[Bug 237883] Review Request: perl-SGML-Parser-OpenSP - Perl interface to the OpenSP SGML and XML parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-SGML-Parser-OpenSP - Perl interface to the OpenSP SGML and XML parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237883 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 02:53 EST --- Imported and built, thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 233602] Review Request: pykdeextentions - A collection of python packages to support KDE applications
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: pykdeextentions - A collection of python packages to
support KDE applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233602
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 03:18 EST ---
Package name: PASS (pykdeextensions)
License: PASS (LGPL)
Spec Legible: PASS (en_US)
md5sum matches: NT
rpmlint clean:FAIL
Builds correctly: PASS (i386)
RPaths removed: FAIL
Spec has %clean: PASS
Macro use consistant: PASS
Contains code/content:PASS
-doc subpackage: NA
-devel subpackage:PASS
-static subpackage: NA
pkgconfig depend: NA
Contains %doc:PASS
Library suffix: NA
No .la files: NA
Use desktop-file-install: NA
No duplicate ownerships: PASS
rm -rf %{buildroot}: PASS
RPM uses valid UTF-8: PASS
%defattr is set: PASS
No duplicate %files: PASS
Not relocatable: PASS
Calls ldconfig: PASS
Supports Locales: NA
BR's are correct: NT
NA - Not Applicable
NT - Not Tested
rpmlint on build RPMS:
E: pykdeextensions non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/kdedistutils.py 0644
E: pykdeextensions non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/qtuicompiler.py 0644
E: pykdeextensions zero-length /usr/share/doc/pykdeextensions-0.4.0/NEWS
E: pykdeextensions binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/libpythonize.so.0.0.0
['/usr/lib']
E: pykdeextensions-devel non-executable-script
/usr/share/apps/pykdeextensions/app_templates/kdeapp/src/prefdialog.py 0644
rpmlint on SRPM:
W: pykdeextensions patch-not-applied Patch1: pykdeextensions-0.4.0-rpath.patch
Happy to ignore the patch-not-applied, NEWS could nearly be removed though.
Other notes:
rpm -qlp produced:
/usr/share/apps/pykdeextensions/app_templates/kdeapp/AUTHORS
/usr/share/apps/pykdeextensions/app_templates/kdeapp/COPYING
/usr/share/apps/pykdeextensions/app_templates/kdeapp/INSTALL
/usr/share/apps/pykdeextensions/app_templates/kdeapp/MANIFEST.in
/usr/share/apps/pykdeextensions/app_templates/kdeutility/AUTHORS
/usr/share/apps/pykdeextensions/app_templates/kdeutility/COPYING
/usr/share/apps/pykdeextensions/app_templates/kdeutility/INSTALL
/usr/share/apps/pykdeextensions/app_templates/kdeutility/MANIFEST.in
I assume the files are needed...
In summary: If you can fix the rpath and non-executable-script's I'll run I
final test in mock.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238367] Review Request: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated
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: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238367 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX OtherBugsDependingO||182235 nThis|| Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 04:30 EST --- Right, I know this may be the first reject in a while so I'm gonna split this into two parts, jargon and some rationale, BUT... although Autodownloader in principal is still okay, on extra consideration of the PackagingGuidelines and quick discussions with a couple of other contributors (including other Games SIG people) I don't feel comfortable setting the flag to +, in actual fact, per PackageReviewProcess (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageReviewProcess) I'm closing the bug as WONTFIX and setting fedora-review as - Just some quick rationale: * Although the data files can be freely downloaded, they cannot be freely distributed per the licensees email * The agreement to allow distribution via his site only was given in 1997, I believe that Copyright law gives content 50 years before released out of copyright (and even then there are ways of extending the claim) * While per the autodownloader review I'm happy with files been placed in the users directory but it's the fact that the game won't start without the user agreeing is in my opinion bad The next stage in my opinion is to take this up with fedora-devel/maintainers or even fedora-legal, maybe even FESCo in the end. I'd be happy to review once again if/when the bug gets reopened. If it's any consolation, I have fully checked the package and would have normally been happy to approve, but legal gets in the way. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238367] Review Request: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated
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: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238367 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 04:32 EST --- Oh, an addition to the rationale: The data would typically be okay under the binary firmware provision in the ReviewGuidelines, but the non-redistribute part of the author/distributors agreement is the gotcha. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 233455] Review Request: autodir - Creates user directories on demand
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: autodir - Creates user directories on demand https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233455 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 04:36 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: autodir Short Description: Creates user directories on demand Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: devel FC-6 FC-5 EL-4 EL-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 226725] Review Request: netgen - LVS netlist comparison tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: netgen - LVS netlist comparison tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226725
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 05:10 EST ---
(In reply to comment #25)
The build on x86_64 failed. I thought you tested it under x86_64?
http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-6-extras/33099-netgen-1.3.7-7.fc6/
I did test it on x86_64, but I am indeed the one to blame here. Yum installs
both tcl.i386 and tcl.x86_64, so when building the package, netgen would find
the i386 libraries. This, however, is not the case when building in mock. Then
only the x86_64 libs are installed. By adding --with=tcllibs=%{_libdir} and
--with-tklibs%{_libdir}, the package also builds in mock.
