[Bug 432741] Review Request: sarai-fonts - Free Sarai Hindi Truetype Font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sarai-fonts - Free Sarai Hindi Truetype Font https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432741 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 03:50 EST --- is this built? -- 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 433253] Review Request: dotconf - Required for speech dispatcher on OLPC XO
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: dotconf - Required for speech dispatcher on OLPC XO
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433253
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 04:23 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Created an attachment (id=295402)
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=295402action=view) [edit]
Patch to remove ASL 1.1 part for GPLv2+ compatibility
By the way:
- speech-dispatcher (bug 432259), which depends on this bug, is
licensed under GPLv2+.
So to make use of speech-dispatcher the license of dotconf must
be GPLv2+ compatible.
- However currently this package (dotconf) is licensed under
LGPLv2 and ASL 1.1 as build log shows:
--
/bin/sh ../libtool --mode=link gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386
-mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables
-I/home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/SOURCES/dotconf-1.0.13-1.fc7/dotconf-1.0.13/libpool
-Wall -g -o libdotconf.la -rpath /usr/lib -version-info 10:4:10 -release
1.0-export-dynamic dotconf.lo readdir.lo
---
and src/readdir.c is ASL 1.1
Note that ASL 1.1 is GPLv2 incompatible, so this situation is not
allowed.
Fortunately for Linux as far as I checked the source code
we can built this package without src/readdir.{c,h}. The attached
file makes this package surely LGPLv2.
I have again updated the file at the server. Have included the patch file on
the server also link:http://www.nsitonline.in/assim/stuffs/olpc/dotconf/dotconf-
1.0.13.patch. I have done all the edits as said except for the last one
- For %{_bindir}/dotconf-config (in the source tarball it was
dotconf-config.in), @libdir@ is expanded as /usr/lib on 32bits
machine but /usr/lib64 on 64bits machine on Fedora.
This means that /usr/bin/dotconf-config differs between
on 32 bits machine and on 64 bits machine. Currently Fedora
does not allow this type of multilib conflicts for -devel
subpackage.
I am a complete newbie to package building so can you please provide me some
pointer regarding this issue?
--
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 433547] Review Request: nagios-nsca - nagios passive check 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: nagios-nsca - nagios passive check daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433547 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 04:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) Hi Xavier, Hi Wart, It looks like we started from the same DAG rpm. :) Don't forget that the /etc/nagios/*.cfg files need to be mode 0600 and readable only by root because they contain encryption passwords. Since you've also worked on the same package, would you like to review and/or comaintain this with me? Sure, that's the plan, but I'm short on time at the moment so I just pointed you at my unfinished work so you may (or may not) cherry-pick from it. I'll get back to it next week hopefully. Regards, Xavier -- 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 426929] Review Request: tetex-lineno - Add line numbers on paragraphs in LaTeX
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tetex-lineno - Add line numbers on paragraphs in LaTeX https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426929 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 04:41 EST --- Just a quick question before I apply it. Wouldn't it be better to: Obsoletes: tetex-lineno 4.42 Provides: tetex-lineno = 4.42 in order to not to let texlive-texmf provide the same package as it obsoletes? -- 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 433915] Review Request: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility package)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility package) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433915 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 05:18 EST --- Renaming the binary is probably a bad idea, in the case that this package installed on the server side, as the client will try to call unison on the server. -- 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 433228] Review Request: distcc - Distributed C/C++ compilation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: distcc - Distributed C/C++ compilation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433228 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 06:16 EST --- icecream integration: so icecream offers a similar service to distcc, and enables the service automatically by using a ccache-style file in profile.d. To be honest, I cringe in horror when I look at /etc/profile.d/icecream.sh: it manually check for the presence of ccache and changes its path order accordingly. How can that possibly scale when more and more projects want to provide a gcc alternative ? I guess that would be a would debate to have on fedora-devel or on the packaging committee (assuming it didn't happen already). So if you have both distcc and icecream installed, and if you use distcc the old fashioned way with make CC=distcc, distcc will be called first, but builds scheduled to localhost will then invoke icecream, which will fall back to localhost again or go remote if icecream is configured. So it will work of course, but may confuse some people if you actually configured both servicess. About Lennart's avahi patch: Lennart I had some issues with your patch: it touches both configure and configure.ac, and a Makefile.in change references a file distccmon-gnome.1 that's not part of the tarball and causing make install to fail. I massaged the patch to make it build and gave the feature a try on a virtual machine. Unfortunately I was unable to make it work. distccd starts correctly with --zeroconf (although the verbose log mentions nothing about avahi service being enabled?), but I'm seeing this ominous message on the client system when I start distccd: Feb 22 11:54:27 jupiler avahi-daemon[30737]: Invalid legacy unicast query packet. Feb 22 11:54:28 jupiler avahi-daemon[30737]:last message repeated 2 times (server and client systems run F-8). Any thoughts ? -- 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 433143] Review Request: mldonkey - MLDonkey is a multi-platform multi-network peer-to-peer client (ocaml)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mldonkey - MLDonkey is a multi-platform multi-network peer-to-peer client (ocaml) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433143 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 06:07 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) BTW the legal status of MLDonkey is stil questionable - I asked Tom Callaway some time ago and he didn't provides clean answer whether we may distribute p2p-software such as MLDonkey, aMule etc. We already have almost finished package at Livna's bugzilla: http://bugzilla.livna.