[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] 2007-05-25 02:00 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: revisor Short Description: Fedora Spin Graphical User Interface Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: F-7 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 234749] Review Request: arm-gp2x-linux-binutils - Cross Compiling GNU binutils targeted at arm-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: arm-gp2x-linux-binutils - Cross Compiling GNU binutils targeted at arm-linux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234749 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 02:37 EST --- Hans, could you elaborate this change: * Thu May 24 2007 Hans de Goede [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.17-1 - Revert to GNU 2.17 release as using GNU releases are better for non linux targets You revert to using the FSF sources, nevertheless you call this target *-linux? What kind of target is this? Which libc is going to be used? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235802] Review Request: remind - Sophisticated calendar and alarm program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: remind - Sophisticated calendar and alarm program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235802 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 02:41 EST --- Okay, now I am sponsoring you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234749] Review Request: arm-gp2x-linux-binutils - Cross Compiling GNU binutils targeted at arm-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: arm-gp2x-linux-binutils - Cross Compiling GNU binutils targeted at arm-linux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234749 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 03:43 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) Hans, could you elaborate this change: * Thu May 24 2007 Hans de Goede [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.17-1 - Revert to GNU 2.17 release as using GNU releases are better for non linux targets You revert to using the FSF sources, nevertheless you call this target *-linux? Yes, my bad, thats a copy and paste error from the avr-binutils spec. After much experimenting and researching what others did, I ended up using FSF binutils-2.16.1 as that is what all other available preconfigured toolchains for this target use. However 2.16 has a bug which causes ar and ranlib to fail when compiled with -DFORTIFY_SOURCE=2, which is fixed in binutils 2.17 . Since the other available toolchains use FSF binutils and since 2.16 was giving me some problems, I decided to go to FSF 2.17 What kind of target is this? Which libc is going to be used? The gp2x is a handheld game console, with an arm processor and Linux inside. The Linux inside uses glibc. See: http://wiki.gp2x.org/wiki/Main_Page http://www.gp2x.com/ I've found 2 working preconfigured toolchains for this: * http://open2x.org Uses: gcc-4.1.1 binutils-2.16.1 glibc-2.3.5 + linuxthreads I'm modeling my current Fedora attempts after their work, I'm using: gcc-4.1.2 binutils-2.17 glibc-2.3.6 + linuxthreads * gp2xdev-20060525.tar.bz2 Which can be downloaded here (60 Mb!!): http://archive.gp2x.de/cgi-bin/cfiles.cgi?0,0,0,0,14,1609 This is a huge tarball with pre-patched sources, just type make to get things going. I've been doing diffs against pristine upstream sources to see what they have patched. They are mostly using the same patches as open2x. Since open2x distributes the patches seperately, and in general since open2x is an alive project unlike this, I've decided to base my Fedora attempts on the open2x stuff. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234749] Review Request: arm-gp2x-linux-binutils - Cross Compiling GNU binutils targeted at arm-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: arm-gp2x-linux-binutils - Cross Compiling GNU binutils targeted at arm-linux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234749 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 04:02 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) (In reply to comment #8) Hans, could you elaborate this change: * Thu May 24 2007 Hans de Goede [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.17-1 - Revert to GNU 2.17 release as using GNU releases are better for non linux targets You revert to using the FSF sources, nevertheless you call this target *-linux? Yes, my bad, thats a copy and paste error from the avr-binutils spec. After much experimenting and researching what others did, I ended up using FSF binutils-2.16.1 as that is what all other available preconfigured toolchains for this target use. However 2.16 has a bug which causes ar and ranlib to fail when compiled with -DFORTIFY_SOURCE=2, which is fixed in binutils 2.17 . I know :) I had a patch for my rtems binutils packages when binutils-2.16 was current. Jakub had a different one. Since the other available toolchains use FSF binutils and since 2.16 was giving me some problems, I decided to go to FSF 2.17 OK with me. There is nothing wrong with using FSF source on linux targets, I just wanted to know, because diverging from nominal upstream can cause nasty incompatiblities. (Note: binutils-2.16 and binutils-2.17 aren't necessarily compatible). * http://open2x.org I'm modeling my current Fedora attempts after their work, I'm using: gcc-4.1.2 binutils-2.17 glibc-2.3.6 + linuxthreads OK, that's what I wanted to know. It means naming the target *-linux is legitimated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234749] Review Request: arm-gp2x-linux-binutils - Cross Compiling GNU binutils targeted at arm-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: arm-gp2x-linux-binutils - Cross Compiling GNU binutils targeted at arm-linux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234749 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 04:10 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) (Note: binutils-2.16 and binutils-2.17 aren't necessarily compatible). Well sofar I haven't seen any problems (but we're not very far yet). What do you advice, knowing that others who have build a toolchain for the gp2x all use 2.16.1 ??? Also could you take a quick look at our gcc-stage1 spec, and tell if we are atleast going in the right direction? Notice that this is a use once throw away spec, to get an arm-gp2x-linux-gcc in the buildsys to build arm-gp2x-linux-glibc, once the glibc is there a real/normal gcc spec will be used to build the final gcc (I'm planning on renaming the stage1 spec and keep it in CVS for future reference). The spec is here: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/arm-gp2x-linux-gcc.spec http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/arm-gp2x-linux-gcc-4.1.2-1.fc8.src.rpm 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 225227] TEST Merge Review: foomatic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: TEST Merge Review: foomatic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225227 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 05:50 EST --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 225768 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225768] Merge Review: foomatic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: foomatic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225768 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 05:50 EST --- *** Bug 225227 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190997] Review Request: linux-wlan-ng