Sorry for my lack of attention to details, I hope my review skills will improve
over 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 238367] Review Request: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated
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: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238367 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 05:11 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) Right, I know this may be the first reject in a while so I'm gonna split this into two parts, jargon and some rationale, BUT... although Autodownloader in principal is still okay, on extra consideration of the PackagingGuidelines and quick discussions with a couple of other contributors (including other Games SIG people) I don't feel comfortable setting the flag to + It would have been nice if I was involved in these discussions. Are there any logs of them, any other reasons mentioned in the discussions not mentioned in comment #7 ? If I understand correctly this boils down too: * While per the autodownloader review I'm happy with files been placed in the users directory but it's the fact that the game won't start without the user agreeing is in my opinion bad The rest I agree with and is why autodownloader was written to begin with. So if I understand correctly the only real issue is, that the xu4 engine is not usable without any data files. Don't we ship players / libs for a gazillion other file formats too, I'm sure most of them are not usefull without actual data files, and that we do not ship data files in all supported formats. I fail to see the difference. For example we also ship libsidplay and the xmms-sid plugin, where as I'm sure we do not ship any .sid files. Both are useless without any .sid files still we ship them. Anyways I'll contact Spot about this, and then escalate as needed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238367] Review Request: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated
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: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238367 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 05:13 EST --- p.s. Also I have announced the idea of autodownloader a long time ago, and there wasn't any real objection (nor any real support), see this thread: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-August/msg00558.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 238367] Review Request: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated
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: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238367 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 05:34 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) (In reply to comment #7) Right, I know this may be the first reject in a while so I'm gonna split this into two parts, jargon and some rationale, BUT... although Autodownloader in principal is still okay, on extra consideration of the PackagingGuidelines and quick discussions with a couple of other contributors (including other Games SIG people) I don't feel comfortable setting the flag to + It would have been nice if I was involved in these discussions. Are there any logs of them, any other reasons mentioned in the discussions not mentioned in comment #7 ? The discussions were quick oh, by the way, whats your opinion on this compared with that (this been the review, that been the guidelines) otherwise. If I understand correctly this boils down too: * While per the autodownloader review I'm happy with files been placed in the users directory but it's the fact that the game won't start without the user agreeing is in my opinion bad The rest I agree with and is why autodownloader was written to begin with. So if I understand correctly the only real issue is, that the xu4 engine is not usable without any data files. Don't we ship players / libs for a gazillion other file formats too, I'm sure most of them are not usefull without actual data files, and that we do not ship data files in all supported formats. I fail to see the difference. For example we also ship libsidplay and the xmms-sid plugin, where as I'm sure we do not ship any .sid files. Both are useless without any .sid files still we ship them. I think you'd find the difference is that xu4 cannot START without the files, by all means you can start xmms with the -sid plugin, and you can sure build programs with libsidplay. Anyways I'll contact Spot about this, and then escalate as needed. As I've stated autodownloader is fine, it can even be used by independant packages, but we are talking about xu4 here, and the data files, do not meet the packaging guidelines, the game will not start/work at all without them. Until the guidelines are changed to suit this, or there is a consensus, OR someone from fedora-legal states that it's okay, I'm not changing position on this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221884] Review Request: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup tool)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221884 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 05:41 EST --- Thanks Bernard. Some of the issues raised with the spec file/installer have been addressed already and I'll make a note to see to the others for the next release. As for the desktop icon being file-roller, it's been that way since I started working on pybackpack. I'll see if I can get a more suitable icon drawn up, or find a stock backup icon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238367] Review Request: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated
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: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238367 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 05:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) I think you'd find the difference is that xu4 cannot START without the files, by all means you can start xmms with the -sid plugin, and you can sure build programs with libsidplay. well, you cannot start a cmdline sid player either without any sid files, still I'm sure that that would be fine, but this is pointeless, as said I've asked Spot who usually takes the decisions about thie kinda licensing related stuff. (Although there is no licensing problem here, as we are not distributing anything other then GPL code). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239525] Review Request: gammu - Command Line utility and Libraries to work with mobile phones
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: gammu - Command Line utility and Libraries to work with mobile phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239525 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 06:29 EST --- Ok so new SRPM gave me following rpmlint warnings which can be ignored as I saw some core packages are also allowing following rpmlint warnings W: gammu spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gammu-1.10.0/examples/ppp/startppp The file is installed with executable permissions, but was identified as one that probably should not be executable. Verify if the executable bits are desired, and remove if not. W: gammu spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gammu-1.10.0/examples/fax/faxsend The file is installed with executable permissions, but was identified as one that probably should not be executable. Verify if the executable bits are desired, and remove if not. W: gammu spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gammu-1.10.0/examples/fax/faxreceive The file is installed with executable permissions, but was identified as one that probably should not be executable. Verify if the executable bits are desired, and remove if not. W: gammu spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gammu-1.10.0/examples/ppp/gprs The file is installed with executable permissions, but was identified as one that probably should not be executable. Verify if the executable bits are desired, and remove if not. W: gammu spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gammu-1.10.0/examples/ppp/statsppp The file is installed with executable permissions, but was identified as one that probably should not be executable. Verify if the executable bits are desired, and remove if not. W: gammu spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gammu-1.10.0/examples/ppp/data The file is installed with executable permissions, but was identified as one that probably should not be executable. Verify if the executable bits are desired, and remove if not. W: gammu doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/gammu-1.10.0/examples/fax/faxreceive /bin/sh An included file marked as %doc creates a possible additional dependency in the package. Usually, this is not wanted and may be caused by eg. example scripts with executable bits set included in the package's documentation. W: gammu doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/gammu-1.10.0/examples/fax/faxsend /bin/sh An included file marked as %doc creates a possible additional dependency in the package. Usually, this is not wanted and may be caused by eg. example scripts with executable bits set included in the package's documentation. W: gammu doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/gammu-1.10.0/examples/ppp/data /bin/sh An included file marked as %doc creates a possible additional dependency in the package. Usually, this is not wanted and may be caused by eg. example scripts with executable bits set included in the package's documentation. W: gammu doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/gammu-1.10.0/examples/ppp/gprs /bin/sh An included file marked as %doc creates a possible additional dependency in the package. Usually, this is not wanted and may be caused by eg. example scripts with executable bits set included in the package's documentation. W: gammu doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/gammu-1.10.0/examples/ppp/startppp /bin/sh An included file marked as %doc creates a possible additional dependency in the package. Usually, this is not wanted and may be caused by eg. example scripts with executable bits set included in the package's documentation. W: gammu doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/gammu-1.10.0/examples/ppp/statsppp /bin/sh An included file marked as %doc creates a possible additional dependency in the package. Usually, this is not wanted and may be caused by eg. example scripts with executable bits set included in the package's documentation. But I think you should solve follwoing easily W: gammu mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 12) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. Ok so no problem for -libs subpackage. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239525] Review Request: gammu - Command Line utility and Libraries to work with mobile phones
