat so long w/o any attention. On buildroots we recently voted against that buildroot and currently I'm trying to get the mandatory insanity of the guidelines, so let's keep it open for now, I hope for the best ;) Hm... Talked to some FESCo folks, they say that the buildroot specified in the guidelines was accepted by FESCo via a vote at FUDCon as the standard for now, but with work that needs doing at the rpm level to properly address concerns. So for the moment, I'm told that it does have to be as specified... Who voted against it? On the license: There is a COPYING file that explicitely states GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 And the README says libcdaudio is distributed under the GNU Library General Public License, included in this package under the top level source directory in the file COPYING. I saw that the actual license file says v2, but that's the case with almost every GPL-licensed bits these days. My understanding from the FESCo folks I was talking to is that unless the author says v2 is explicitly required, to just keep the license field general, specifying just GPL. Personally, I don't really care either way, just trying to follow the letter of the law, so to speak. (Though I like GPLv2 better than GPL2.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 10:34 EST --- (In reply to comment #45) find . -name CVS | sort -r | xargs rm -rf Forgot to put this back in when I switched back to CVS version. next rel. * BuildRequires: - On FC-devel, tcp_wrapper-devel is already out fixed next rel. - BR: glib2-devel is redundant. gdome2-devel requires it. fixed next rel. * Documentation-seeming files - By the way, are the files under /usr/share/ntop/html always required by this package? yes, they are used by the web server Well, I tested Ctrl-C interrupt for about 30 times, and this time segv didn't occur. good! I want to approve this package after the issues above are resolved and after I check some other issues (which takes some time to be checked). I need to go back through it again as well and make sure some of the odd things I was seeing are no longer happending. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 10:37 EST --- (In reply to comment #46) Well, * License - A issue is found. * html/domLib.js html/domTT.js - Apache License, Version 2.0, incompatible with GPL (according to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html) I'm looking into this. I was just about to contact the author, but it appears that these files are not actively used (ie. they are loaded into the html pages, but no functionality is used). If that is true, I'll see if I can patch them 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 226186] Merge Review: ncpfs
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: ncpfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226186 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 10:41 EST --- Thanks. http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/WarrenTogami/ReviewWithFlags says it should be assigned to me, so let's see what happens ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227102] Review Request: plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp - Plexus I18N Component
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp - Plexus I18N Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227102 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 10:41 EST --- NO * rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there -- $ rpmlint plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp.1.src.rpm W: plexus-i18n mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 69) (minor warnings, should be ok) That's strange. When I run rpmlint on plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp.1.src.rpm, I don't get this warning. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228591] Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user 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: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228591 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 10:42 EST --- Forgot to mention that I didn't replaced the old spec but corrected it according to your suggestions. The reason is that I want to learn from my mistakes and don't want you to do my work ;) rpmlint has no errors at all on this new version on the src.rpm, the rpm or the debug-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 227027] Review Request: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227027 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 10:48 EST --- We found a work around for this dependency, I'm leaving this opened until we have maven2 built successfully, just to make sure we haven't miss anything. Once we have maven2 built, I will update and close it accordingly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 10:50 EST --- Let me offer some comments on the rpmlint output. W: at strange-permission atd.init 0775 W: at strange-permission test.pl 0755 Generally these aren't worth bothering with, but having a file group writable in your checkout could be problematic. I don't see that, but I think my umask doesn't allow it. Someone should try to understand where this is coming from. E: at non-readable /etc/pam.d/atd 0640 I think this is OK, albeit different from what most other packages do. (They use 0644). E: at non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/at/spool 0700 E: at non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/at 0700 E: at non-readable /etc/at.deny 0600 E: at non-readable /var/spool/at/.SEQ 0600 These are necessitated by security. W: at hidden-file-or-dir /var/spool/at/.SEQ That's just the file that at uses; it's OK for it to be hidden. E: at setuid-binary /usr/bin/at root 04755 E: at non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/at 04755 These are necessary. W: at dangerous-command-in-%post chown I'm not really sure why these are here as opposed to just being part of %files. Perhaps rpm would keep creating .SEQ.rpmnew files endlessly otherwise? If so then I think it's OK. W: at service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/atd It's allowable for a service to be on by default, especially in the case of a daemon that everyone expects to be 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 227102] Review Request: plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp - Plexus I18N Component