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: linux-wlan-ng https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190997 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 05:00 EST --- From the FAQ :- Q: When will linux-wlan-ng be merged into the mainline kernel? Short answer: Never. First, the linux-netdev people will soundly reject this driver. I don't begrudge them for this; indeed in their position I'd do exactly the same. It's a sound engineering decision. linux-wlan-ng is obselete, and effort spent fixing it is better spent elsewhere. You can't even buy the hardware any longer. ... It's never going to be easy to maintain this package, so I'd vote to close this one. Richard -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230802] Review Request: perl-Callback - Object interface for function callbacks
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-Callback - Object interface for function callbacks Alias: perl-Callback https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230802 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 05:55 EST --- A clarification is in order here. The spec file is at http://people.redhat.com/mkpai/.SPEC/perl-Callback.spec The souce rpm is at http://people.redhat.com/mkpai/.SRPM/perl-Callback-1.07-1.src.rpm . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230802] Review Request: perl-Callback - Object interface for function callbacks
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-Callback - Object interface for function callbacks Alias: perl-Callback https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230802 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 05:53 EST --- I am terribly sorry for not updating this BZ earlier. This won't happen again. I have made the suggested modifications to the spec file and created a new source rpm. The revised files are at the available at the above locations. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221054] Review Request: gerbv - A gerber file viewer
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: gerbv - A gerber file viewer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221054 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 06:41 EST --- Hello. Apologies for the long absence. The continuous barrage of non-gerbv related stuff that I've had to do since filing this review request has not yet stopped. If someone else wants to submit a review request for it, then I'm not stopping them... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235136] Review Request: lostirc - Simple IRC client for X11
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: lostirc - Simple IRC client for X11 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235136 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 06:55 EST --- Hi Damien, Spec file looks good (quick look), expect a full review shortly -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235679] Review Request: weechat - Portable, fast, light and extensible IRC 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: weechat - Portable, fast, light and extensible IRC client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235679 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 06:50 EST --- *** Bug 238518 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235679] Review Request: weechat - Portable, fast, light and extensible IRC 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: weechat - Portable, fast, light and extensible IRC client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235679 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238518] Review Request: weechat - Terminal based IRC 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: weechat - Terminal based IRC client Alias: weechat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238518 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 06:50 EST --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 235679 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188138] Review Request: mod_auth_ntlm_winbind - NTLM authentication for the Apache web server using winbind daemon
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: mod_auth_ntlm_winbind - NTLM authentication for the Apache web server using winbind daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188138 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235679] Review Request: weechat - Portable, fast, light and extensible IRC 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: weechat - Portable, fast, light and extensible IRC
client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235679
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 08:38 EST ---
Hello, I know it's late, but for next time:
In spec file:
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-buildroot
Should be:
BuildRoot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
It's recommended, see also: Build root tag in Fedora wiki
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-b4fdd45fa76cbf54c885ef0836361319ab962473
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 241319] Review Request: hotwire - Interactive hybrid text/graphical shell for developers and system administrators
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: hotwire - Interactive hybrid text/graphical shell for developers and system administrators https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241319 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241279] Review Request: avr-libc - C library for use with GCC on Atmel AVR microcontrollers
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: avr-libc - C library for use with GCC on Atmel AVR
microcontrollers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241279
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 08:24 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Created an attachment (id=155394)
--
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=155394action=view)
[edit]
Fixes wrong encoding in documentation.