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: gammu - Command Line utility and Libraries to work with mobile phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239525 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 07:05 EST --- ohh I saw above warnings for FC6 packages and they got removed in devel branch. So you also need to solve rpmlint warnings chmod 644 to docs/examples/ppp and docs/examples/fax -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239157] Review Request: perl-Net-Pcap - Interface to pcap LBL packet capture library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Net-Pcap - Interface to pcap LBL packet capture library Alias: perl-Net-Pcap https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239157 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 07:25 EST --- Contacted upstream. First, and just to be clear: I'm just the current maintainer of Net::Pcap, I didn't wrote most of the XS code so there may be some bugs and it may be hard for me to correct them as I barely speak XS. What I really did with Net::Pcap was to improve the documentation, rewrite a full test suite, and implement the recent libpcap features. The unexpected success is quite expected: the tests are marked as TODO because the results don't always correspond to what I expect (or strangely produce good results where I expected them not to). AFAICT, these small discrepancies are present since a very long time but only appear now because I wrote the code to fully test Net::Pcap. As nobody have ever shown up asking for this, this means that either no one has noticed or that no one is using Net::Pcap :-) To sum up, unless you have some copious spare time to spend chasing this bug, I'd suggest to simply ignore it for now. Don't hesitate to ask me if you have other questions or tell how I can ease your packaging work. Regards -- Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222888] Review Request: Tiquit - A PHP5-compatible help desk incident tracking/knowledgebase 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: Tiquit - A PHP5-compatible help desk incident tracking/knowledgebase system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222888 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 07:33 EST --- Imported and built. Thanks for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 233596] Review Request: python-Coherence - Python framework to participate in digital living networks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-Coherence - Python framework to participate in digital living networks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233596 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225575] Review Request: roundcubemail - Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP 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: roundcubemail - Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225575 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 08:15 EST --- Spec URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/extras/roundcubemail/roundcubemail.6.spec SRPM URL:http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/extras/roundcubemail/roundcubemail-0.1-0.1.beta2.2.src.rpm Fixed versioning. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228303] Review Request: python-tag - Python bindings for TagLib to read and write music files tags
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-tag - Python bindings for TagLib to read and write music files tags https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228303 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 08:22 EST --- No news from the author yet. I've looked around, and Debian has recently included the package, addding a copy of the BSD license to it. So I just did the same. Spec URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/python-tag/python-tag.spec SRPM URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/python-tag/python-tag-0.91-2.src.rpm * Thu May 10 2007 Matthias Saou http://freshrpms.net/ 0.91-2 - Include BSD license text, copied from the debian package (Debian #417372). - Include minor patch for upstream 0.92 backports. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225575] Review Request: roundcubemail - Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP 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: roundcubemail - Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225575 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 08:45 EST --- The translations are 8k a piece and there are 23 of them. Is there any point to not including them in the base package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232792] Review Request: mapserver - Environment for building spatially-enabled internet applications
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: mapserver - Environment for building spatially-enabled internet applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232792 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 08:56 EST --- http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/mapserver.spec http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/mapserver-4.10.2-1.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201502] Review Request: php-pear-PhpDocumentor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-PhpDocumentor Alias: phpDocumentor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201502 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 08:57 EST --- Yep, just waiting for the dust from the merge to settle. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232792] Review Request: mapserver - Environment for building spatially-enabled internet applications
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: mapserver - Environment for building spatially-enabled internet applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232792 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 08:58 EST --- - Solved all mentioned issue in the thread, except ruby build (that one need investigation). - New upstream release is just bugfix, it not affect way of packing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230262] Review Request: jss - Java Security Services (JSS)
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: jss - Java Security Services (JSS) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230262 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 09:38 EST --- As discussed we will ship an unsigned jar in Fedora. This is adequate for use in an SSL context but it will fail as a JCE provider. The license is the Mozilla tri-license. I used the same license string as the existing NSS and NSPR packages (MPL/GPL/LGPL) There is no tar file that I could find so I updated the spec to include instructions on pulling it from CVS. I also added some information on why the jar can't be signed. Spec URL: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/built/rpm_review/rcritten/jss.spec SRPM URL: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/built/rpm_review/rcritten/jss-4.2.4-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225575] Review Request: roundcubemail - Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP 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: roundcubemail - Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225575 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 09:46 EST --- Spec URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/extras/roundcubemail/roundcubemail.7.spec SRPM URL:http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/extras/roundcubemail/roundcubemail-0.1-0.2.beta2.2.src.rpm Added langpacks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232792] Review Request: mapserver - Environment for building spatially-enabled internet applications
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: mapserver - Environment for building spatially-enabled internet applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232792 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 09:50 EST --- Rebuild finished. I will check new rpms later. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237170] Review Request: repoman - Tool for configuring yum(8) settings and repositories
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: repoman - Tool for configuring yum(8) settings and repositories https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237170 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238367] Review Request: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated
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: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238367 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 09:54 EST --- Hmm, I've been thinking and reading about this some more, and can someone please tell me where in the guidelines it says that an oss program that requires some content to be usefull, may only be included when that content can be included too? The only thing close to this I can find is the shareware section of the guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9188d8409f09df3a87140acc70b20b5b2d6890b0 Notice that that says: In this case, the gamedata files can be packaged and included in Fedora, as long as the files meet the requirements for binary firmware. Notice the can be packaged, nowhere does it say that it must be packaged, or that opensource engines like doom, without content, are not permissable. If you think it says so, please quote the part where it does. The only other sections that comes close is emulators, and that doesn't apply here, as this is clearly as much an emulator as the doom engine is an emulator. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234826] Review Request: FlightGear - Flight Simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: FlightGear - Flight Simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234826 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 10:15 EST --- Yes. Back from vacation. FlightGear has been successfully build for FC-6 and devel. Thanks for the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238367] Review Request: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated
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: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated Alias: xu4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238367 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords||Reopened Resolution|WONTFIX | OtherBugsDependingO|182235 | nThis|| Alias||xu4 Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 10:18 EST --- 17:17:33 @ XulChris | so what is the case with u4? it has a binary blob that is freely available but non-distributable? 17:17:39 G | However, it is worth noting that some non-executable content exists that is required to make Open Source applications functional. An example of this would be open sourced game engines, such as Doom, Heretic, and Descent. These game engines come with freely distributable shareware gamedata files. 17:17:45 G | In this case, the gamedata files can be packaged and included in Fedora, as long as the files meet the requirements for binary firmware. 17:18:01 @ XulChris | right but the u4 data doesnt fall into that category AFAIK 17:18:21 G | problem here, it's not freely distributable it's freely avaliable if you get it from upstream 17:18:47 @ XulChris | ok yea 17:19:09 G | upstream for datafiles is also 10 years old 17:19:17 @ XulChris | so you cannot include the binary blob as a package, but i see no problem including a downloader to download it from upstream and installing it 17:19:17 G | so the chances of contacting them are slim i think 17:21:14 G | right, but god knows what section says that a package must be usable as is (i think) 17:25:04 @ XulChris | well, there is nothing illegal about distributing GPL software even if its unusable :) 17:25:42 @ XulChris | if origin systems wants to slap the dmca on redhat im sure they will just remove the package 17:26:12 fedorared | can you distribute a link to something you can't get anywhere else? I think so, but of course IANAL. 17:26:46 G | I'm gonna post to fedora-legal later tonight I think 17:26:58 G | is there a tracker bug for pack reviews forwarded to -legal? 17:27:30 @ XulChris | yes FE-LEGAL i believe, have to check Here is the log from the Games channel, notice that nobody actually said this shouldn't be packaged and I actually say there is nothing illegal about it. In my opinion, this package is perfectly fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238367] Review Request: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated
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: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated Alias: xu4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238367 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 10:39 EST --- oops, I actually didn't mean to reset the flags. My initial reaction was to just reset the flags and do the review myself, I forgot to change the flags back though. Since they have been changed, I guess I'll go ahead and re-assign it to me and do 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 238367] Review Request: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated
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: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated Alias: xu4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238367 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 10:42 EST --- MUST FIX - Add Requires: desktop-file-utils Everything else looks okay. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238367] Review Request: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated
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: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated Alias: xu4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238367 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 10:43 EST --- er that should be BuildRequires, but you know that ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238367] Review Request: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated
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: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated
Alias: xu4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238367
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 10:50 EST ---
SHOULD FIX
please also add a comment in spec why you use %{makeinstall}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238367] Review Request: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated
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: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated Alias: xu4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238367 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 10:58 EST --- You know, some time ago I would have objected to this package for precisely the reason that Nigel did, but then the decision was made to include Codec Buddy, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureCodecBuddy, which exists only to download non-free (but zero cost) content in precisely the same manner that autodownloader+xu4 does. So now I really don't know where the line should be drawn. I suppose if you actually had to go out and buy something in order to make xu4 useful then that would be unacceptable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239480] Review Request: penguin-command - Open source arcade game
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: penguin-command - Open source arcade game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239480 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 11:30 EST --- Thanks for review. Built for fc6 and fc7. Closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232792] Review Request: mapserver - Environment for building spatially-enabled internet applications
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: mapserver - Environment for building spatially-enabled
internet applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232792
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 11:40 EST ---
Well, for 4.10.2-1:
* Dependency for main package:
- Well, for unknown reason I didn't notice, however
none of 4 subpackages have no dependency for main
(mapserver) package. Please check if this is correct.
IMO at least perl/python/java binding subpackage should
have the release number dependent dependency for main
package (i.e. should have:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%[release}).
* Source
- The URL of the source returns not found. Maybe:
http://download.osgeo.org/mapserver/mapserver-4.10.2.tar.gz ?
* (minor) Macros
- /usr/sbin/ can be replaced with %{_sbindir} (preferred)
- And in the line mkdir -p %{buildroot}/etc/php.d
/etc should be %{_sysconfdir}
Other things are okay.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239184] Review Request: libdc1394 - High level API for IEEE 1394 based cameras
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: libdc1394 - High level API for IEEE 1394 based cameras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239184 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 11:41 EST --- Adding Jay to the Cc list. Upstream libdc1394 2.0 (soon to be released) supports the new firewire stack in rawhide. We should package the 2.0 version instead. But I'm guessing that there's an interest in having this working with libdc1394 1.x, but that should be possible too, we just have to backport the support from the 2.0 version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225522] Review Request: cinepaint - CinePaint is a tool for manipulating images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cinepaint - CinePaint is a tool for manipulating images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225522 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 11:43 EST --- Well, would you modify your spec/srpm? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232792] Review Request: mapserver - Environment for building spatially-enabled internet applications
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: mapserver - Environment for building spatially-enabled
internet applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232792
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 11:52 EST ---
(In reply to comment #19)
Well, for 4.10.2-1:
* Dependency for main package:
- Well, for unknown reason I didn't notice, however
none of 4 subpackages have no dependency for main
(mapserver) package. Please check if this is correct.
updated.
php one not require this, it embed everything inside that apache
module, so thats exception.
IMO at least perl/python/java binding subpackage should
have the release number dependent dependency for main
package (i.e. should have:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%[release}).
yes updated.
* Source
- The URL of the source returns not found. Maybe:
http://download.osgeo.org/mapserver/mapserver-4.10.2.tar.gz ?
umm, updated. (they changed truely)
* (minor) Macros
- /usr/sbin/ can be replaced with %{_sbindir} (preferred)
- And in the line mkdir -p %{buildroot}/etc/php.d
/etc should be %{_sysconfdir}
updated every places.
Other things are okay.
Thank you Tasaka !
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232792] Review Request: mapserver - Environment for building spatially-enabled internet applications
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: mapserver - Environment for building spatially-enabled internet applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232792 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 11:53 EST --- http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/mapserver.spec http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/mapserver-4.10.2-2.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232792] Review Request: mapserver - Environment for building spatially-enabled internet applications
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: mapserver - Environment for building spatially-enabled
internet applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232792
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 11:59 EST ---
Only checked by diff.
The last issue (minor) is the line:
--
%files
%defattr(-,root,root)
%doc README COMMITERS GD-COPYING HISTORY.TXT
%doc INSTALL MIGRATION_GUIDE.TXT
%doc rfc symbols tests
%doc fonts
%{_bindir}/shp2img
%{_bindir}/shptree
%{_bindir}/sortshp
%{_bindir}/tile4ms
/usr/sbin/mapserv - THIS LINE (please use macro)
Please fix in CVS. Other things are okay.
--
This package (mapserver) is APPROVED by me
--
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239184] Review Request: libdc1394 - High level API for IEEE 1394 based cameras
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: libdc1394 - High level API for IEEE 1394 based cameras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239184 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 12:00 EST --- Hi Kristian! As i known some projects that use libdc1394-1 aren't currently aware about -2 API. So indeed that would be fine to have a -1 release unless upstream can support -2 API... Asking to do so about videolan... Others projets may also be concerned... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232792] Review Request: mapserver - Environment for building spatially-enabled internet applications
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: mapserver - Environment for building spatially-enabled internet applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232792 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 12:04 EST --- http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/mapserver.spec http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/mapserver-4.10.2-3.fc7.src.rpm Minor todo for my list: - When pdflib is in fedora enable mapserver against it. - When ming is in fedora enable mapserver against it. - Fix and enable ruby also in future. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232792] Review Request: mapserver - Environment for building spatially-enabled internet applications
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: mapserver - Environment for building spatially-enabled internet applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232792 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||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 232792] Review Request: mapserver - Environment for building spatially-enabled internet applications
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: mapserver - Environment for building spatially-enabled internet applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232792 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 12:09 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mapserver Short Description: Environment for spatially-enabled internet applications Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-5 FC-6 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 236366] Review Request: clutter-gtk - basic GTK clutter widget
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: clutter-gtk - basic GTK clutter widget https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236366 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: clutter-gtk |Review Request: clutter-gtk |- basic GTK clutter widget |- basic GTK clutter widget Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 12:09 EST --- Perhaps this can be approved with some few fixes (if any) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221884] Review Request: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup tool)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221884 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 12:54 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) As for the desktop icon being file-roller, it's been that way since I started working on pybackpack. I'll see if I can get a more suitable icon drawn up, or find a stock backup icon. You already include pybackpack_logo.png. All you have to do is point the .desktop file to that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234355] Review Request: klear - graphical TV viewer with an integrated recording system for Linux
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: klear - graphical TV viewer with an integrated recording system for Linux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234355 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 13:03 EST --- Ping, Johan -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 236366] Review Request: clutter-gtk - basic GTK clutter widget
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: clutter-gtk - basic GTK clutter widget
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236366
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 13:14 EST ---
* Should/Must fix
! Suggestion or something else
? Question
For 0.1.0-1:
! Redundant dependencies (NOT A BLOCKER)
- gtk2-devel is required by clutter-devel (as clutter-devel
requires gdk-pixbuf-2.0.pc). So (Build)Requires: gtk2-devel
can be removed.
