[Bug 316141] Review Request: gridengine - Grid Engine - Distributed Computing Management software
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: gridengine - Grid Engine - Distributed Computing
Management software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=316141
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 03:22 EST ---
Whole license: SISSL
source/3rdparty/adoc/ GPL+ - unused
source/3rdparty/fnmatch/BSD with advertising - unused
source/3rdparty/openssl/OpenSSL - unused
source/3rdparty/qidl/ copyright only - unused
source/3rdparty/qmake/ GPL+ - Installed as qmake
source/3rdparty/qmake/alloca.c Public Domain? - unused
source/3rdparty/qmake/amiga.c GPLv2+ - Installed as qmake
(and others)
! Note
qmake is not linked or used by other parts
of gridengine
source/3rdparty/qmon/Xbae/ MIT
source/3rdparty/qmon/Xmt310/BSD
source/3rdparty/qmon/iconlist/ MIT
source/3rdparty/qmon/ltree/ LGPL+
source/3rdparty/qmon/spinbox/ MIT
source/3rdparty/qmon/tab/ MIT
source/3rdparty/qtcsh/ BSD with advertising - unused
source/3rdparty/qtcsh/ma.setp.c MIT - unused
source/3rdparty/sge_depend/ MIT
source/3rdparty/snprintf/ the Frontier Artistic License - unused
source/3rdparty/strptime/ BSD with advertising - unused
source/scripts/ldAixMIT - unused
==
For -4:
* Licensing
- Seeing Multiple Licensing Scenarios and
Mixed Source Licensing Scenario of
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines,
I propose the following spec file description.
IMO it is better that some file to explain about licensing
should be added into %doc (proposal text attached)
Then the spec file description regarding to license should be:
---
Name:gridengine
Version: 6.1u3
Release: 4%{?dist}
Summary: Grid Engine - Distributed Computing Management software
...
Group: Applications/System
# Only the file %{_libexecdir}/gridengine/bin/*/qmake is
# under GPLv2+, which is not used or linked by other parts
# of gridengine.
License: (BSD and LGPLv2+ and MIT and SISSL) and GPLv2+
...
...
%package devel
Summary: Gridengine development files
Group: Development/Libraries
License: BSD and LGPLv2+ and MIT and SISSL
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
...
...
%files
...
%{_libdir}/libjgdi.so
%{_libdir}/libjuti.so
# Only the file %{_libexecdir}/gridengine/bin/*/qmake is
# under GPLv2+
%{_libexecdir}/gridengine/
...
---
* Services with enabled by default
- The two service sgeexecd, sgemaster are enabled by default by
only installing rpm packages, which is usually undesirable.
See the explanation of
$ rpmlint -I service-default-enabled.
* %post -p /sbin/ldconfig
- When /sbin/ldconfig call is written *in one line* like above,
Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig is automatically added to
the corresponding binary rpm.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 416471] Review Request: xsel -- manipulate the X selection
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: xsel -- manipulate the X selection https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=416471 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431414] Review Request: planets - A celestial 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: planets - A celestial simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431414 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 03:53 EST --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i386). koji build = http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=398193 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream. 2c72f2469ee0413bd470a2ad84f2f0f8 planets-0.1.13.tgz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc files present. + BuildRequires are proper. + Compiler flags are honoured correctly. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + no scriptlets are used. + Desktop file installed correctly + GUI app. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431414] Review Request: planets - A celestial 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: planets - A celestial simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431414 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 03:55 EST --- oops missed to modify my review template for scriptlet + gtk-update-icon-cache scriptlets are used. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428798] Review Request: OmegaT - Computer Aid Translation 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: OmegaT - Computer Aid Translation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428798
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 03:51 EST ---
Well, for general packaging guidelines you can refer to:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
- First remove non-fedora-related parts/macros and replace
them properly.
* %mkrel is not defined
* MandrivaLinux is not related to us.
* Please remove the redundant if %{_vendor} != redhat ...
check
* %{clean_desktop_database} is perhaps not defined.
- You don't have to define %version, %release redundantly.
- Source must be given with full URL.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
- GPL license tag is invalid for Fedora.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines
- When using cp or install commands, please add -p option
to keep timestamps on installed files
- When installing desktop files, desktop-file-install command
must be properly used.