The problem with the PDF and the PS output is related to some non-unicode
chars
in several parts of the code. The attached patch fixes these issues. I also
had
to remove %{_smpflags} to make the package build.
Thanks! Here is a new version with pdf docs and smpflags removed:
Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/avr-libc.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/avr-libc-1.4.6-2.fc8.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 240877] Review Request: archivemail - A tool for archiving and compressing old email in mailboxes
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: archivemail - A tool for archiving and compressing old email in mailboxes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240877 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 09:06 EST --- Imported and built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
needinfo requested: [Bug 234667] Review Request: dwarves - DWARF Tools
Bug 234667: Review Request: dwarves - DWARF Tools Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo [EMAIL PROTECTED] has asked Fedora Package Reviews List fedora-package-review@redhat.com for needinfo: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234667 ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234667] Review Request: dwarves - DWARF Tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dwarves - DWARF Tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234667 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?(fedora-package- ||[EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232737] gnome-launch-box: Funky application launcher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: gnome-launch-box: Funky application launcher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232737 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 09:52 EST --- cvs done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235679] Review Request: weechat - Portable, fast, light and extensible IRC 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: weechat - Portable, fast, light and extensible IRC client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235679 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 09:52 EST --- cvs done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241069] Review Request: blobAndConquer - Blob Wars 2: Blob And Conquer
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: blobAndConquer - Blob Wars 2: Blob And Conquer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241069 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 09:53 EST --- Much better. 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 241319] Review Request: hotwire - Interactive hybrid text/graphical shell for developers and system administrators
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: hotwire - Interactive hybrid text/graphical shell for
developers and system administrators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241319
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 10:27 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[!] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[?] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on:
[!] Rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/hotwire-0.450-1.src.rpm
E: hotwire no-changelogname-tag
W: hotwire redundant-prefix-tag
W: hotwire setup-not-quiet
E: hotwire no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/hotwire-0.450-1.noarch.rpm
W: hotwire no-documentation
E: hotwire no-changelogname-tag
[!] Package is not relocatable.
[!] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL
[!] If (and only if) 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.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR:
Arches excluded:
Why:
[!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[!] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[!] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[!] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== Issues ===
1. name, version, and release macros will be defined by Name, Version,
and Release fields, so you don't need to explicitly define them.
2. A more appropriate Group could be used.
3. BuildRoot should be chosen from one of the options in the packaging
guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-b4fdd45fa76cbf54c885ef0836361319ab962473