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp - Plexus I18N Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227102 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 10:55 EST --- Maybe it's different versions of rpmlint... here's what I'm using, for reference: $ rpmlint --version rpmlint version 0.79 Copyright (C) 1999-2006 Frederic Lepied, Mandriva and am still getting the warnings above on the updated SRPM: $ ls -alF plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp.1.src.rpm ; rpmlint plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp.1.src.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 nsantos nsantos 16437 Feb 20 10:48 plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp.1.src.rpm W: plexus-i18n non-standard-group Development/Java W: plexus-i18n mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 69) In any case, since the warnings are minor and you're not seeing them, I'm marking as 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 227102] Review Request: plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp - Plexus I18N Component
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp - Plexus I18N Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227102 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226188] Merge Review: ncurses
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: ncurses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226188 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 11:05 EST --- Thanks for the review. But I will stay with MIT license for now. There is only one package in Extras that has License: X11, and many have MIT. If you think this should be changed, please bring it up to the fedora list. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226188] Merge Review: ncurses
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: ncurses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226188 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 11:17 EST --- MIT isn't so much incorrect as it is ambiguous, but I can't fault you with wanting to stick with what other packages are using. We'll clear this up once and for all when we get down to the big license cleanup, perhaps in a few months. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218342] Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218342 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 11:19 EST --- Spec URL: http://manta.univ.gda.pl/~mgarski/fe/fonts-tibetan-dzongkha.spec SRPM URL: http://manta.univ.gda.pl/~mgarski/fe/fonts-tibetan-dzongkha-0.0.20070220-1.src.rpm - Package rename Is fonts-tibetan-dzongkha also too long? I'm also outsider, but I would like to have dzongkha in name because fonts-tibetan could be confusing, like is this fonts are for Tibetan language or Tibetan script. What's your opinion? - Add Jomolhari font - Extend description section P.S Maybe fonts-tibetan-script is the right solution? :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226573] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drivers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xorg-x11-drivers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226573 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 11:19 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) i would like to see #199381 fixed with this also Do we even have those packaged yet? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229250] Review Request: koji - Build system tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: koji - Build system tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229250 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 11:30 EST --- Well, * License * www/static/js/jsolait/lib/iter.js - says this is GPL * Documentation * Add Authors COPYING LGPL to main package. Especially, including copyright document is rather mandatory (however copyright must be clarified) * Source * Where is the source? BTW during -6 and -7, source tarball seem to be silently changed without their version number unchanged... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 223588] Review Request: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223588 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 11:33 EST --- My apologies, I am currently hung up on the Identify Yourself as the Owner of the Package. It seems that CVSAdminProcedure is different now than it was 2 weeks ago when I went out of town for a conference. At the time, I had to modify some wiki page to get the cvs directories built. Now I cannot find that wiki and this seems to be the first time I have seen the CVSAdminProcedure, which I did not do. Nevertheless, the cvs directories were created, and I have just imported the package, but I don't seem to have requested FC5 and FC6 branches. Is this something I need to do as a comment here? Or are FC5 and FC6 not applicable for development libraries? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226448] Merge Review: sysklogd
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: sysklogd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226448 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 11:38 EST --- fixed in sysklogd-1.4.1-47.fc7 2) I don't know, but upstream doesn't seem to be alive. 3) I think no. I didn't find many Require: logrotate in spec files of packages, which rotate its files. 4e) I have renamed logrotate.d/syslog but not going to do the same for init.t/syslog. I'm worry it could make more problems. 5) What dist tag do you mean? 6) I'm not going to fix any of these. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229322] Review Request: pgpool-ha : Pgpool-HA uses heartbeat to keep pgpool from being a single point of failure
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pgpool-ha : Pgpool-HA uses heartbeat to keep pgpool from being a single point of failure https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229322 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: pgpool-II : |Review Request: pgpool-ha : |Pgpool-HA uses heartbeat to |Pgpool-HA uses heartbeat to |keep pgpool from being a|keep pgpool from being a |single point of failure |single point of failure -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225656] Merge Review: cpio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: cpio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225656 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 11:51 EST --- fixed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226448] Merge Review: sysklogd