- For desktop files, the category Application is deprecated and
should be removed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 416461] Review Request: xmms-pulse - XMMS output plugin for the PulseAudio sound server.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xmms-pulse - XMMS output plugin for the PulseAudio sound server. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=416461 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 416461] Review Request: xmms-pulse - XMMS output plugin for the PulseAudio sound server.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xmms-pulse - XMMS output plugin for the PulseAudio sound server. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=416461 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||.com) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 03:58 EST --- Setting NEEDINFO. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431534] Review Request: gfeed - RSS feed reader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gfeed - RSS feed reader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431534 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 04:48 EST --- Fixed Spec URL: http://kurzawa.nonlogic.org/rpm/gfeed/gfeed.spec SRPM URL: http://kurzawa.nonlogic.org/rpm/gfeed/gfeed-2.5.0-3.fc8.src.rpm P.S If you have time could you also review taskcoach (#430541)? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431665] New: Review Request: fox-devel - A C++ library for GUI development
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/show_bug.cgi?id=431665 Summary: Review Request: fox-devel - A C++ library for GUI development Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://mwiriadi.fedorapeople.org/packages/fox-devel/fox-devel.spec SRPM URL: http://mwiriadi.fedorapeople.org/packages/fox-devel/fox-devel-1.7.15-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: FOX is a C++-based library for graphical user interface development FOX supports modern GUI features, such as drag-and-drop, tooltips, tab books, tree lists, icons, multiple document interfaces (MDI), timers, idle processing, automatic GUI updating, as well as OpenGL/Mesa for 3D graphics. Subclassing of basic FOX widgets allows for easy extension beyond the built-in widgets by application writers. The fox-devel package contains the files necessary to develop applications using the FOX GUI toolkit: the header files, the reswrap resource compiler, manual pages, and HTML documentation. I'm not to sure if there should be a separate doc package. I'm also unsure as to whether to create a separate fox package or rename it libfox? Only rpmlint issues. [EMAIL PROTECTED] i386]$ rpmlint fox-devel-1.7.15-1.fc8.i386.rpm fox-devel.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/fox-1.7/html/styles.css fox-devel.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/fox-1.7/html/menu.css fox-devel.i386: W: no-dependency-on fox Other packages built contain no rpmlint errors/warnings -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431534] Review Request: gfeed - RSS feed reader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gfeed - RSS feed reader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431534 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 05:38 EST --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i386). koji build = http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=398563 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream. 5301287f336599ab77ccba4875993734 gfeed-2.5.0.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc files present. + BuildRequires are proper. + Compiler flags are honored correctly. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + no scriptlets are used. + Not a GUI app. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431665] Review Request: fox-devel - A C++ library for GUI development
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: fox-devel - A C++ library for GUI development https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431665 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Summary|Review Request: fox-devel - |Review Request: fox-devel - |A C++ library for GUI |A C++ library for GUI |development |development --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 05:53 EST --- you better drop -devel in package name and add subpackage -devel like you did for other subpackages -calculator, -pathfinder make fox-devel sub-package own *.h *.so and .pc files and main fox package .so* files -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431669] New: Review Request: gtkyahoo - Yahoo Messenger client
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/show_bug.cgi?id=431669 Summary: Review Request: gtkyahoo - Yahoo Messenger client Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://kurzawa.nonlogic.org/rpm/gtkyahoo/gtkyahoo.spec SRPM URL: http://kurzawa.nonlogic.org/rpm/gtkyahoo/gtkyahoo-0.18.3-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: GTKYahoo is a GPL'd GTK+ based yahoo pager client for unix. I wrote this for a couple of reasons - hating windows, wanting to learn GTK+, and because the Java client is highly irritating a nd seems extremely buggy. (I.e. try resizing a chat window). This package doesn't build on x86_64. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=398592 What should I do? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431534] Review Request: gfeed - RSS feed reader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gfeed - RSS feed reader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431534 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 05:46 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: gfeed Short Description: RSS feed reader Owners: kurzawa Branches: F-7 F-8 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431665] Review Request: fox-devel - A C++ library for GUI development
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: fox-devel - A C++ library for GUI development https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431665 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 06:07 EST --- In addition to whar Parag said, I thing that calculator should better be called fox-calculator and pathfinder be called fox-pathfinder (with corresponding modifications in man pages). The names are much too common. There are dots missing at the end of %descriptions. Since they are in te same tarball, adie, pathfinder and so on should have the same version than fox itself. Using specific versions for subpackages will cause much pain. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431669] Review Request: gtkyahoo - Yahoo Messenger 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: gtkyahoo - Yahoo Messenger client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431669 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 06:14 EST --- Fixed Spec URL: http://kurzawa.nonlogic.org/rpm/gtkyahoo/gtkyahoo.spec SRPM URL: http://kurzawa.nonlogic.org/rpm/gtkyahoo/gtkyahoo-0.18.3-2.fc8.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431669] Review Request: gtkyahoo - Yahoo Messenger 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: gtkyahoo - Yahoo Messenger client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431669
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 05:58 EST ---
1)Change %{__install} to install
2)drop .a and .la files by adding following line to end of %install
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name *.la -exec rm -f {} ';'
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431672] New: Review Request: scythia - Just a small ftp client
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/show_bug.cgi?id=431672 Summary: Review Request: scythia - Just a small ftp client Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://kurzawa.nonlogic.org/rpm/scythia/scythia.spec SRPM URL: http://kurzawa.nonlogic.org/rpm/scythia/scythia-0.9.3-2.1.fc8.src.rpm Description: Scythia project is an simple and portable Ftp client. It does not claim to be able to replace the biggest (no SSH etc.), but only to satisfy some persons and to give us a bigger experience in programming. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431665] Review Request: fox-devel - A C++ library for GUI development