However for this package I don't force you to remove gtk2-devel
because clutter-gtk.pc explicitly requires gtk+-2.0.pc.
* File/directory ownership issue
- The following directories are already owned by other packages
and should not be owned by these packages.
/usr/include/clutter-0.2 owned by clutter-devel
* Documentation
- The following files should not be installed as documentation
INSTALL - this file is needed for people who want to install this
software by themselves and is not needed for rpm
management.
* Timestamps
- This package installs some files which are not built or modified
during rebuild (header file and documentation), and
keeping timestamps on these files is highly recommended.
For this package, please use the following:
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL=%{__install} -p
? License (NOT A BLOCKER)
- Well, actually COPYING file declares that this is licensed under
GPL, however all sources are licensed under LGPL and
license.html also says this is LGPL-licensed.
Would you ask which license is correct? (either is okay so
this is not a blocker)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238367] Review Request: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated
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: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated Alias: xu4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238367 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 13:23 EST --- (In reply to comment #19) You know, some time ago I would have objected to this package for precisely the reason that Nigel did, but then the decision was made to include Codec Buddy, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureCodecBuddy, which exists only to download non-free (but zero cost) content in precisely the same manner that autodownloader+xu4 does. So now I really don't know where the line should be drawn. I suppose if you actually had to go out and buy something in order to make xu4 useful then that would be unacceptable. Funny that you mention that, actually CodecBuddy is worse, and crosses a line which I would never cross with any use of autodownloader: 1) It downloads non-free code!, not content but code! 2) It only does that for mp3, for for example divx, it takes you to a place where you can buy non free codecs for this from fluendo. So to quote you: 'I suppose if you actually had to go out and buy something in order to make xu4 useful then that would be unacceptable' That actually happens with CodecBuddy! (AFAIK). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238367] Review Request: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated
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: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated Alias: xu4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238367 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 13:32 EST --- Sorry to interrupt. I have not read the previous discussion in detail, however my recognition is that the problem with this package is: * the package xu4 _itself_ has no license problem * to use xu4 actually, xu4 needs some data and one (who uses xu4) has to download the data from some URL * And the license of the data is in question Okay? If so, this is exactly the case of xtide package which I maintain and was reviewed by Patrice Dumas. If my recognition is correct, please check the comment by Patrice https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211626#c32 and what we actually did in /usr/share/doc/xtide-common-2.9.3/README.fedora (in xtide-common 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 238367] Review Request: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated
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: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated Alias: xu4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238367 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 13:42 EST --- (In reply to comment #21) Sorry to interrupt. I have not read the previous discussion in detail, however my recognition is that the problem with this package is: * the package xu4 _itself_ has no license problem * to use xu4 actually, xu4 needs some data and one (who uses xu4) has to download the data from some URL * And the license of the data is in question Correct, except that the license is not in question, it can be freely and legally downloaded, but may not be (re)distributed. Okay? If so, this is exactly the case of xtide package which I maintain and was reviewed by Patrice Dumas. If my recognition is correct, please check the comment by Patrice https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211626#c32 and what we actually did in /usr/share/doc/xtide-common-2.9.3/README.fedora (in xtide-common rpm). Correct, this is the same. Except I created a python gtk gui app todo the downloading, which will explain to the user that a download is necessary, why and asks his permission todo the actual download. You may want to check this package out. The autodownloader app used is configurable through a config file, so it may be of use (userfriendlier, works interactively even when launched from the menu) to the xtide case too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225575] Review Request: roundcubemail - Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP 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: roundcubemail - Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225575 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 13:46 EST --- (In reply to comment #47) I think the percent-in-%post is a false positive, but I'll look into it further. FYI, it is a false positive: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239611#c1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238367] Review Request: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated
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: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated Alias: xu4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238367 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 13:57 EST --- IN SHORT I see no problem with this package (xu4) judged from what I read in previous comments. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238367] Review Request: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated
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: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated Alias: xu4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238367 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 14:14 EST --- Hey, folks, I just ran this by FESCo and the general agreement is that everything's good here. There might have been issues if Hans hadn't done such a complete job with autodownloader; it's key for some folks that users are informed as to what they're downloading and given the option not to do anything. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237380] Review Request: ruby-gettext-package - Localization Library and Tools for Ruby
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: ruby-gettext-package - Localization Library and Tools
for Ruby
Alias: ruby-gettext-package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237380
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 14:32 EST ---
MUST Items:
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}
- MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license
and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- MUST: the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own
file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is
included in %doc.
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
- MUST: The spec file for the package is be legible.
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must matches the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL.
- MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least i386.
- MUST: All build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires.
- MUST: The spec file handles locales properly.
- MUST: If the package does not contain shared library files located in the
dynamic linker's default paths
- MUST: the package is not designed to be relocatable
- MUST: the package owns all directories that it creates.
- MUST: the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
- MUST: Permissions on files are set properly.
- MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content. This is described
in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: There are no Large documentation files
- MUST: %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If
it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
- MUST: There are no Header files or static libraries
- MUST: The package does not contain library files with a suffix
- MUST: Package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives
- MUST: Package containing GUI applications includes a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in
the %install section.
- MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
SHOULD Items:
- SHOULD: The source package does include license text(s) as COPYING
- SHOULD: mock builds successfully in i386.
- SHOULD: The reviewer tested that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
- SHOULD: No scriptlets were used, those scriptlets must be sane.