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1487 but its obvious that shipping MLDonkey in main Fedora repo will be preferred. The only thing is left is to fix config-files so we could simply use generic make install instead of manually copying files with install tool. Fedora already contain that kind software. DC++ https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/valknut torrent's https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/bittorrent -- 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 433228] Review Request: distcc - Distributed C/C++ compilation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: distcc - Distributed C/C++ compilation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433228 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 07:25 EST --- Yes, the patch is a bit dirty and based on Debian's distcc tarball. It's perfectly fine to ignore the missing files. The legacy unicast issues are unrelated to the distcc patch. It's probably borked multicast support in your virtual machine software. What VM system did you use? Have you configured it for bridging support? Unless you enable bridging for the VM mDNS (multicasting) will not 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 433228] Review Request: distcc - Distributed C/C++ compilation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: distcc - Distributed C/C++ compilation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433228 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 09:50 EST --- Lennart, the VM was probably be the problem. I used VMWare, in NAT mode. I tried a simpler approach by running distccd locally, and that seems to work better. I did however have one occurrence of this error: distcc -j distcc[4016] (dcc_parse_tcp_host) ERROR: invalid tcp port specification in :213:e8ff:fea3:b66f:1234/8 192.168.127.1:1234/8 cat .distcc/zeroconf/hosts fe80::213:e8ff:fea3:b66f:1234/8 192.168.127.1:1234/8 -- 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 434169] New: Review Request: ocaml-zip - OCaml library for reading and writing zip, jar and gzip files
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=434169 Summary: Review Request: ocaml-zip - OCaml library for reading and writing zip, jar and gzip files 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://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-zip.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-zip-1.03-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: OCaml library for reading and writing zip, jar and gzip files This Objective Caml library provides easy access to compressed files in ZIP and GZIP format, as well as to Java JAR files. It provides functions for reading from and writing to compressed files in these formats. - Passes rpmlint. Builds on Rawhide against OCaml 3.10.1 (also works with 3.10.0 on F-8). -- 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 434353] New: renameutils package not in official Fedora repo
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=434353 Summary: renameutils package not in official Fedora repo Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: low Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Description of problem: There is no renameutils in the official Fedora repositories Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): I only tried this in Fedora 8. How reproducible: always Steps to Reproduce: 1. yum install renameutils 2. 3. Actual results: no package named 'renameutils' is found Expected results: renameutils are installed successfully Additional info: There are actually RPMs available for this package: http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases/renameutils/ I prefer not to install any RPMs that are not in the official Fedora repositories to avoid conflicts. -- 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 432265] Review Request: astronomy-bookmarks - Fedora astronomy bookmarks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: astronomy-bookmarks - Fedora astronomy bookmarks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432265 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 11:08 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) Sure, but then they both provide the same files, so there should be an explicit 'Conflicts' here? You're right, completely forgot about it. My spec file and SRPM are updated. Chris Aillon told me there are no plans to implement multiple-bookmarks-files capability into Firefox... So I guess this is our only solution even if it's ugly. -- 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 432542] Review Request: autogen - Automated text file generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: autogen - Automated text file generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432542
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 11:55 EST ---
For 5.9.4-2:
* autogen-manuals
- new autogen package should obsolete this package.
? BR: chrpath
- Well, would you try to remove rpath by not using chrpath?
(Removing Rpath of
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines )
Using chrpath should be considered as a last resort..
Usually modifying libtool (or make LIBTOOL=%{_bindir}/libtool)
removes rpath.
* License tag
(See License-check.log)
- Actually as %{_includedir}/autoopts/options.h (and so on)
is LGPLv3+, BSD or part must be deleted.
* defattr
- We now recommend %defattr(-,root,root,-)
* pkgconfig file
- Well, autoopts.pc file contains
-
11 ldopts=-Wl,-R
25 Libs: -Wl,-R/usr/lib -L/usr/lib -lopts
-
-Wl,-R sets rpath and this must be deleted.
! multilib conflict
- autoopts/autoopts-config.in contains
-
20libdir=@libdir@
-
or so, which differs between on 32bit arch and on 64bit arch.