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: fox-devel - A C++ library for GUI development https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431665 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 06:57 EST --- Updated. Hopefully it is fine. http://mwiriadi.fedorapeople.org/packages/fox-devel/fox.spec http://mwiriadi.fedorapeople.org/packages/fox-devel/fox-1.7.15-2.fc8.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 430541] Review Request: taskcoach - Your friendly task 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: taskcoach - Your friendly task manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430541 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 07:01 EST --- Can anybody review this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431672] Review Request: scythia - Just a small ftp 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: scythia - Just a small ftp client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431672 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Summary|Review Request: scythia - |Review Request: scythia - |Just a small ftp client |Just a small ftp client Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 430541] Review Request: taskcoach - Your friendly task 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: taskcoach - Your friendly task manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430541 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 07:14 EST --- I will do it today. The last few days here were Carnival so I took some time off. I intend to publish the formal review still later today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431414] Review Request: planets - A celestial 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: planets - A celestial simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431414 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 07:23 EST --- Thanks for the review! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: planets Short Description: A celestial simulator Owners: limb Branches: F-7 F-8 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225294] Merge Review: authd
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: authd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225294 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 07:32 EST --- Adding authd maintainer listed in pkgdb to cc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431672] Review Request: scythia - Just a small ftp 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: scythia - Just a small ftp client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431672 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 07:36 EST --- 1)license is GPLv3+ 2)can it be possible to add GenericName and comment for french also in .desktop like you did for pl_PL -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431672] Review Request: scythia - Just a small ftp 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: scythia - Just a small ftp client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431672 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 08:06 EST --- Fixed Spec URL: http://kurzawa.nonlogic.org/rpm/scythia/scythia.spec SRPM URL: http://kurzawa.nonlogic.org/rpm/scythia/scythia-0.9.3-2.2.fc8.src.rpm Thanks for review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431161] Review Request: mathmap - A gimp plugin and commandline 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: mathmap - A gimp plugin and commandline tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431161 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 08:17 EST --- First of all, rebuild doesn't succeed. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=398683 You can check this by koji scratch build. From just glancing at your spec file: - Source must be given with full URL - Fedora specific compilation flags don't seem to be honored correctly. - Would you try to use relative symlink instead of absolute one? - When using install or cp commands, add -p option to keep timestamps on installed files. - It seems Requires: gimp is needed because `gimptool --gimpdatadir` is owned by gimp but not by gimp-libs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226333] Merge Review: pygtk2 (stalled)
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: pygtk2 (stalled) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226333 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|MODIFIED|ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 08:20 EST --- I will revies this one -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431633] Review Request: libffi - High level programming interface to various calling conventions
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: libffi - High level programming interface to various calling conventions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431633 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 08:32 EST --- GCC doesn't include a copy of libffi. See Bugzilla 190735 where Jakub explicitly says I think libffi should be just packaged separately from gcc for third party package use. Either package it in Fedora Extras, or convince somebody to do so. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226333] Merge Review: pygtk2 (stalled)
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: pygtk2 (stalled)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226333
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 08:40 EST ---
Source: should be
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/pygtk/2.12/pygtk-%{version}.tar.bz2
to make it easier to see where the upstream source comes from.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431683] New: Review Request: rspam - Report as Spam Evolution Plugin
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/show_bug.cgi?id=431683 Summary: Review Request: rspam - Report as Spam Evolution Plugin Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://mips.edu.ms/rspam.spec SRPM URL: http://mips.edu.ms/rspam-0.0.6-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: Rspam Evolution Plugin enables Evolution Mail client to report email messages as spam to checksum-based and statistical filtering networks. It supports Razor network, DCC, SpamCop and Pyzor. This is one of my first packages and I need a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431665] Review Request: fox - A C++ library for GUI development
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: fox - A C++ library for GUI development https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431665 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: fox-devel - |Review Request: fox - A C++ |A C++ library for GUI |library for GUI development |development | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226333] Merge Review: pygtk2 (stalled)
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: pygtk2 (stalled)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226333
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 09:05 EST ---
MUST:
* Package is matching naming guidelines.
* spec file in named %{name}.spec
* it is legal for Fedora to distribute this
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible have the right good license shortname :
LGPLv2+
* License file must be in %doc (it it exists)
* Spec file is written in American English
* Spec file is legible.
* Sources match upstream.
MD5SUM:
a816346d750d61e3fa67a200e4292694
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/pygtk/2.12/pygtk-2.12.1.tar.bz2
a816346d750d61e3fa67a200e4292694 pygtk-2.12.1.tar.bz2
* summary and description fine
* correct buildroot
* %{?dist} is used
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* package meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* changelog format fine
* Packager/Vendor/Distribution/Copyright tags not used
* Summary tag does not end in a period
* Package compiles and build into RPM's on : i386 etc.
* no Exclude Arch
* BuildRequires for all build requerements (- the ones on the Exception list)
* no locales
* no shared libs
* Package own all created directories.
* No duplicate files in %files
* Every %files section includes a %defattr(...) line
* Package has a %clean with a rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
* consistently use of macros
* Package contains code or or permissable content.
* Large documentation files goes into -doc subpackage.
* files in %doc dont affect runtime.
* header files goes into -devel subpackage
* no static libs
* package has pkgconfig (.pc) files and has a 'Requires: pkgconfig'
* -devel subpackage has a 'Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}'
* *.la libtool archives are removed in spec (if available)
* not a gui application
* package don't own files and dirs owned by other packages.
* %install starts with an rm -rf %{buildroot}
* rpm package filenames is in valid UTF-8.