4. Relocatable packages are discouraged, so Prefix can be ommitted.
5. Vendor should not be set.
6. COPYING and README should be included as docs
7. A changelog should be included in the spec file.
8. The package should include BuildRequires: python-devel
9. The BuildRequires: on pygtk2-devel is unnecessary
10. The package should require python.
11. The package should own hotwire and hotwire_ui python site-packages dirs.
12. The python sitelib macro could be used, as described here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#head-875cc97c2232a5b3ceda75ea41eed525da7d3929
Please fix the above issues.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225758] Merge Review: flex
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: flex https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225758 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 10:00 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) I don't see an APPROVED or the fedora-review flag set to '+'. Ralf, were you actually reviewing this? Technically yes, formally no. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237337] perl-Digest-SHA -- Perl support for SHA digests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: perl-Digest-SHA -- Perl support for SHA digests https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237337 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 11:04 EST --- I guess my feeling is that hyphenationof words was obsoleted by word wrap on modern computers. It's not that we're stuck typing a word halfway, realising we ran out of space on that line and we couldn't delete the letters. I've grown very unaccustomed to hyphernation in the digital age, it gives me a full reading stop for my brain to figure it out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192436] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xgl
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: xorg-x11-server-Xgl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192436 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 11:15 EST --- FYI, the sources have not be changed, you don't have to re-checkout it. I send you the last SRPM (with your last modifications) on your private mail. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239176] Review Request: bodr - Blue Obelisk Data Repository
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: bodr - Blue Obelisk Data Repository https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239176 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 11:40 EST --- Let's do it. - md5sums are ok: 7719e785e1f416179de85c7a7f889eb1 - package successfully builds in mock - the only issue can be found here is libdir match in .pc file. But it's going to be got rid so everyting is ok. 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 235293] Review Request: adminutil - Utility library for Fedora Directory Server administration
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: adminutil - Utility library for Fedora Directory Server administration Alias: adminutil https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235293 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 11:36 EST --- Well, I want to check if your patch in comment 31 works on mockbuild, however it seems that all my domestic mirrors (i.e. mirror servers in Japan) don't work well now... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241387] New: Review Request: codeina - GStreamer Codec Installation Application
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=241387 Summary: Review Request: codeina - GStreamer Codec Installation Application 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://www.hadess.net/tmp/codeina/codeina.spec SRPM URL: http://www.hadess.net/tmp/codeina/codeina-0.10.0.1-0.20070525.170400.src.rpm Description: Codeina installs codecs from the Fluendo webshop for GStreamer. Based on ThomasVS' package, with today's SVN snapshot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241052] Review Request: R-Matrix - R module, Classes etc. for dense and sparse matrices and matrix ops
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: R-Matrix - R module, Classes etc. for dense and sparse matrices and matrix ops https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 12:32 EST --- There is a very minor issue with this package, but it doesn't hold up approval. - rpmlint says you've got mixed spaces and tabs, look at line 29. Fix that item before requesting builds, and we're good. Nice work with the -devel package. Good: - rpmlint checks return: W: R-Matrix mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 29, tab: line 5) W: R-Matrix-devel no-documentation E: R-Matrix-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Safe to ignore the Error (all R packages do that), and the no-docs in -devel. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (Distributable) OK, text in package, matches source (code is a mix of MIT, GPL, LGPL, documented in spec) - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files APPROVED. I'll also sponsor you, thanks for your good 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 240008] Review Request: ruby-shadow - ruby bindings for shadow password access
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-shadow - ruby bindings for shadow password access https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240008 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 12:36 EST --- Yes everything works fine now, all packages are build now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239176] Review Request: bodr - Blue Obelisk Data Repository
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: bodr - Blue Obelisk Data Repository https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239176 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 12:38 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: bodr Short Description: Blue Obelisk Data Repository Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: F-7 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 239176] Review Request: bodr - Blue Obelisk Data Repository
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: bodr - Blue Obelisk Data Repository https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239176 [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 240008] Review Request: ruby-shadow - ruby bindings for shadow password access
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-shadow - ruby bindings for shadow password access https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 12:45 EST --- Good to hear! Now closing as 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 239176] Review Request: bodr - Blue Obelisk Data Repository
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: bodr - Blue Obelisk Data Repository https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239176 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 13:02 EST --- cvs done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235293] Review Request: adminutil - Utility library for Fedora Directory Server administration