- SHOULD: No subpackages present.
APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226725] Review Request: netgen - LVS netlist comparison tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: netgen - LVS netlist comparison tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226725 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 14:34 EST --- (In reply to comment #26) Sorry for my lack of attention to details, I hope my review skills will improve over time! You have done a great review. Your contribution to Fedora Electronics' world is admirable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237380] Review Request: ruby-gettext-package - Localization Library and Tools for Ruby
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: ruby-gettext-package - Localization Library and Tools for Ruby Alias: ruby-gettext-package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237380 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237380] Review Request: ruby-gettext-package - Localization Library and Tools for Ruby
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: ruby-gettext-package - Localization Library and Tools for Ruby Alias: ruby-gettext-package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237380 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 14:36 EST --- Thank you!! Request for CVS admin: --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ruby-gettext-package Short Description:Localization Library and Tools for Ruby Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: devel FC-6 FC-5 InitialCC:(nobody) --- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 236366] Review Request: clutter-gtk - basic GTK clutter widget
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: clutter-gtk - basic GTK clutter widget https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236366 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 14:37 EST --- Update package: Spec URL: http://fedora.allisson.eti.br/clutter-gtk/clutter-gtk.spec SRPM URL: http://fedora.allisson.eti.br/clutter-gtk/clutter-gtk-0.1.0-2.src.rpm Changelog: - INSTALL removed from docs - fix make install for keeping timestamps - fix files section - changed license for LGPL -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 236366] Review Request: clutter-gtk - basic GTK clutter widget
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: clutter-gtk - basic GTK clutter widget
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236366
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 14:43 EST ---
For -2:
This time %{_includedir}/clutter-0.2/clutter-gtk/ is not owned
by any package and this directory should be owned by
-devel package.
Pleasse fix this (you can attach spec file) and I can approve
this package.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238367] Review Request: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated
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: xu4 - Ultima IV recreated Alias: xu4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238367 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 14:51 EST --- (In reply to comment #25) Hey, folks, I just ran this by FESCo and the general agreement is that everything's good here. There might have been issues if Hans hadn't done such a complete job with autodownloader; it's key for some folks that users are informed as to what they're downloading and given the option not to do anything. Thank you FESco! I'm also very happy with the positive words about autodownloader as that involved quite some work. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221884] Review Request: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup tool)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221884 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 14:55 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) You already include pybackpack_logo.png. All you have to do is point the .desktop file to that. I did consider that but I concluded that the icon doesn't scale down very well, it doesn't convey the function of the menu entry well enough (looks like a game about putting snakes in bags or something) and I'd rather do it well than kludge it. Could be just me being a perfectionist but there we go :) I've asked the pybackpack mailing list for their artistic ideas as my pybackpack time is better spent coding and fixing the more urgent bugs so I'll get a new icon one way or another. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237382] Review Request: alexandria - Book collection 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: alexandria - Book collection manager Alias: alexandria https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237382 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 14:57 EST --- fedora should not be used as vendor I haven't mock the package yet, however under F7: ... install alexandria-C.omf /usr/share/omf/alexandria /usr/bin/scrollkeeper-update Cannot write to log file: /var/log/scrollkeeper.log : Permission denied Cannot write to log file: /var/log/scrollkeeper.log : Permission denied Cannot write to log file: /var/log/scrollkeeper.log : Permission denied Cannot write to log file: /var/log/scrollkeeper.log : Permission denied Cannot write to log file: /var/log/scrollkeeper.log : Permission denied Cannot write to log file: /var/log/scrollkeeper.log : Permission denied Cannot write to log file: /var/log/scrollkeeper.log : Permission denied Cannot write to log file: /var/log/scrollkeeper.log : Permission denied Cannot write to log file: /var/log/scrollkeeper.log : Permission denied Cannot write to log file: /var/log/scrollkeeper.log : Permission denied Cannot write to log file: /var/log/scrollkeeper.log : Permission denied Cannot write to log file: /var/log/scrollkeeper.log : Permission denied ... W: alexandria non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/alexandria.schemas I think this rpmlint issue can be ignored considering the fact that other files under the /etc/gconf/schemas/ folder bears the same rpmlint issue. Any Gnomer to point out how or what should be done if not ignored. [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ rpm -qf /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-terminal.schemas gnome-terminal-2.18.0-1.fc7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ rpmlint gnome-terminal W: gnome-terminal non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-terminal.schemas [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ rpm -qf /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-power-manager.schemas gnome-power-manager-2.18.2-2.fc7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ rpmlint gnome-power-manager W: gnome-power-manager non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-power-manager.schemas Just for the sake of katapult, is it possible for you to ship a 128x128 icon as well so as alexandria's icon on katapult looks beautiful. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225010] Review Request: glob2 - An innovative RTS game
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: glob2 - An innovative RTS game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225010
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |
nThis||
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 15:05 EST ---
(In reply to comment #18)
Updated to 0.8.23
Spec URL: http://rafalzaq.nonlogic.org/fedora/glob2/glob2.spec
SRPM URL: http://rafalzaq.nonlogic.org/fedora/glob2/glob2-0.8.23-1.src.rpm
I have problems with campaign. First mission doesn't end. I'll ask upstream
what's going on.
Hmm,
I've just compared you're package with the mandrake package hosted on the
homepage, and I noticed that mandrake uses autoreconf -f -i, you could try
adding that to end of %prep instead of this hack:
%{__sed} -i '1871d' configure
touch -c -r aclocal.m4 configure configure.in
You can also try commenting %patch0, the mandrake srpm doesn't have any patches.
Maybe that will fix things. As said I would be happy to review this, but if it
doesn't work, its little good. If all else fails downgrade to .22 or .21
Some other initial review remarks:
Merge the -data package into the main, having a seperate data package when its
in the same srpm is of no use.