So this causes multilib conflict. Please try to resolve this
conflict.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MultilibTricks
* Undefined non weak symbols
- libguileopts.so has undefined non-weak symbols
From rpmlint (on i386):
-
autogen-libopts.i386: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol
/usr/lib/libguileopts.so.0.0.1 scm_i_master_freelist
autogen-libopts.i386: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol
/usr/lib/libguileopts.so.0.0.1 scm_i_master_freelist2
autogen-libopts.i386: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol
/usr/lib/libguileopts.so.0.0.1 scm_cells_allocated
autogen-libopts.i386: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol
/usr/lib/libguileopts.so.0.0.1 scm_i_freelist
autogen-libopts.i386: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol
/usr/lib/libguileopts.so.0.0.1 scm_i_freelist2
autogen-libopts.i386: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol
/usr/lib/libguileopts.so.0.0.1 scm_gc_for_newcell
autogen-libopts.i386: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol
/usr/lib/libguileopts.so.0.0.1 gh_eval_str
-
( you can check this also by ldd -r /usr/lib/libguileopts.so)
libguileopts.so is in -devel package, i.e. used for linkage
so leaving these symbols is not allowed because this causes
linkage failure.
* scriptlets
- For /sbin/install-info, for some reason Fedora requests
to use
--
/sbin/install-info %{_infodir}/%{name}.info %{_infodir}/dir || :
--
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
--
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 434547] New: Review Request: aprsd - Internet gateway and client access to amateur radio APRS packet data
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=434547 Summary: Review Request: aprsd - Internet gateway and client access to amateur radio APRS packet data 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://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/aprsd.spec SRPM URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/aprsd-2.2.5-15.2.fc8.src.rpm Description: APRSd is an APRS server program that uses amateur radio and internet services to convey GPS mapping, weather, and positional data. It has been developed by and for amateur radio enthusiasts to provide real-time data in an easy to use 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 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 Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||m) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 12:32 EST --- ping? -- 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 426867] Review Request: scala - Hybrid functional/object-oriented language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: scala - Hybrid functional/object-oriented language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426867 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||monk.net) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 12:33 EST --- ping? -- 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 433915] Review Request: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility package)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility package) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433915 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 12:32 EST --- Renaming the binary is required so that the unison and unison2.13 packages can co-exist on the same machine. On other systems that support parallel installation of multiple versions of Unison (e.g. Cygwin, and I have to assume Debian/Ubuntu too), this is the way it works, so it's not remotely unexpected to users of Unison. Similarly, Unison itself supports the addversiono option that'll attempt to invoke e.g. unison-2.13 on the server instead of plain unison. In this package, the binary is renamed to match what Unison will attempt to invoke (when using this option.) -- 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 429112] Review Request: pigment-python - Python bindings to the Pigment Media Center 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: pigment-python - Python bindings to the Pigment Media Center Toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429112 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||net) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 12:31 EST --- What is the status of 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 433253] Review Request: dotconf - Required for speech dispatcher on OLPC XO
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: dotconf - Required for speech dispatcher on OLPC XO
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433253
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 12:35 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=295663)
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=295663action=view)
Patch to resolve multilib issue
* As we don't ship libpool.a, the part related to libpool.a
can be removed from dotconf-config.in.
* -L%{_libdir} is always unneeded.
The attached patch should resolve multilib issue.
When you modify your spec file, please change the release number
to avoid confusion.