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: adminutil - Utility library for Fedora Directory Server administration Alias: adminutil https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235293 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 13:19 EST --- Created an attachment (id=155467) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=155467action=view) mock build log for -3 Okay, patch on comment 31 seems okay for 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 225758] Merge Review: flex
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: flex https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225758 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords||Reopened Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE | Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225758] Merge Review: flex
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: flex https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225758 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221054] Review Request: gerbv - A gerber file viewer
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: gerbv - A gerber file viewer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221054 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 13:33 EST --- Chitlesh, are you insterested in being the maintainer of this package (gerbv)? If you are not, or any response cannot be gained within one week from anyone, I will once close this bug as NOTABUG -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 240655] Review Request: ocaml-extlib - OCaml ExtLib additions to the standard 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: ocaml-extlib - OCaml ExtLib additions to the standard library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240655 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 13:35 EST --- Updated SRPM and Spec files: http://annexia.org/tmp/ocaml-extlib.spec http://annexia.org/tmp/ocaml-extlib-1.5-2.fc6.src.rpm Note! These depend on the ocaml find-requires and find-provides scripts. See here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-May/msg01693.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 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 Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||du) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 13:35 EST --- Rick, ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220393] Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection 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: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 13:46 EST --- ping again? I will close this bug as NOTABUG if no response can be received in one week. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238248] Review Request: ddccontrol - TFT monitor parameters control
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: ddccontrol - TFT monitor parameters control https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238248 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||u) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 13:54 EST --- What is the status of this bug? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 [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 234667] Review Request: dwarves - DWARF Tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dwarves - DWARF Tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234667 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 13:34 EST --- I'm not sure what the point of setting needinfo to a mailing list is, but I can give you some references. First, were you sponsored in the account system? (Even RH employees need this.) I don't see your address as the owner of any existing Fedora packages. If not, you'll need sponsorship before you can continue. Setting aside the issue of sponsorship, you are at step 8 of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/NewPackageProcess So the next step would be to make a CVS request as detailed in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |du) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 13:40 EST --- Sorry about the delay... this week has been more hectic than I anticipated. I'll have a full review in the next day or two. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239968] Review Request: mdbtools - tools for extracting things from Access databases
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: mdbtools - tools for extracting things from Access databases https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239968 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 14:20 EST --- It seems that you are now sponsored (bug 232855)? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 236488] Review Request: aimject - AIM packet injection 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: aimject - AIM packet injection tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236488 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 14:20 EST --- It seems that you are now sponsored (bug 232855)? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241319] Review Request: hotwire - Interactive hybrid text/graphical shell for developers and system administrators
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: hotwire - Interactive hybrid text/graphical shell for developers and system administrators https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241319 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 14:28 EST --- Awesome, thanks a lot for the review. Looking at this I realized I uploaded a much older, broken version of the spec file; some of this was already fixed. I just now fixed the rest of these issues I believe. Except - do I really need to require python if I'm already requiring pygtk? New versions uploaded, if you could take a look again I'd appreciate a ton. 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 241069] Review Request: blobAndConquer - Blob Wars 2: Blob And Conquer
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: blobAndConquer - Blob Wars 2: Blob And Conquer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241069 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 14:29 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: blobAndConquer Short Description: Blob Wars 2: Blob And Conquer Owners:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-6 F-7 devel InitialCC: empty -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241403] Review Request: qgis - A user friendly Open Source Geographic Information 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: qgis - A user friendly Open Source Geographic Information System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241403 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241403] New: Review Request: qgis - A user friendly Open Source Geographic Information System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241403 Summary: Review Request: qgis - A user friendly Open Source Geographic Information System 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://www.silfreed.net/download/repo/packages/qgis/qgis.spec SRPM URL: http://www.silfreed.net/download/repo/packages/qgis/qgis-0.8.0-3.src.rpm Description: Quantum GIS (QGIS) is a user friendly Open Source Geographic Information System (GIS) that runs on Linux, Unix, Mac OSX, and Windows. QGIS supports vector, raster, and database formats. QGIS is licensed under the GNU General Public License. QGIS lets you browse and create map data on your computer. It supports many common spatial data formats (e.g. ESRI ShapeFile, geotiff). QGIS supports plugins to do things like display tracks from your GPS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241304] Review Request: perl-DBI-Dumper - Dump data from a DBI datasource to file