* no Rpath
* no config files
* no init scripts
* no %makeinstall used
* no Requires(pre,post)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226333] Merge Review: pygtk2 (stalled)
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: pygtk2 (stalled) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226333 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 09:22 EST --- rpmlint output: $ rpmlint pygtk2-2.12.1-3.fc9.i386.rpm pygtk2.i386: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/pygtk2-2.12.1/examples/pygtk-demo/pygtk-demo.in @PYTHON@ pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/stock_browser.py 0644 pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/dnd.py 0644 pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/ui_manager.py 0644 pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/statusicon.py 0644 pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/images.py 0644 pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/buttonbox.py 0644 pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/sizegroup.py 0644 pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/hypertext.py 0644 pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/list_store.py 0644 pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/changedisplay.py 0644 pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/textview.py 0644 pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/dialogs.py 0644 pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/menu.py 0644 pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/pygtk-demo.py 0644 pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/tree_store.py 0644 pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/panes.py 0644 pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/expander.py 0644 pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/pixbufs.py 0644 pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/appwindow.py 0644 pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/editable_cells.py 0644 pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/colorsel.py 0644 pygtk2.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/pygtk2-2.12.1/NEWS pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/entry_completion.py 0644 pygtk2.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/pygtk/2.0/demos/treemodel.py 0644 pygtk2.i386: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/pygtk2-2.12.1/examples/ide/browse.py /usr/bin/env pygtk2.i386: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/pygtk2-2.12.1/examples/ide/gtkcons.py /usr/bin/env pygtk2.i386: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/pygtk2-2.12.1/examples/ide/gtkdb.py /usr/bin/env pygtk2.i386: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/pygtk2-2.12.1/examples/ide/gtkprof.py /usr/bin/env pygtk2.i386: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/pygtk2-2.12.1/examples/ide/pyide.py /usr/bin/env pygtk2.i386: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/pygtk2-2.12.1/examples/simple/hello.py /usr/bin/env pygtk2.i386: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/pygtk2-2.12.1/examples/simple/scribble.py /usr/bin/env pygtk2.i386: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/pygtk2-2.12.1/examples/simple/simple.py /usr/bin/env pygtk2.i386: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/pygtk2-2.12.1/examples/simple/tooltip.py /usr/bin/env $ rpmlint pygtk2-devel-2.12.1-3.fc9.i386.rpm pygtk2-devel.i386: W: no-documentation $ rpmlint pygtk2-libglade-2.12.1-3.fc9.i386.rpm pygtk2-libglade.i386: W: no-documentation $ rpmlint pygtk2-doc-2.12.1-3.fc9.i386.rpm $ rpmlint pygtk2-2.12.1-3.fc9.src.rpm nothing dangerous in these messages, i think they can be ignored. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226425] Merge Review: sox
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: sox https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226425 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 430070] Review Request: evolution-rss - Evolution RSS Reader Plugin
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: evolution-rss - Evolution RSS Reader Plugin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430070 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 09:37 EST --- * Would you explain why this package should have Requies: firefox? Actually that is firefox-devel Requires: firefox-devel Application requires gtkmozembed that is actually packed in firefox-devel. Initially I thought I could provide two different packages gtkmozembed and nogtkmozembed, but finally this could get confusing so I rather pack it using gtkmozembed and the user can choose the renderer. That's why firefox-devel is required. I moved firefox-devel to: BuildRequires: firefox-devel rpmbuild will check the dependency for libraries and will add the dependency which should pull libgtkembedmoz correctly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431371] Review Request: gyachi - A Yahoo! chat client with Webcam and voice 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: gyachi - A Yahoo! chat client with Webcam and voice support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431371 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431371] Review Request: gyachi - A Yahoo! chat client with Webcam and voice 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: gyachi - A Yahoo! chat client with Webcam and voice support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431371 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 10:11 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: gyachi Short Description: A Yahoo! chat client with Webcam and voice support Owners: sundaram ghosler Branches: F-7 F-8 EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: Yes Note on this CVS request. Gregory Hosler is the primary upstream developer and I would like to have his as the co-maintainer of this package. I am not sure how to deal with the sponsorship process in this case. Any guidance on this would be useful. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431692] New: Review Request: libdstr - Dave's String class
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/show_bug.cgi?id=431692 Summary: Review Request: libdstr - Dave's String class Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/libdstr/libdstr.spec SRPM URL: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/libdstr/libdstr-20080124-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: libdstr is a library containing Dstr, Dave's String class. Koji rebuild results: For dist-f9: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=399004 For dist-f8-updates-candidate: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=398997 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431633] Review Request: libffi - High level programming interface to various calling conventions
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: libffi - High level programming interface to various calling conventions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431633 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 10:16 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) GCC doesn't include a copy of libffi. The sources are part of GCC. C.f. your spec file were you explicitly lift them from there. See Bugzilla 190735 where Jakub explicitly says I think libffi should be just packaged separately from gcc for third party package use. He thinks ... should ... In other words, _He_ doesn't package it, because _He_ and upstream-GCC doesn't want to. (And there are good reasons not to do so.) Either package it in Fedora Extras, or convince somebody to do so. Or do not package it at all. Trying to lift the code from GCC's source-tree and to package it separately to me is nothing bug silly. Sorry, I am sure you will not like this, but this had to be said. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431633] Review Request: libffi - High level programming interface to various calling conventions