--
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 426026] Review Request: gnome-menu-extended - Gnome Menu with KDE directory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-menu-extended - Gnome Menu with KDE directory https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426026 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 12:42 EST --- Umm.. rpm scriptlet (%post, %postun...) must not handle files under user's home directory. User may customize their desktop menu entry by their way and removing them on uninstall of this rpm is not desired. -- 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 Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |m) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 12:52 EST --- I need to take the time to convince it to honor the %optflags, but I haven't had a chance yet. -- 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 283951] Review Request: log4net - A .NET framework for logging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: log4net - A .NET framework for logging https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=283951 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 13:01 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 253571] Review Request: ocaml-fileutils - OCaml library for common file and filename operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocaml-fileutils - OCaml library for common file and filename operations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253571 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 12:58 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 433012] Review Request: cloudy - Spectral synthesis code to simulate conditions in interstellar matter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cloudy - Spectral synthesis code to simulate conditions in interstellar matter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433012 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 13:06 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 432265] Review Request: astronomy-bookmarks - Fedora astronomy bookmarks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: astronomy-bookmarks - Fedora astronomy bookmarks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432265 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 13:03 EST --- Yeah, pretty non ideal. ;( Oh well, sometimes thats the way it goes... 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 359911] Review Request: drupal-views - Provides a method for site designers to control content presentation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: drupal-views - Provides a method for site designers to control content presentation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=359911 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 13:22 EST --- Drupal 6.0 hitting rawhide, 6.x version of this module not yet ready. -- 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 359961] Review Request: drupal-service_links - Enables admins to add links to a number of sites
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: drupal-service_links - Enables admins to add links to a number of sites https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=359961 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 13:21 EST --- Drupal 6.0 going to rawhide, 6.x version of this module not yet ready. -- 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 359941] Review Request: drupal-calendar - This module will display any Views date field in calendar formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: drupal-calendar - This module will display any Views date field in calendar formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=359941 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 13:24 EST --- Drupal 6.0 is hitting rawhide, the 6.x version of this module is not yet ready. -- 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 359921] Review Request: drupal-cck - Allows you create and customize fields using a web browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: drupal-cck - Allows you create and customize fields using a web browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=359921 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 13:23 EST --- Drupal 6.0 is hitting rawhide, the 6.x version is not ready and depends upon the 6.x version of views. -- 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 434557] New: Review Request: perl-Log-Trivial - Very simple tool for writing very simple log files
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=434557 Summary: Review Request: perl-Log-Trivial - Very simple tool for writing very simple log files 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://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/perl-Log-Trivial.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/perl-Log-Trivial-0.31-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: Use this module when you want use Yet Another very simple, light weight log file writer. -- 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 359931] Review Request: drupal-date - This package contains both the Date module and a Date API module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: drupal-date - This package contains both the Date module and a Date API module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=359931 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 13:23 EST --- Drupal 6.0 is hitting rawhide, the 6.x version of this module is not yet ready. -- 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 431277] Review Request: ocfs2-tools - programs for managing Ocfs2 file systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ocfs2-tools - programs for managing Ocfs2 file systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431277
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 13:42 EST ---
Excellent, looking much better! I have two tiny little changes left for the
spec:
1) for the sake of consistency, use either '%{name} = %{version}-%{release}' or
'ocfs2-tools = %{version}-%{release}' in both ocfs2console and
ocfs2-tools-devel. Right now, one has one form, one has the other. (Actually my
fault, since my earlier patch changed one and not the other)
2) pull the bits about grepping for CFLAGS out of the spec. I assume they were
just there to verify they were getting passed through correctly.
Now for the full review checklist:
Fedora Package Review: ocfs2-tools
--
MUST Items:
* rpmlint output acceptable (post full output w/waiver notes where needed):
ocfs2-tools.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/ocfs2
This one is fine, per earlier discussion in the bug.
ocfs2-tools.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/o2cb
ocfs2-tools.x86_64: E: subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/o2cb
This script is a bit terrifying... Can you elaborate a bit on what this one does
and why it also needs to be on by default?
ocfs2-tools-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
Not a problem.
* Meets Package Naming Guidelines
* spec file name matches %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec
* The package meets the Packaging Guidelines
* open-source compatible license and meets fedora legal reqs (GPLv2)
* License field in spec matches actual license
* Includes text of license(s) in its own file, file in %doc
* spec file legible and in American English
* sources used match the upstream source, as provided in spec URL. Verify with
md5sum (if no upstream URL, source creation method must be documented and can be
verified using diff).
* produces binary rpms on at least one arch (tested f8/x86_64)
* No ExcludeArch
* BuildRequires are sane
* no locales
* no shared libs
* not relocatable
* package owns all directories it creates
* no duplicates in %files
* Permissions on %files sane
* %clean includes rm -rf %{buildroot}/$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
* macros used consistently
* package contains code
* No need for docs sub-package
* files in %doc aren't required for package to work