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-DBI-Dumper - Dump data from a DBI datasource to file Alias: perl-DBI-Dumper https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241304 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 15:10 EST --- Hi Chris, This is my first review of a perl package, so I'd prefer if someone more experienced would have a look as well. But anyway, here we go: * RPM name is OK * Source DBI-Dumper-2.01.tar.gz is the same as upstream * Builds fine in mock * rpmlint looks OK * File list looks OK Notes: - What is grammar.prd, and does it need to be in the docs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241319] Review Request: hotwire - Interactive hybrid text/graphical shell for developers and system administrators
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: hotwire - Interactive hybrid text/graphical shell for developers and system administrators https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241319 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 15:17 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: hotwire Short Description: Interactive hybrid text/graphical shell for developers and system administrators Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-6 FC-7 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 241319] Review Request: hotwire - Interactive hybrid text/graphical shell for developers and system administrators
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: hotwire - Interactive hybrid text/graphical shell for developers and system administrators https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241319 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 15:08 EST --- Everything looks great. The only minor issue is that the desktop file uses the deprecated 'Application' category. As far as requiring python goes, I mentioned it because hotwire does install into dirs owned by python, but I'll leave the choice to you. So, barring the desktop file issue, this package is 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 176579] Review Request: ipsvd -- Internet protocol service daemons
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: ipsvd -- Internet protocol service daemons https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176579 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 15:48 EST --- I'd agree to review that and I am agreeing with Enrico in that case. However now the guideline explicitly requires to ask FESCO to link statically, so I'll ask FESCO on behalf of Enrico. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225758] Merge Review: flex
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: flex https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225758 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 16:02 EST --- Sorry, my bad. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221054] Review Request: gerbv - A gerber file viewer
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: gerbv - A gerber file viewer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221054 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 16:13 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) Chitlesh, are you insterested in being the maintainer of this package (gerbv)? Actually I would love to. But however, there isn't any upstream for this package to fix the following bugs from comment #2: * In build log: gerbv.c:1526: warning: call to __builtin___snprintf_chk will always overflow destination buffer * Gerber file format support fails to load test files. * Drill file format support crashes with buffer overflow. * Passing files at the command-line results in 100% buffer overflow crash: *** buffer overflow detected ***: gerbv terminated === Backtrace: = /lib/libc.so.6(__chk_fail+0x41)[0x87c161] /lib/libc.so.6[0x87bba3] /lib/libc.so.6(__snprintf_chk+0x37)[0x87ba87] gerbv[0x8055686] gerbv[0x805625a] /lib/libglib-2.0.so.0[0x12a5e1] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241069] Review Request: blobAndConquer - Blob Wars 2: Blob And Conquer
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: blobAndConquer - Blob Wars 2: Blob And Conquer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241069 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 16:24 EST --- cvs done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241319] Review Request: hotwire - Interactive hybrid text/graphical shell for developers and system administrators
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: hotwire - Interactive hybrid text/graphical shell for developers and system administrators https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241319 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 16:24 EST --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241304] Review Request: perl-DBI-Dumper - Dump data from a DBI datasource to file
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-DBI-Dumper - Dump data from a DBI datasource to file Alias: perl-DBI-Dumper https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241304 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 16:31 EST --- grammar.prd is the grammar Parse::RecDescent definition used by DBI::Dumper. I figured it might be useful to someone wanting to take a deeper look at things... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 240689] Review Request: goffice04 - GOffice support libraries
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: goffice04 - GOffice support libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240689 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 17:56 EST --- bump -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235293] Review Request: adminutil - Utility library for Fedora Directory Server administration
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: adminutil - Utility library for Fedora Directory Server administration Alias: adminutil https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235293 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 19:03 EST --- Created an attachment (id=155491) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=155491action=view) cvs commit log New version, should be the final one Spec URL: http://directory.fedoraproject.org/sources/adminutil.spec SRPM URL: http://directory.fedoraproject.org/sources/adminutil-1.1.1-3.src.rpm Source tarball: http://directory.fedoraproject.org/sources/adminutil-1.1.1.tar.bz2 I'm going to be out next week. Margaret, if this is approved, can you do the cvs-import and create the branches? Or someone else? Otherwise, it will have to wait until the 5th at the earliest. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241403] Review Request: qgis - A user friendly Open Source Geographic Information 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: qgis - A user friendly Open Source Geographic
Information System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241403
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 19:37 EST ---
Some initial comments:
First please check:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
Then:
* Please write all BuildRequires in main section.
* %makeinstall is highly forbidden.