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: sysklogd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226448 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 11:53 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) fixed in sysklogd-1.4.1-47.fc7 3) I think no. I didn't find many Require: logrotate in spec files of packages, which rotate its files. In the syslog-ng.spec there is a requirement for logrotate: syslog-ng installs a file in the /etc/logrotate.d directory which is owned by the logrotate package. $ rpm -qf /etc/logrotate.d/ logrotate-3.7.4-12.fc6 4e) I have renamed logrotate.d/syslog but not going to do the same for init.t/syslog. I'm worry it could make more problems. The rename broke the usage of syslog-ng as a sysklogd replacement. Syslog-ng needs to ship the same file as sysklogd (same MD5 digest to avoid file conflicts): logrotate doesn't like that two different configuration scripts rotate the same log files. jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229319] Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229319 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226448] Merge Review: sysklogd
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: sysklogd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226448 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 12:01 EST --- Another improvement would be to preserve the files timestamps during installation, i.e., use install -p . jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225301] Merge Review: automake17
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: automake17 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225301 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 12:04 EST --- automake17-1.7.9-8 has quite a few fixes, although self checks are currently disabled. I need to look at some failures when I have spare time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229319] Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229319 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 12:07 EST --- Created an attachment (id=148425) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148425action=view) screenshot -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229319] Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229319
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 12:09 EST ---
First thing (kde thing), dekorator is useless _without_ the
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/kde3/*.la
see screenshot
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229243] Review Request: compat-wxGTK26 - wxWidgets/GTK2 2.6.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: compat-wxGTK26 - wxWidgets/GTK2 2.6.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229243 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 12:10 EST --- rpmlint for compat-wxGTK26: W: compat-wxGTK26 invalid-license wxWidgets Library Licence - ok, this is commented in the spec E: compat-wxGTK26 obsolete-not-provided wxGTK E: compat-wxGTK26 obsolete-not-provided wxGTK-gl - ? rpmlint for compat-wxGTK26-devel: W: compat-wxGTK26-devel invalid-license wxWidgets Library Licence - ok E: compat-wxGTK26-devel obsolete-not-provided wxGTK-devel - ? E: compat-wxGTK26-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib - annoying but irrelevant error W: compat-wxGTK26-devel no-documentation W: compat-wxGTK26-devel symlink-should-be-relative /usr/bin/wx-2.6-config /usr/lib/wx/config/gtk2-unicode-release-2.6 - this should be fixed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 12:20 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/dbmail.spec SRPM URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/dbmail-2.2.2-8.fc6.src.rpm * Tue Feb 20 2007 Bernard Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.2.2-8 - change /etc/dbmail.conf to mode 0600 - remove README.solaris, create README.fedora - add ref to README.fedora in %%desc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229243] Review Request: compat-wxGTK26 - wxWidgets/GTK2 2.6.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: compat-wxGTK26 - wxWidgets/GTK2 2.6.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229243 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 12:25 EST --- E: compat-wxGTK26 obsolete-not-provided wxGTK E: compat-wxGTK26 obsolete-not-provided wxGTK-gl E: compat-wxGTK26-devel obsolete-not-provided wxGTK-devel This is normal for compat-* packages. We create a new package namespace, which shall be separate from the wxGTK = 2.8 packages, also with regard to how RPM handles upgrades of virtual packages. W: compat-wxGTK26-devel symlink-should-be-relative /usr/bin/wx-2.6-config /usr/lib/wx/config/gtk2-unicode-release-2.6 Will fix. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226704] Review Request: iasl - Intel acpi compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: iasl - Intel acpi compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226704 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 12:31 EST --- rpmlint: E: iasl description-line-too-long iasl compiles ASL (ACPI Source Language) into AML (ACPI Machine Language), which - reformat to use less than 70 chars, I guess W: iasl invalid-license Intel Software License Agreement W: iasl spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/iasl.1.gz - chmod 0644 I would also package the other utilities if possible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229319] Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229319 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 12:32 EST --- Strange... I actually packaged those at first, then removed them, and everything was working..? Probably didn't unload the old module in time. Ah well, reverting, thanks for the catch! :-) New build: Spec URL: http://www.snoekie.com/rpm/dekorator.spec SRPM URL: http://www.snoekie.com/rpm/dekorator-0.3-2.src.rpm Changes: - Added required libtool archives again -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227873] Review Request: sear-media - media files for the sear game client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: sear-media - media files for the sear game client
Alias: sear-media
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227873
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 12:43 EST ---
REVIEW CHECKLIST
- rpmlint output
W: sear-media hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/sear/sear-media-0.6/castle/.dot_it.sh.swp
Looks like this file can safely be removed.