* Header files in -devel package
* Static libs present, explained, and packaged in accordance with the guidelines
* package Reqs: pkgconfig if pkgconfig(.pc) files present
* no versioned libs
* -devel packages requires base package NVR
* no libtool archives
* GUI app (ocfs2console), includes a %{name}.desktop file, installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section
* doesn't own files or folders other package own
* %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot}/$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
* filenames in packages are valid UTF-8
SHOULD Items (not absolutely mandatory, but highly encouraged)
* package should build in mock: built in f8/x86_64 mock chroot
* package should build on all supported architectures: only tested x86_64 myself
* package should function as expected: untested by me, but I assume it does
* scriptlets are sane
* subpackages other than -devel require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
* pkgconfig files in -devel pkg
So basically, just the two little things on the spec side, and a bit more
explanation of the o2cb initscript, and I'm prepared to approve the package and
do the whole sponsor thing. :)
--
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 253571] Review Request: ocaml-fileutils - OCaml library for common file and filename operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocaml-fileutils - OCaml library for common file and filename operations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253571 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 13:43 EST --- I discussed license with upstream and he says he's going to resolve it in the tarball soon. In the meantime, I'm building it in Fedora 8 and Rawhide. -- 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 433915] Review Request: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility package)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility package) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433915 [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 428725] Review Request: wiggle - help apply patches when 'patch' can't
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wiggle - help apply patches when 'patch' can't https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428725 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||rawhide Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 14:06 EST --- Nope, no reason. Thanks for reminding me. -- 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 433223] Review Request: gstreamermm - C++ wrapper for GStreamer 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: gstreamermm - C++ wrapper for GStreamer library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433223 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 14:00 EST --- New upstream version with lots of bug fixes: Spec URL: http://www.poolshark.org/src/gstreamermm-0.9.4-1.fc8.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://www.poolshark.org/src/gstreamermm.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 433915] Review Request: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility package)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility package) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433915 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 14:32 EST --- In my opinion, this whole thing has been approached from the wrong perspective. When Fedora 8 was released, the Unison package was version 2.13. Until Fedora 9 is released, Unison 2.13 should still be the default version. The additional package should be unison2.27. People expect things to break when they upgrade from Fedora 8 to Fedora 9, but they don't expect things to randomly break when they check for updates to Fedora 8. By the way, if people wanted 2.27 so badly, why couldn't they just do --enablerepo=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 233975] Review Request: freefem++ - PDE solving 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: freefem++ - PDE solving tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=233975 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 15:07 EST --- freefem++-2.24-2.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8 -- 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 426929] Review Request: tetex-lineno - Add line numbers on paragraphs in LaTeX
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tetex-lineno - Add line numbers on paragraphs in LaTeX https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426929 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 15:06 EST --- Yes, you are right. Could also be Obsoletes: tetex-lineno = 4.41 Provides: tetex-lineno = 4.42 -- 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 433915] Review Request: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility package)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility
package)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433915
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 15:20 EST ---
Andrew,
Yes, I totally agree. However, it doesn't seem like discussion on Fedora-devel
was moving in the direction of making plain old unison continue to be 2.13,
hence I'm trying to get 2.13 back into F8 ASAP.
FYI, my long term goals would be a situation as follows:
For *all* versions of Unison, there will be a versioned package unison2.13,
unison2.27 etc.
There will also be an unversioned or meta package representing the moving
latest version.
This main unison package could contain nothing but the following symlink that
moves based on latest version:
/usr/bin/unison - /usr/bin/unison-${version}
and a Requires ensuring that the relevant versioned package is installed.
This allows all of:
* People can ensure a specific version is installed by installing the versioned
package, with no special cases for whatever the latest version is (since there
will be a versioned package for the latest version too)
* People only interested in interoperability with other Fedora installations at
the same release level can simply install unison and have it upgrade whenever
(this still allows us to implement whatever policy we want regarding when to
point this meta-package at new versions.)
* People can have N different specific versions installed too, for
interoperability with multiple other systems.
The only issue I see is that if somebody installs plain unison, and this gets
upgraded, then the old versioned package will get left behind. Perhaps the
main unversioned package should just have a copy of the latest app, and not be a
symlink/requires; that would solve this at the potential expense of having two
copies of the latest if explicit versioned packages are installed.
Perhaps if there's further discussion of the above, we should do it on the
mailing list, so the bug doesn't get full up and distract from 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 426026] Review Request: gnome-menu-extended - Gnome Menu with KDE directory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gnome-menu-extended - Gnome Menu with KDE directory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426026
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 14:59 EST ---
(In reply to comment #13)
OK. Then do not restore user's original menu (remove the for ... done section
from the spec). However, keeping gnome-menu-extended.desktop in
~/.local/share/applications after removing what it is supposed to launch is not
a good idea. These two commands do no harm but leaving unusable launchers in
user's menu do:
rm -f /home/*/.local/share/applications/%{name}.desktop
rm -f /root/.local/share/applications/%{name}.desktop
--