Move the icon from /usr/share/pixmaps to /usr/share/icons/hicolor/size/apps
and add iconcache update scripts.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 236162] Review Request: kadischi - Fedora based LiveCD/LiveDVD creation utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kadischi - Fedora based LiveCD/LiveDVD creation utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236162 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 15:06 EST --- Also about the %[alphatag}, I read that the tagging must not be overridden by local build specifications. This is also how it shows on the wiki to provide a package from CVS. what kind of local build specifications ? Actually, what is asked is to have the date hardcoded, because there is a difference between : * cvs checkout and * rpm build Thus with your 3.5-7.20070502cvs spec file, when I build the rpm it will entail the date of build but not the date of cvs checkout. Example : if I rpmbuild --rebuild kadischi-3.5-7.20070502cvs.fc6.src.rpm the output rpms will be: Wrote: /home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/kadischi-3.5-7.20070510cvs.fc7.i386.rpm Wrote: /home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/kadischi-debuginfo-3.5-7.20070510cvs.fc7.i386.rpm You can clearly see the difference over 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 236366] Review Request: clutter-gtk - basic GTK clutter widget
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: clutter-gtk - basic GTK clutter widget https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236366 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 15:20 EST --- Update package: Spec URL: http://fedora.allisson.eti.br/clutter-gtk/clutter-gtk.spec SRPM URL: http://fedora.allisson.eti.br/clutter-gtk/clutter-gtk-0.1.0-3.src.rpm Changelog: - fix devel files section -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 236366] Review Request: clutter-gtk - basic GTK clutter widget
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: clutter-gtk - basic GTK clutter widget https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236366 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 15:25 EST --- Okay!! --- This package (clutter-gtk) is APPROVED by me --- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221884] Review Request: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup tool)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221884 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 15:30 EST --- If you need a better icon feel free to use http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/DesignService -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238562] Review Request: machineball - A futuristic ball game with simple rules
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: machineball - A futuristic ball game with simple rules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238562
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 15:34 EST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
THINGS TO DO:
- add missing BR: mesa-libGLU-devel
Done
- add at least %{version} to Source0 tag
- upload proper source code file to srpm (current one has a wrong name)
Source0 url fixed and changed to use %{name} and %{version}. I started this
packaged based on a srpm send to me by someone who had read on my wikipage that
I was interested on this, he renamed the tarbal (and I didn't check).
The last issue forces change of versioning. Probably you can just replace -
with ., but if aby other (better) ideas are very welcome.
The fix is easy, the real version is 1.0, the added -1 in the src tarbal is
because upstream uses binary rpms as their primary distribution method, and they
don't know what the release field is for, so they add it to their source tarbals
too. I've seen this confused behaviour by other upstreams too, for example with
blobwars.
New version with all this fixed here:
Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/machineball.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/machineball-1.0-2.fc7.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 236366] Review Request: clutter-gtk - basic GTK clutter widget
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: clutter-gtk - basic GTK clutter widget https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236366 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 15:42 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: clutter-gtk Short Description: basic GTK clutter widget Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237382] Review Request: alexandria - Book collection 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: alexandria - Book collection manager Alias: alexandria https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237382 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 15:48 EST --- Thank you for initial comment. http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/alexandria.spec http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/alexandria-0.6.1-3.fc7.src.rpm * Fri May 11 2007 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.6.1-3 - This time completely disable scrollkeeper-update - Create 128x128 icon also (In reply to comment #2) fedora should not be used as vendor As far as I see on desktop-file-install usage section of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines, it still recommends to use fedora as vendor_id -- If upstream uses vendor_id, leave it intact, otherwise use fedora as vendor_id. --- install alexandria-C.omf /usr/share/omf/alexandria /usr/bin/scrollkeeper-update Cannot write to log file: /var/log/scrollkeeper.log : Permission denied Cannot write to log file: /var/log/scrollkeeper.log : Permission denied This time I nuked this message by creating symlink. W: alexandria non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/alexandria.schemas I think this rpmlint issue can be ignored considering the fact Actually we usually ignore this rpmlint for gconf schemas files. Just for the sake of katapult, is it possible for you to ship a 128x128 icon as well so as alexandria's icon on katapult looks beautiful. For now I just created 128x128 icon by ImageMagick convert because I could not find some larger icon in tarball or alexandria homepage. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232792] Review Request: mapserver - Environment for building spatially-enabled internet applications
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: mapserver - Environment for building spatially-enabled internet applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232792 [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 233455] Review Request: autodir - Creates user directories on demand
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: autodir - Creates user directories on demand https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233455 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 16:00 EST --- actually, CVS is screwing up right now, need to try this again later -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237813] Review Request: taxipilot - Game where you pilot a taxi in space
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: taxipilot - Game where you pilot a taxi in space https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237813 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 16:42 EST --- Imported and build, closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 236642] Review Request: Revisor - Revisor GUI
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: Revisor - Revisor GUI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236642 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 16:43 EST --- Spec: http://revisor.fedoraunity.org/releases/revisor-2.0/revisor-2.0.2.spec Tarball: http://revisor.fedoraunity.org/releases/revisor-2.0/revisor-2.0.2.tar.gz SRPM: http://revisor.fedoraunity.org/releases/revisor-2.0/revisor-2.0.2-1.fc7.src.rpm The only error I get with rpmlint is on the SRPM which still reports strange-permission (I don't know how to solve that) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235370] Review Request: php-pear-MDB2-Driver-pgsql - PostgreSQL driver for MDB2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-MDB2-Driver-pgsql - PostgreSQL driver for MDB2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235370 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 17:27 EST --- I have a few other PEAR packages that I can give the once over and post for review as well if it will help. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222598] Review Request: php-pecl-radius - Radius client library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pecl-radius - Radius client library Alias: php-pecl-radius https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222598 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 17:33 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: php-pecl-radius New Branches: EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239184] Review Request: libdc1394 - High level API for IEEE 1394 based cameras
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: libdc1394 - High level API for IEEE 1394 based cameras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239184 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 17:34 EST --- (In reply to comment #19) Adding Jay to the Cc list. Upstream libdc1394 2.0 (soon to be released) supports the new firewire stack in rawhide. We should package the 2.0 version instead. That might be a problem. A cursory look at the code reveals a patented algorithm, see bug 239043. I've blocked FE-Legal on that. But I'm guessing that there's an interest in having this working with libdc1394 1.x, but that should be possible too, we just have to backport the support from the 2.0 version. That would be best, yes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196749] Review Request: php-pecl-xdebug - PECL package for debugging PHP scripts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pecl-xdebug - PECL package for debugging PHP scripts Alias: php-pecl-xdebug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196749 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 17:34 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: php-pecl-xdebug New Branches: EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220862] Review Request: php-channel-phpunit - Add phpunit channel to pear
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-channel-phpunit - Add phpunit channel to pear Alias: channel-phpunit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220862 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 17:36 EST --- Okay enterprise linux stuff straightened out now :) Package Change Request == Package Name: php-channel-phpunit New Branches: EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238994] Review Request: memcached - High Performance, Distributed Memory Object Cache