- package named according to package naming guidelines
- spec file name matches %{name}
- package meets packaging guidelines
- licensed with open source compatible license
X license tag matches actual license
- license file included in %doc
- spec written in American english
- spec file legible
- sources match upstream
c136577e5ca64dd39a91d47c0c4c2ba6 sear-media-20070206.tar.gz
- package successfully compiles and builds on FC-6 x86_64
- all build dependencies listed in BR
- no locales
- no shared libraries
- package is not relocatable
X package does not own all directories it creates
- no duplicates in %files
- file permissions set properly
- package contains proper %clean
- macro usage consistent
- package contains permissible content
- no large documentation
- files in %doc do not affect runtime
- no header files or static libraries
- no pkgconfig files
- no library files with suffix
- no need for devel subpackage
- no libtool archives
- not a GUI application
- does not own files or directories owned by other packages
MUST FIX
- Remove .swp file found by rpmlint
- LICENSING.txt is confusing. First it says the artwork is GPL, but then goes
on to say that the actual license is modifable under the GFDL, and then they
list sections of documentation which are clearly broilerplate sections in an
unmodified license file, for example Sections being LIST THEIR TITLES, and
modify this document when the document itself is a license file. I guess this
needs to be clarified with upstream? It seems they do not really care. I guess
I also have to ask why you license this as just GPL instead of GPL/GFDL.
- the package creates a directory sear under /usr/share which it does not own,
nor does it pull in any packages which own this directory in Requries.
- README and COPYING.txt probably dont need to be included twice in the file
list, LICENSING.txt explicitly mentions files under this directory so I guess
this has to be in both locations, however the license *is* modifyable under the
GFDL... ;-)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181997] Review Request: gpc - The GNU Pascal compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gpc - The GNU Pascal compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 12:47 EST --- Is gpc still developed or even maintained? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190045] Review Request: caps - A set of audio plugins for LADSPA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: caps - A set of audio plugins for LADSPA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190045 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 12:53 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) So should ladspa own /usr/lib/ladspa, ladspa does own /usr/lib/ladspa /usr/share/ladspa this should also be owned ladspa and liblrdf own /usr/share/ladspa/rdf? No, also to the ladspa package Maybe file a bug against ladspa, with a reference to this bug. This package could require those packages. The only weird thing is that apart from these directories, there are no other runtime dependencies on those things. I think it is not reasonable for ladspa-caps-plugins to require ladspa. True, it doesn't really depend on it, but gives a certain consistency. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181997] Review Request: gpc - The GNU Pascal compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gpc - The GNU Pascal compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181997 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 12:53 EST --- It is most definitely still developed. There is, in fact, gcc 4.1.1 support there now, which I need to look into. It's pretty much always going lag gcc development as long as it's not part of the mainstream compiler source, but it's not difficult to build it as a separate compiler that's not linked to the system's gcc version. The spec already handles 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 190045] Review Request: caps - A set of audio plugins for LADSPA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: caps - A set of audio plugins for LADSPA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190045 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 12:54 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) I think it is not reasonable for ladspa-caps-plugins to require ladspa. I meant of course: not unreasonable -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 13:09 EST --- One issue. * Source URL should be: http://www.dbmail.org/download/2.2/dbmail-2.2.2.tar.gz -- This package (dbmail) is APPROVED by me. -- Well, the process of importing new packages changed. Please recheck http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVSAdminProcedure from step 8. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 13:09 EST --- Oops.. I meant http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/NewPackageProcess -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226448] Merge Review: sysklogd
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: sysklogd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226448 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 13:09 EST --- thnx. Jose, all issues you metioned are fixed in sysklogd-1.4.1-48.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 180897] Review Request: heartbeat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: heartbeat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180897 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229291] Review Request: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229291 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229319] Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229319 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 13:23 EST --- Francois, you didn't happen to be using kde-redhat's packages? (: If so, our kdelibs/kdebase include experimental patches to remove the necessity of .la files for runtime use. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225301] Merge Review: automake17
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: automake17 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225301 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 13:32 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) automake17-1.7.9-8 has quite a few fixes, although self checks are currently disabled. I need to look at some failures when I have spare time. Frankly speaking, I would not apply any fixes, but ship a plain vanilla FSF automake. automake-1.7.x is dead for years and anybody still using it deserves to feel the pain. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226338] Merge Review: PyQt
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: PyQt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226338 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225963] Merge Review: kdelibs
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: kdelibs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225963 [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