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 433915] Review Request: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility package)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: unison2.13 - File synchronization tool (compatibility package) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433915 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 15:36 EST --- On second thoughts, I think we should have: unison2.13 unison2.27 and use the alternatives system to switch the /usr/bin/unison link. -- 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 253571] Review Request: ocaml-fileutils - OCaml library for common file and filename operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocaml-fileutils - OCaml library for common file and filename operations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253571 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 16:40 EST --- What did upstream say the actual license is supposed to be? If a new upstream release isn't coming soon then it might be nice to include the email with the license clarification in the package as %doc. -- 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 431277] Review Request: ocfs2-tools - programs for managing Ocfs2 file systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocfs2-tools - programs for managing Ocfs2 file systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431277 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #295577|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 16:39 EST --- Created an attachment (id=295679) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=295679action=view) Latest ocfs2-tools spec file, with minor changes -- 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 431277] Review Request: ocfs2-tools - programs for managing Ocfs2 file systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocfs2-tools - programs for managing Ocfs2 file systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431277 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 16:38 EST --- Fixed the spec file stuff - yeah the grep lines were a total mistake on my part :) New versions of the spec and srpm can be found in the usual place: http://oss.oracle.com/~mfasheh/fedora/ocfs2-tools-1.3.9-6.20080221git.fc8.src.rpm http://oss.oracle.com/~mfasheh/fedora/ocfs2-tools.spec Regarding the init scripts, the Ocfs2 cluster services are enabled by default because it's quite common for a user to have critical software loaded at boot from an Ocfs2 file system and leaving the services off by default (thus making their file systems unmountable) violates the principal of least surprise, and could actually result in a loss of availability. -- 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 431277] Review Request: ocfs2-tools - programs for managing Ocfs2 file systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocfs2-tools - programs for managing Ocfs2 file systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431277 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 17:01 EST --- (In reply to comment #21) Regarding the init scripts, the Ocfs2 cluster services are enabled by default because it's quite common for a user to have critical software loaded at boot from an Ocfs2 file system and leaving the services off by default (thus making their file systems unmountable) violates the principal of least surprise, and could actually result in a loss of availability. What I'm not clear on is what functionality is provided by each of the two initscripts individually. I was thinking the ocfs2 initscript did the mounting of ocfs2 file systems, but I'm not quite clear what the o2cb one does. Hrm, I suppose there's probably some documentation on it somewhere in the tarball, eh?... But if you could quickly explain what each does individually and why both need to be on for all installs, I'd appreciate it and I'll probably just say oh, ok, 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 233975] Review Request: freefem++ - PDE solving 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: freefem++ - PDE solving tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=233975 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 16:15 EST --- freefem++-2.24-2.fc7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 7 -- 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 434583] Review Request: tunctl - Create and remove virtual network interfaces
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tunctl - Create and remove virtual network interfaces Alias: tunctl-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434583 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||tunctl-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 434583] Review Request: tunctl - Create and remove virtual network interfaces
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tunctl - Create and remove virtual network interfaces Alias: tunctl-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434583 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 434583] New: Review Request: tunctl - Create and remove virtual network interfaces
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=434583 Summary: Review Request: tunctl - Create and remove virtual network interfaces 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: http://people.redhat.com/lkundrak/SPECS/tunctl.spec SRPM: http://people.redhat.com/lkundrak/mock-results/tunctl-1.4-1.fc8.x86_64/tunctl-1.4-1.fc8.src.rpm mock: http://people.redhat.com/lkundrak/mock-results/tunctl-1.4-1.fc8.x86_64/ Description: Create and remove virtual network interfaces Virtual network interface manipulation tool from User Mode Linux project. --- Rationale: Since some kernel version write privilegies on /dev/net/tun are not sufficient for an unprivileged user to create virtual network interfaces. Thus they need to be precreated by root, but no tool for this exists in Fedora but openvpn. -- 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 431277] Review Request: ocfs2-tools - programs for managing Ocfs2 file systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocfs2-tools - programs for managing Ocfs2 file systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431277 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 17:07 EST --- Okay, nevermind, I poked at the tarball more. So the various cluster services are first started up by o2cb.init, and then the actual volumes are mounted by ocfs2.init. And all nodes mounting the ocfs2 file system need to be running the cluster services, they can't simply mount the volume w/o the services running. Right? -- 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 434585] New: Review Request: python-flickrapi - python interface to flickr
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=434585 Summary: Review Request: python-flickrapi - python interface to flickr 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://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/flickrapi/python-flickrapi.spec SRPM URL: http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/flickrapi/python-flickrapi-0.15-1.src.rpm Description: Python interface to the flickr api -- 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 250970] Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500/USB2 model series
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ivtv-firmware - Firmware for the PVR
250/350/150/500/USB2 model series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250970
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: ivtv- |Review Request: ivtv-
|firmware - Firmware for the |firmware - Firmware for the
|PVR 250/350/150/500 model |PVR 250/350/150/500/USB2
|series |model series
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 16:48 EST ---
Okay. So I've read over everything, including both spec files. For the most
part, I believe this boils down to a misunderstanding that has simply escalated
out of control. Whether or not the fact the two individuals have histories of
contributing to 3rd-party package repos that themselves have a history of
conflict somehow contributed more fuel to the fire, I don't know, but I wouldn't
doubt it...
Anyhow, I understand Nicolas' frustration for his review comments being
dismissed, as well as Axel's frustration over Nicolas going and submitting his
own review. Honestly, I think BOTH of you are in the wrong here, to some extent.