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: libffi - High level programming interface to various calling conventions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431633 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 10:24 EST --- One of my pending applications (gambas2) needs it. g-wrap needs it. That in and of itself says that there is a need for this library to be packaged system-wide, rather than buried in multiple copies of individual packages. The security concerns around that are enough reason to separate it. I would prefer to see this generated out of GCC, but barring that, I'll maintain it myself. It builds fine (and works fine) as a standalone library. Also, I think you're misinterpreting what Jakub said. He said that he believes that libffi should be packaged separately from gcc for other packages to use, which is precisely what I'm doing here. I'm adding Jakub to the CC on this bug, so that he can either confirm or deny this. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225615] Merge Review: binutils
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: binutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225615 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 10:39 EST --- rpmlint on srpm: binutils.src:20: W: prereq-use /sbin/install-info The use of PreReq is deprecated. In the majority of cases, a plain Requires is enough and the right thing to do. Sometimes Requires(pre), Requires(post), Requires(preun) and/or Requires(postun) can also be used instead of PreReq. Fix. binutils.src:22: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes gnupro The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if possible. Fix if possible. binutils.src:47: W: prereq-use /sbin/install-info The use of PreReq is deprecated. In the majority of cases, a plain Requires is enough and the right thing to do. Sometimes Requires(pre), Requires(post), Requires(preun) and/or Requires(postun) can also be used instead of PreReq. binutils.src:303: W: macro-in-%changelog _prefix Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly rewriting history on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. binutils.src:745: W: macro-in-%changelog _prefix Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly rewriting history on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. Fix. binutils.src: W: %ifarch-applied-patch Patch4: binutils-2.18.50.0.3-ia64-lib64.p atch A patch is applied inside an %ifarch block. Patches must be applied on all architectures and may contain necessary configure and/or code patch to be effective only on a given arch. Not a problem. binutils.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot A GNU collection of binary utilities. Summary ends with a dot. Fix. rpmlint on rpms is clean other than the above. Why are the .a files not in a -static package? What would be the ramifications of correcting this? Otherwise, looks good, no other blockers. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226425] Merge Review: sox
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: sox https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226425 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 10:47 EST --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] push]# libst-config --libs -lvorbisenc -lvorbisfile -logg -lasound -lm -lgsm but sox-devel doesn't BR gsm-devel alsa-lib-devel and libvorbis-devel also I have this: cc -shared -o ../libmltsox.so factory.o filter_sox.o -lst `libst-config --libs` -L../../framework -lmlt /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lgsm collect2: ld returned 1 exit status since libst-config is missing -L/usr/lib64 or x86_64, so it might need to move to pkgconfig instead. for now I might use a workaround, but it would be fine to have this fixed for F-9 I wonder if it would be valuable to have modular built for libs (then BR libtool-ltdl-devel ), I'm testing this also... License need to be updated sox 14.0.1 is available static lib should be removed and .la file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428973] Review Request: vodovod - a pipe connecting 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: vodovod - a pipe connecting game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428973 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 11:00 EST --- Good for me. I will leave the final judgment to Ian. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429028] Review Request: upstart - an event-driven init 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: upstart - an event-driven init daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429028
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 11:11 EST ---
Shouldn't every non-versioned .so library land in -devel?
Ie. %{_libdir}/libupstart.so
And, other, %find_lang should be probably used.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431633] Review Request: libffi - High level programming interface to various calling conventions
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: libffi - High level programming interface to various calling conventions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431633 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 11:17 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) Also, I think you're misinterpreting what Jakub said. He said that he believes that libffi should be packaged separately from gcc for other packages to use, which is precisely what I'm doing here. I'm adding Jakub to the CC on this bug, so that he can either confirm or deny this. :) And I disagree with you both. I say: libffi's sources are part of GCC. i.e. if at all, it must be shipped as a subpackage of GCC. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429028] Review Request: upstart - an event-driven init 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: upstart - an event-driven init daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429028
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 11:27 EST ---
(In reply to comment #30)
Shouldn't every non-versioned .so library land in -devel?
Ie. %{_libdir}/libupstart.so
And, other, %find_lang should be probably used.
Are you looking at the latest package? Your concerns seem out of date.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431707] New: Review Request: sugar-toolkit - Sugar toolkit
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/show_bug.cgi?id=431707 Summary: Review Request: sugar-toolkit - Sugar toolkit Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://dev.laptop.org/~marco/sugar-toolkit.spec SRPM URL: http://dev.laptop.org/~marco/sugar-toolkit-0.79.0-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: Sugar is the core of the OLPC Human Interface. The toolkit provides a set of widgets to build HIG compliant applications and interfaces to interact with system services like presence and the datastore. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429028] Review Request: upstart - an event-driven init 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: upstart - an event-driven init daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429028 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 11:39 EST --- I'm not sure if this is approved or not. Whoever did the review should mark the flag appropriately. If you still need a sponsor after that (you shouldn't, as both notting and tibbs can sponsor you), I'd be willing to. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431707] Review Request: sugar-toolkit - Sugar toolkit
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: sugar-toolkit - Sugar toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431707 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 420161] Review Request: python-bugzilla - A python library for interacting with Bugzilla.