* stripping binaries is strictly forbidden to create debuginfo
rpm
* For python/test_export.py, verify which is proper,
to make this script have executable permission, or
to remove shebang.
* Fix directory ownership. For example, %{_libdir}/%{name} is
not owned by any package.
* Shipping static archive is highly forbidden unless you have
some reasonable reason.
* Also shipping libtool archive is highly forbidden.
* %defattr(-, root, root, -) is recommended
* Using disttag is recommended
I just glanced at your spec file and I didn't try to
rebuild 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 241099] Review Request: lcdtest - utility to display monitor test patterns
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: lcdtest - utility to display monitor test patterns https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241099 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 21:09 EST --- Thank you for reviewing my package. I have updated the spec based on the review, and made the new spec and SRPM available: Spec URL: http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/software/fedora/fc6/lcdtest/lcdtest.spec SRPM URL: http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/software/fedora/fc6/lcdtest/lcdtest-1.06-3.src.rpm I build with mock on FC6. Apparently the reason it failed to build for you is that it is dependent on SCons = 0.97, which was just updated in FE6 recently. I have added that version dependency to the spec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241099] Review Request: lcdtest - utility to display monitor test patterns
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: lcdtest - utility to display monitor test patterns https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241099 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 21:49 EST --- Excellent, things are almost fine. Some cosmetic fixes are needed to make rpmlint happy: Source RPM: W: lcdtest summary-not-capitalized displays monitor test patterns -Obvious fix W: lcdtest rpm-buildroot-usage %build destdir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT \ -Ignorable, scons needs this W: lcdtest macro-in-%changelog _smp_mflags -use %% instead of % W: lcdtest mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 11) -please stick with either spaces or tabs, if possible rpmlint of lcdtest: W: lcdtest summary-not-capitalized displays monitor test patterns - will be fixed in the same time with the src.rpm Except for the above (and the fact that scons-0.9.7 has not yet been pushed in devel) everything seems fine, including using the program on FC6/x86_64. Have you not have been in the position of needing a sponsor I would have approved the package. here comes a formal review, to help potential sponsors: GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream, is latest version, SHA1SUM is 9da6385dad834ae8073bb0ef7620e32122cec4d9 - package compiles on FC6 (x86_64) [*] - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file NEEDSWORK - cosmetic changes of spec, see on top of this comment [*] as of 25.05.2007, needed BR scons=0.9.7 is not yet available in devel, probably due to F7 freeze -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 240616] Review Request: pixman - pixel manipulation 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: pixman - pixel manipulation library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240616 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-25 22:11 EST --- W: pixman incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.9.0-0.20070518 0.9.0-0.20070524 The last entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the 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 225758] Merge Review: flex
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: flex
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225758
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-26 01:28 EST ---
OK, this package is pretty much OK but I just want to run the static library by
FESCo so that these merge reviews get the same treatment that any other package
would get. Some other comments:
Source: should be a URL, probably
http://dl.sf.net/flex/flex-%{version}.tar.bz2
This package has a build-time dependency on info but I don't see why a
text-mode info browser would be useful for the build process.
I'll get back as soon as FESCo has a chance to discuss the static library issue.
* source files match upstream:
53b56a62ea9409b99b7a0ac4a5204fac16ca7eaf39b9374164c346d6badc6914
flex-2.5.33.tar.bz2
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
? Not sure what BuildRequires: info is for.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
O rpmlint warnings are OK (static library OK pending FESCo ack).
* final provides and requires are sane:
flex = 2.5.33-7.fc7
=
/bin/sh
/sbin/install-info
m4
* %check is present and all tests pass:
Tests succeeded: 40
Tests FAILED: 0
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets are OK (install-info)
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers present, in base package because this package is only useful for
development.
* no pkgconfig files.
? static libraries present; FESCo ack pending.
* no libtool .la droppings.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237334] Review Request: perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-RSA -- Perl OpenSSL bindings for RSA support
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-Crypt-OpenSSL-RSA -- Perl OpenSSL bindings for RSA support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237334 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225758] Merge Review: flex
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: flex https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225758 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-26 01:57 EST --- You hadn't mentioned that before. Please explain for the record, 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