Nicolas, I'm not wild about seeing a competing review submitted for the very
same package you were already the primary reviewer on, especially given that
Axel posted that he was on vacation (though apparently, you were unaware of
this). It does feel a bit like hostile takeover. I understand wanting to get the
package into the distro asap, but still, it wasn't the most courteous thing. If
your problems with Axel's package can be resolved, I think you ought to
relinquish ownership back to Axel.
Axel, I'm still not wild about your spec file and all the legacy crud its going
to lay down on a clean Fedora system. Nicolas' objections to your version are
entirely valid. However, they're quite easily remedied in a way that doesn't
break RHEL compatibility. Simply wrap those sections of the spec with '%if
0%{?rhel}', which a number of other packages using shared specs between fedora
and epel do. The license files really could use renaming too, generic license
file names in a system-wide firmware directory are not cool. Pretty sure the
license doesn't prevent renaming those files to something less generic (such as
is done in Nicolas' spec). Using mv to transfer files from the sourcedir to the
buildroot also doesn't sit well with me, the sourcedir should be left intact.
Use either install or cp instead. PVR-USB2 firmware is also included, should be
mentioned in the description and summary.
So yeah, as I've already hinted... Going forward, I believe Axel should be the
owner and primary maintainer of this package *if his version can pass review*.
My reasoning, beyond what I've already said:
1) Axel submitted the package for review first, didn't abandon it (though it may
have seemed like it to the casual observer), and he's still working on it.
Abandoned package takeover guidelines don't apply here, since Axel did leave
proper notice that he was on vacation (well, moving, actually).
2) Axel basically *is* upstream for this package, and did all the legwork to
make it even *possible* for fedora to package it and distribute it. Ripping it
out from under him at the last minute simply isn't cool.
3) Axel has also submitted the ivtv userspace for review. It depends on this
package. Having the same maintainer for both of these packages only makes sense.
Of course, as stated, this is all assuming Axel does address the remaining
*valid* issues Nicolas (and myself and others) have with his version of the
package. If these issues aren't resolved by the time Fedora 9 beta release hits
the streets[*], then we stay with the current situation with Nicolas' package
and him as owner/primary maintainer.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Hopefully, we can put this mess to rest
and all move along with our lives, to things far more interesting than packaging
up firmware for devices that are quickly approaching obsolescence. Thank you,
and good night.
[*] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/9/Schedule says March 13.
Suggested changes to Axel's spec in diff form, which would satisfy my own
complaints with his version:
--- ivtv-firmware.spec.orig 2008-02-22 14:44:51.0 -0500
+++ ivtv-firmware.spec 2008-02-22 15:39:12.0 -0500
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
%define version_enc 2.06.039
%define version_dec 2.02.023
-Summary: Firmware for the PVR 250/350/150/500 model series
+Summary: Firmware for the Hauppauge PVR 250/350/150/500/USB2 model series
Name: ivtv-firmware
Version: 20070217
Release: 16
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ Obsoletes: %{name}-enc %{version_enc}
Provides: %{name}-enc = %{version_enc}
[Bug 431277] Review Request: ocfs2-tools - programs for managing Ocfs2 file systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocfs2-tools - programs for managing Ocfs2 file systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431277 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 17:29 EST --- (In reply to comment #24) Okay, nevermind, I poked at the tarball more. So the various cluster services are first started up by o2cb.init, and then the actual volumes are mounted by ocfs2.init. And all nodes mounting the ocfs2 file system need to be running the cluster services, they can't simply mount the volume w/o the services running. Right? Right - o2cb.init is for cluster services and ocfs2.init handles the file system. -- 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 428925] Review Request: bongo - An easy-to-use mail and calendar system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: bongo - An easy-to-use mail and calendar system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428925
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 17:59 EST ---
Sorry about the rather excessive tardiness of this review. Real Life can
sometimes be a bit annoying. :(
Anyway, here we go! Formal review of bongo-0.3.1-2:
=== GOOD ===
+ Package naming/version is OK. Spec file is appropriately named
(%{name}.spec).
+ License (GPLv2) is acceptable for Fedora and matches that of the code.
+ rpmlint is silent on the source RPM
+ Builds successfully in mock (F8/x86_64 and devel/x86_64)
+ Final file and directory ownership is OK, with no duplicates and appropriate
%defattr lines.
+ BuildRoot is OK, and is properly removed as the first step in %install and as
the only step in %clean.
+ Final requires/provides are sane.
+ Summary and %description are good. The spec is legible and written in American
English.
+ File encodings are OK.
+ Compiler flags are honored; and parallel make is used.
+ -debuginfo packages seem OK.
+ No static libraries or libtool archives present.
+ Binaries contain no RPATH kludges.
+ Macro usage is consistent.
+ Locale files handled appropriately (via %find_lang).
+ Timestamps look OK.
+ Scriplets are OK, including user/group creation in %pre and /sbin/ldconfig
invocations on %post/%postun for the installed shared libraries.