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-bugzilla - A python library for interacting with Bugzilla. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=420161 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 11:48 EST --- is this built for EL-5? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225616] Merge Review: bison
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: bison https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225616 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 11:48 EST --- rpmlint on srpm: bison.src:148: W: macro-in-%changelog defattr Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly rewriting history on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. bison.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot A GNU general-purpose parser generator. Summary ends with a dot. Fix. rpmlint on rpms: bison.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/bison/yacc.c A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. bison.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/bison/glr.c A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. bison-devel.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. bison-runtime.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. Fix or explain in spec. Is the .a necessary, and if so, why in -devel, not in -static? Otherwise, looks great, no other blockers. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431692] Review Request: libdstr - Dave's String class
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: libdstr - Dave's String class https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431692 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 11:59 EST --- Well, actually something strange. On my *rawhide* machine, when I manually try rpmbuild -ba, the compilation log says: Processing files: libdstr-devel-20080124-1.fc9 Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 Requires: libdstr.so.2 Processing files: libdstr-debuginfo-20080124-1.fc9 But [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ rpm -qp --requires ../RPMS/i386/libdstr-devel-20080124-1.fc9.i386.rpm libdstr = 20080124-1.fc9 libdstr.so.2 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 So actually libdstr-devel requires libdstr = %name-%version. Perhaps rpm side (and packages rpm depends on) changed somewhat? Anyway it seems to be working. (Maybe I have to file a bug against rpm??) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 398601] Review Request: cairo-clock - Cairo-rendered on-screen clock
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: cairo-clock - Cairo-rendered on-screen clock https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=398601 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |r) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 12:04 EST --- All was fixed : http://sereinity.free.fr/fedora/cairo-clock-0.3.3-3.fc8.src.rpm http://sereinity.free.fr/fedora/cairo-clock.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 430541] Review Request: taskcoach - Your friendly task 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: taskcoach - Your friendly task manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430541 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 12:04 EST --- The package fails to build in rawhide due to the egg-info file not being declared in %files. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PythonEggs for further details. The fix is easy. :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431692] Review Request: libdstr - Dave's String class
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: libdstr - Dave's String class https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431692 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 12:06 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) Well, actually something strange. On my *rawhide* machine, when I manually try rpmbuild -ba, the compilation log says: Processing files: libdstr-devel-20080124-1.fc9 Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 Requires: libdstr.so.2 Processing files: libdstr-debuginfo-20080124-1.fc9 But [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ rpm -qp --requires ../RPMS/i386/libdstr-devel-20080124-1.fc9.i386.rpm libdstr = 20080124-1.fc9 libdstr.so.2 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 So actually libdstr-devel requires libdstr = %name-%version. Perhaps rpm side (and packages rpm depends on) changed somewhat? Anyway it seems to be working. (Maybe I have to file a bug against rpm??) looks like that. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431692] Review Request: libdstr - Dave's String class
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: libdstr - Dave's String class https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431692 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 11:37 EST --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 3a35a29f33b22c04fe3d2ebe5dc29b5f libdstr-20080124.tar.bz2 + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + BuildRequires are proper. + Compiler flags used correctly. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + ldconfig scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Package libdstr-20080124-1.fc9 - Provides: libdstr.so.2Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libdstr.so.2 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) rtld(GNU_HASH) + Package libdstr-devel-20080124-1.fc9 - Requires: libdstr.so.2 Not sure why Requires for libdstr-devel-20080124-1.fc9 is missing libdstr = 20080124-1.fc9 But when I did rpmbuild -ba libdstr.spec on my machine I see its showing that requires on main package. Am I missing something to look? Note:- I used build.log from your F9 scratch build for this review. But for F8 build I can see that Requires is present. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225619] Merge Review: bluez-hcidump
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: bluez-hcidump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225619
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |medium
Priority|normal |medium
Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora
Version|devel |rawhide
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 12:19 EST ---
all rpmlint clean, save:
bluez-hcidump.i386: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/bluez-hcidump-1.40/NEWS
Not a problem. Could drop that file.
Source tag should be like:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Either way, though, the upstream is 404. Might be a problem on upstream's end.
Otherwise, looks good, no other blockers. Any ETA on upgrading to 1.41?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431692] Review Request: libdstr - Dave's String class
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: libdstr - Dave's String class https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431692 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 12:23 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) (In reply to comment #2) Well, actually something strange. On my *rawhide* machine, when I manually try rpmbuild -ba, the compilation log says: Processing files: libdstr-devel-20080124-1.fc9 Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 Requires: libdstr.so.2 Processing files: libdstr-debuginfo-20080124-1.fc9 But [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ rpm -qp --requires ../RPMS/i386/libdstr-devel-20080124-1.fc9.i386.rpm libdstr = 20080124-1.fc9 libdstr.so.2 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 So actually libdstr-devel requires libdstr = %name-%version. Perhaps rpm side (and packages rpm depends on) changed somewhat? Anyway it seems to be working. (Maybe I have to file a bug against rpm??) looks like that. Filed as bug 431721 as not only libdstr seems affected. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=398488 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=398489 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431692] Review Request: libdstr - Dave's String class
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: libdstr - Dave's String class https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431692 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 12:10 EST --- Thanks!! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: libdstr Short Description: Dave's String class Owners:mtasaka Branches: F-8 F-7 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431371] Review Request: gyachi - A Yahoo! chat client with Webcam and voice 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: gyachi - A Yahoo! chat client with Webcam and voice support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431371 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 12:28 EST --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431414] Review Request: planets - A celestial 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: planets - A celestial simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431414 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 12:32 EST --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431534] Review Request: gfeed - RSS feed reader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gfeed - RSS feed reader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431534 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 12:34 EST --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225626] Merge Review: brltty
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: brltty https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225626 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 12:37 EST --- Local build errors: Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /var/tmp/brltty-3.9-InstallRoot error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/lib/brlapi-0.5.1/libbrlapi_tcl.so /usr/lib/brlapi-0.5.1/pkgIndex.tcl RPM build errors: File not found: /var/tmp/brltty-3.9-InstallRoot/usr/lib/tcl8.4/brlapi-0.5.1/libbrlapi_tcl.so File not found: /var/tmp/brltty-3.9-InstallRoot/usr/lib/tcl8.4/brlapi-0.5.1/pkgIndex.tcl File not found: /var/tmp/brltty-3.9-InstallRoot/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/Brlapi-0.5.1-py2.5.egg-info Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/lib/brlapi-0.5.1/libbrlapi_tcl.so /usr/lib/brlapi-0.5.1/pkgIndex.tcl -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431692] Review Request: libdstr - Dave's String class
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: libdstr - Dave's String class https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431692 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 12:39 EST --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431414] Review Request: planets - A celestial 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: planets - A celestial simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431414 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 13:24 EST --- Imported and built. Thanks all! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431692] Review Request: libdstr - Dave's String class