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: memcached - High Performance, Distributed Memory Object Cache https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238994 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 17:36 EST --- Thanks Bernard! Suggestions incorporated into 1.2.2-3 http://www.inuus.com/memcached-1.2.2-3.src.rpm http://www.inuus.com/memcached.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 233782] Review Request: vegastrike - 3D OpenGL spaceflight simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vegastrike - 3D OpenGL spaceflight simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233782 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 233783] Review Request: vegastrike-data - Data files for Vega Strike
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: vegastrike-data - Data files for Vega Strike https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233783 Bug 233783 depends on bug 233782, which changed state. Bug 233782 Summary: Review Request: vegastrike - 3D OpenGL spaceflight simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233782 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235370] Review Request: php-pear-MDB2-Driver-pgsql - PostgreSQL driver for MDB2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-MDB2-Driver-pgsql - PostgreSQL driver for MDB2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235370 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 17:47 EST --- Yes, if you have other things you'd like to get included, please go ahead and submit them. It makes it much easier for us if we have several things to go over, even though packaging PEAR modules is mostly mechanical. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228186] Review Request: gsm - Shared libraries for GSM speech compressor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gsm - Shared libraries for GSM speech compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228186 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |201449 nThis|| Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 17:58 EST --- Closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206871] Review Request: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat 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: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206871 Bug 206871 depends on bug 228186, which changed state. Bug 228186 Summary: Review Request: gsm - Shared libraries for GSM speech compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228186 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NOTABUG Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239525] Review Request: gammu - Command Line utility and Libraries to work with mobile phones
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: gammu - Command Line utility and Libraries to work with mobile phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239525 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 18:26 EST --- Huh ? here is my rpmlint output (mock build) for devel branch: - [EMAIL PROTECTED] rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core/result/gammu-1.10.0-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: gammu spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gammu-1.10.0/examples/ppp/startppp W: gammu spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gammu-1.10.0/examples/fax/faxsend W: gammu spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gammu-1.10.0/examples/fax/faxreceive W: gammu spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gammu-1.10.0/examples/ppp/gprs W: gammu spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gammu-1.10.0/examples/ppp/statsppp W: gammu spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gammu-1.10.0/examples/ppp/data - The same from fc6. So you also need to solve rpmlint warnings chmod 644 to docs/examples/ppp and docs/examples/fax The files which're included in docs/examples/ppp and docs/examples/fax are (as i said above) examples script that the end-user or advanced user. see comment #5 for more details. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 172869] Review Request: nss-mdns
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: nss-mdns https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=172869 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 18:44 EST --- Lennart, do you want to take this over? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225575] Review Request: roundcubemail - Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP 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: roundcubemail - Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225575 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 20:07 EST --- Created an attachment (id=154507) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=154507action=view) a few more cleanups and fixes against comment #53 I'll start your official review shortly since things look pretty good at this point. Included is a patch with a few more cleanups to make things look nicer and a few corrections. You still need to write the README.fedora regarding the database availability and sqlite (already referenced it in my diff :). I believe you can now reduce your roundcubemail.conf file to this, as the other restrictions are not necessary now that those paths are not accessible in the web hierarchy: # # Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP client # Alias /roundcubemail /usr/share/roundcubemail Directory /usr/share/roundcubemail/ Order Deny,Allow Deny from all Allow from 127.0.0.1 /Directory -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239157] Review Request: perl-Net-Pcap - Interface to pcap LBL packet capture library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Net-Pcap - Interface to pcap LBL packet capture library Alias: perl-Net-Pcap https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239157 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 20:16 EST --- Works by me (though it would make me nervous if I were to be using this module...). Now we only have the remaining issues to address. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239279] Review Request: libssh2 - A library implementing the SSH2 protocol
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: libssh2 - A library implementing the SSH2 protocol Alias: libssh2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239279 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 20:25 EST --- The man pages look to be more along the lines of developer documentation. Would they be better off in the -devel subpackage? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230262] Review Request: jss - Java Security Services (JSS)
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: jss - Java Security Services (JSS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230262
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 21:04 EST ---
The comment in the spec file about the unsigned JAR should indicate that this
optional extra step is only required for proprietory JREs.
Walking down the checklist again:
Shouldn't this package run ldconfig, as it places a file in ${_libdir}?
If not (is this library only ever dlopen()ed?), perhaps this should be
documented in the spec file?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 236162] Review Request: kadischi - Fedora based LiveCD/LiveDVD creation utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kadischi - Fedora based LiveCD/LiveDVD creation utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236162 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 21:13 EST --- I'll fix the above issue in CVS. There is a more important issue however with this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kadischi/Documentation#head-df51ce5d2556a74228a37c021481b062363ba6ff Paul Jones has told me this is fine in the short term, compiling the twi binaries statically, but we need to find a long term solution. Do you have any ideas? I'm also talking this over with other Fedora Contributors. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239525] Review Request: gammu - Command Line utility and Libraries to work with mobile phones
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: gammu - Command Line utility and Libraries to work with mobile phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239525 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-10 21:33 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) Huh ? here is my rpmlint output (mock build) for devel branch: - [EMAIL PROTECTED] rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core/result/gammu-1.10.0-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: gammu spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gammu-1.10.0/examples/ppp/startppp W: gammu spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gammu-1.10.0/examples/fax/faxsend W: gammu spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gammu-1.10.0/examples/fax/faxreceive W: gammu spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gammu-1.10.0/examples/ppp/gprs W: gammu spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gammu-1.10.0/examples/ppp/statsppp W: gammu spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gammu-1.10.0/examples/ppp/data - The same from fc6. Strange you are not getting any rpmlint warning for doc-file-dependency? So you also need to solve rpmlint warnings chmod 644 to docs/examples/ppp and docs/examples/fax The files which're included in docs/examples/ppp and docs/examples/fax are (as i said above) examples script that the end-user or advanced user. see comment #5 for more details. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239761] New: Review Request: python-IPy - Python module for handling IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses and Networks
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=239761 Summary: Review Request: python-IPy - Python module for handling IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses and Networks Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://domsch.com/linux/fedora/extras/python-IPy/python-IPy.spec SRPM URL: http://domsch.com/linux/fedora/extras/python-IPy/python-IPy-0.53-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: IPy is a Python module for handling IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses and Networks in a fashion similar to perl's Net::IP and friends. The IP class allows a comfortable parsing and handling for most notations in use for IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses and Networks. Mirrormanager uses IPy for doing netblock math to return a site-local mirror. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 233424] Review Request: perl-mecab - Perl binding for MeCab
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-mecab - Perl binding for MeCab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233424 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-11 00:37 EST --- Rebuilding done. Thank you for reviewing this package. Closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