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: libdstr - Dave's String class https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431692 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 13:47 EST --- Rebuilt on all archs, thank you for your review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428973] Review Request: vodovod - a pipe connecting 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: vodovod - a pipe connecting game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428973 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 13:50 EST --- everything's good as far as i can see. === approved === -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 430339] Review Request: libgringotts - The libgringotts provides a backend for managing the data files on the disk
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: libgringotts - The libgringotts provides a backend for managing the data files on the disk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430339 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 13:53 EST --- The SRPM link should be http://liviopl.fedorapeople.org/libgringotts/libgringotts-latest.src.rpm The URL in the spec doesn't actually mention libgringotts, so I'm sure you can understand my confusion. I found it on the download page, though, which indicates that 1.2.1 is the latest version. The only rpmlint issue now is: libgringotts.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long ensure the data are as safe as possible, and allow the user to have the complete which you can easily fix up by reflowing the text. Everything else looks good; just fix up that description line when you check in. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429451] Review Request: magicmaze - Board game featuring a maze which the players change each turn
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: magicmaze - Board game featuring a maze which the players change each turn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429451 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 14:25 EST --- Imported and build, closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431633] Review Request: libffi - High level programming interface to various calling conventions
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: libffi - High level programming interface to various calling conventions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431633 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 14:35 EST --- Paging Anthony Green (upstream maintainer) to this bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225809] Merge Review: gmp
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: gmp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225809 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords||Reopened Resolution|NOTABUG | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 14:50 EST --- I don't believe this should have been closed. Nobody has approved it yet, and I believe that the current package has outstanding issues. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc
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: gcc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225778 Bug 225778 depends on bug 225809, which changed state. Bug 225809 Summary: Merge Review: gmp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225809 What|Old Value |New Value Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NOTABUG | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 248363] Review Request: mpfr - A C library for multiple-precision floating-point computations
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: mpfr - A C library for multiple-precision floating-point computations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=248363 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide Bug 248363 depends on bug 225809, which changed state. Bug 225809 Summary: Merge Review: gmp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225809 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |NOTABUG Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NOTABUG | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431633] Review Request: libffi - High level programming interface to various calling conventions
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: libffi - High level programming interface to various calling conventions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431633 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 14:53 EST --- libffi should be packaged separately from GCC, much like zlib is. (zlib is bundled with the GCC sources, just like libffi). I'm preparing a libffi 3.0 release right now, and would prefer that we ship this version instead if that's OK. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 430339] Review Request: libgringotts - The libgringotts provides a backend for managing the data files on the disk
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: libgringotts - The libgringotts provides a backend for managing the data files on the disk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430339 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 14:54 EST --- 1: O, yes, I made little typo, sorry. 2: Again too long... I've tested it and it's ok: quiet for me (SPEC, SRPM, RPM). Should I fix it indeed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431633] Review Request: libffi - High level programming interface to various calling conventions
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: libffi - High level programming interface to various calling conventions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431633 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 14:57 EST --- This works for me. Please note that the headers (at least in what was in SVN) aren't anywhere near multilib clean, and I conditionalized them with a dummy header in my package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 430339] Review Request: libgringotts - The libgringotts provides a backend for managing the data files on the disk
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: libgringotts - The libgringotts provides a backend for managing the data files on the disk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430339 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 15:03 EST --- SRPM: http://liviopl.fedorapeople.org/libgringotts/libgringotts-latest.src.rpm SPEC: http://liviopl.fedorapeople.org/libgringotts/libgringotts.spec PS: Type APPROVED again and we're done (; . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 430339] Review Request: libgringotts - The libgringotts provides a backend for managing the data files on the disk
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: libgringotts - The libgringotts provides a backend for managing the data files on the disk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430339 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 15:19 EST --- It's already approved; please go ahead and make your CVS request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429028] Review Request: upstart - an event-driven init 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: upstart - an event-driven init daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429028 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|177841 | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 15:26 EST --- OK, approving and sponsoring; please enter CVS request. I'd like to co-maintain it for the moment, if you don't mind. For builds, please build into dist-f9-upstart until we get some of the bugs on the tracker worked out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 430339] Review Request: libgringotts - The libgringotts provides a backend for managing the data files on the disk
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: libgringotts - The libgringotts provides a backend for managing the data files on the disk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430339 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 15:28 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: libgringotts Short Description: A backend for managing encrypted data files on the disk Owners: liviopl Branches: F-7 F-8 devel InitialCC: liviopl Cvsextras Commits: yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 430541] Review Request: taskcoach - Your friendly task 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: taskcoach - Your friendly task manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430541 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 15:33 EST --- Fixed Spec URL: http://kurzawa.nonlogic.org/rpm/taskcoach/taskcoach.spec SRPM URL: http://kurzawa.nonlogic.org/rpm/taskcoach/taskcoach-0.68.0-3.fc8.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431707] Review Request: sugar-toolkit - Sugar toolkit
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: sugar-toolkit - Sugar toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431707 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226333] Merge Review: pygtk2
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: pygtk2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226333 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Summary|Merge Review: pygtk2|Merge Review: pygtk2 |(stalled) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 16:42 EST --- Thanks Tim, fixed the Source tag in pygtk2-2.12.1-4.fc9. I'll wait to push a new package until I have a more significant update. Setting status to MODIFIED, please close the bug if you're satisfied. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 381241] Review Request: ncl - NCAR Command Language and NCAR Graphics
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: ncl - NCAR Command Language and NCAR Graphics https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=381241 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 16:40 EST --- Patrice - Thanks for all your hard work here! I've applied the patches. http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/ncl-5.0.0-8.fc8.src.rpm http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/ncl.spec * Wed Feb 6 2008 - Orion Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 5.0.0-8 - Move examples into separate sub-package * Fri Feb 1 2008 - Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 5.0.0-7 - put noarch files in datadir - avoid compilation in %%install * Mon Jan 14 2008 - Orion Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 5.0.0-6 - Make BR hdf-devel = 4.2r2. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 307901] Review Request: lsvpd - A utility to list device Vital Product Data (VPD) information.
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: lsvpd - A utility to list device Vital Product Data (VPD) information. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=307901 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 16:45 EST --- We are currently working on the next version of this package, I will post a new spec file when it is finished and I am sure it builds on koji. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428113] Review Request: perl-Net-eBay - Perl Interface to XML based eBay API
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-eBay - Perl Interface to XML based eBay API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 16:53 EST --- Imported and built for devel, F-8 and EL-5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431633] Review Request: libffi - High level programming interface to various calling conventions
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: libffi - High level programming interface to various calling conventions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431633 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 17:05 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) This works for me. Please note that the headers (at least in what was in SVN) aren't anywhere near multilib clean, and I conditionalized them with a dummy header in my package. Yes, that's one of the things we're cleaning up for 3.0. It probably won't be ready for a couple of weeks at least. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428368] Review Request: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite
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: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite Alias: fedora-ds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428368 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 17:08 EST --- Um, this should be a noarch package: BuildArch: noarch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428368] Review Request: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite
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: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite Alias: fedora-ds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428368 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 17:18 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) Um, this should be a noarch package: BuildArch: noarch Unfortunately, I don't think it can be a noarch package, because most of its dependencies are arch specific packages (fedora-ds-base, fedora-ds-admin). How would that work? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428368] Review Request: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite
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: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite Alias: fedora-ds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428368 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 17:41 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) Unfortunately, I don't think it can be a noarch package, because most of its dependencies are arch specific packages (fedora-ds-base, fedora-ds-admin). How would that work? We don't care about the architecture of dependencies. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225615] Merge Review: binutils
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: binutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225615 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 17:53 EST --- I think it would be better to change the perl substitution to a sed substitution. the gzipping of info files will be done automatically, and install-info knows how to install/remove compressed info files. I suggest using %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root) Why not use %configure and why use %makeinstall? Looks like DESTDIR is rightly used. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428368] Review Request: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite
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: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite Alias: fedora-ds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428368 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 17:54 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) (In reply to comment #7) Unfortunately, I don't think it can be a noarch package, because most of its dependencies are arch specific packages (fedora-ds-base, fedora-ds-admin). How would that work? We don't care about the architecture of dependencies. So if I do yum install fedora-ds on an x86_64 system, what happens? Does it pull in fedora-ds-base.x86_64 or fedora-ds-base.i386? If the latter, and I really want (and expect since I'm running on an x86_64 system) to get fedora-ds-base.x86_64 picked up as a dependency, how does that work? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428368] Review Request: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite
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: fedora-ds: Meta-package for Fedora Directory Server Suite Alias: fedora-ds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428368 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 18:03 EST --- Well, under the current setup, you would get both, with the x86_64 binaries taking precedence. Looks like current plan is to fix yum so that you would only get the preferred architecture. Why is fedora-ds-base multilib at the moment anyway? Is there any reason why you would want to run the 32-bit version on x86_64? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428894] Review Request: rudesocket - Library (C++ API) for creating client sockets
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: rudesocket - Library (C++ API) for creating client sockets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428894 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 351361] Review Request: ghc-X11-extras - Haskell X11-extras 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: ghc-X11-extras - Haskell X11-extras library Alias: ghc-X11-extras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=351361 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 19:14 EST --- Sorry for neglecting this review too long... (In reply to comment #11) Nevertheless, it seem that ghc-X11-extras is not needed anymore, at least the latest release of xmonad does not need it, but a newer version of ghc-X11, but I need to do some more research here Right I just noticed this myself. I didn't search the haskell mailing-lists but I see: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=464004 I think it would be good and straightforward to update your package to X11 instead since ghc-6.8.2 no longer seems to ship X11. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225732] Merge Review: epiphany
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: epiphany https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225732 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 19:46 EST --- I've done the remaining cosmetic chances, so the package is ready for approval, methinks. Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225732] Merge Review: epiphany
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: epiphany https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225732 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429028] Review Request: upstart - an event-driven init 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: upstart - an event-driven init daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429028 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 20:16 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: upstart Short Description: An event-driven init system Owners: sadmac,notting Branches: InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 422851] Review Request: fuse-gmailfs- Gmail Filesystem
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: fuse-gmailfs- Gmail Filesystem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=422851 Bug 422851 depends on bug 422831, which changed state. Bug 422831 Summary: Review Request: python-libgmail - Library to provide access to Gmail via Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=422831 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 422841] Review Request: python-libgmail-docs - Documents and examples for python-libgmail
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-libgmail-docs - Documents and examples for python-libgmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=422841 Bug 422841 depends on bug 422831, which changed state. Bug 422831 Summary: Review Request: python-libgmail - Library to provide access to Gmail via Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=422831 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