+ Web app data is properly placed into /usr/share/bongo.
+ Package does not seem to conflict with other Fedora stuff.
+ Properly handles installation of Python module and scripts via
%python_sitearch and %python_sitelib.
+ License is included in the package (COPYING).
+ Sources match those of upstream:
9e841f0e31667be668d023cc8586a943 bongo-0.3.1-srpm.tar.bz2
9e841f0e31667be668d023cc8586a943 bongo-0.3.1-upstream.tar.bz2
+ Package contains permissible code.
+ Documentation (%doc) does not affect runtime of the program.
+ Header files, pkgconfig data, and unversioned library symlinkes are in a
-devel subpackage as required. It has proper dependencies on the main package
and pkgconfig.
+ All filenames are valid UTF-8
=== NEEDS WORK ===
X: Duplicate BuildRequires: libgcrypt-devel (pulled in by gnutls-devel)
X: rpmlint complains a lot on the built binary packages:
bongo.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bongo/logs.conf
Please mark all configuration files (usually in /etc) with %config(noreplace)
so that local changes do not get overridden on package upgrades, etc.
(Wiki: Packaging/Guidelines, Configuration files)
The other complaints are all false positives.
bongo-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
This is fine. All the documentation is included within the main package.
bongo-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib64/bongo-auth/libauthsqlite3.so libauthsqlite3.so.0.0.0
bongo-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib64/bongo-auth/libauthodbc.so libauthodbc.so.0.0.0
bongo-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib64/bongo-auth/libauthldap.so libauthldap.so.0.0.0
These also are ignorable, as they are just the unversioned symlinks to the
libraries in the same directory.
bongo-devel.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
Again, also ignorable. The only stuff in %{_libdir} is the pkgconfig data and
the unversioned symlinks.
X: It includes an internal copy of MochiKit
(bongo-0.3.1/src/www/js/lib/MochiKit). If possible, please make Bongo use the
system copy, since it's available as a package in Fedora.
X: It also bundles a copy of libical. Now that it is in Fedora (bug 426698),
please build against a system copy if possible.
X: ABOUT-NLS is an automatically gettext-generated file; we probably don't need
to include that as %doc in the final build.
=== MINOR ===
(1) rpmlint complains about executable source files in the debuginfo:
bongo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/bongo-0.3.1/src/agents/avirus/stream.c
bongo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/bongo-0.3.1/src/agents/avirus/mime.c
bongo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/bongo-0.3.1/src/agents/avirus/avirus.h
bongo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/bongo-0.3.1/src/agents/avirus/avirus.c
bongo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/bongo-0.3.1/src/agents/smtp/smtpd.h
bongo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/bongo-0.3.1/src/agents/imap/imapd.h
bongo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/bongo-0.3.1/src/agents/generic/generic.c
bongo-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/bongo-0.3.1/src/libs/python/libbongo/bongoutil.c
These can probably all be fixed with some chmod-fu in the %setup section. Not a
huge issue.
=== NOT APPLICABLE ===
* Package is not relocatable.
* No large documentation; no
[Bug 434593] New: Review Request: stalonetray - A stand alone notification area implementation
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=434593 Summary: Review Request: stalonetray - A stand alone notification area implementation 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://svahl.fedorapeople.org/stalonetray/stalonetray.spec SRPM URL: http://svahl.fedorapeople.org/stalonetray/stalonetray-0.7.6-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: The stalonetray is a STAnd-aLONE system TRAY (notification area). It has minimal build and run-time dependencies: the Xlib only. The XEMBED support is planned. Stalonetray runs under virtually any window manager. scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=462589 -- 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 433738] Review Request: xf86-video-nouveau - X.org nouveau driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xf86-video-nouveau - X.org nouveau driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433738
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 18:51 EST ---
I have to admit that my git knowledge is a bit shallow, but I'm a bit confused
as to how you know what git revision to checkout to generate the tarball when
you don't have the tarball from which to extract the git revision.
Also, I don't think tare working quite properly; when the package is built,
you can't directly access %{tarfile} and even though it's a build dependency,
git-core isn't installed in the buildroot when the srpm is built. So the end
the package gets a VR of just 0.0.10-0.20080221git.fc9 and you get this in the
build log:
sh: git-get-tar-commit-id: command not found
bzip2: Can't open input file xf86-video-nouveau-0.0.10-20080221.tar.bz2: No
such file or directory.
For simplicity, I'd just suggest hardcoding the git_version, or even just
dropping it from the release (it's in no way mandatory) and just sticking it
in the instructional comments.
Once I extracted the commit-id from the tarball manually, I was able to follow
the comments in the spec to recreate the archive and verify that it matched,
although your instructions are missing a cd xf86-video-nouveau.
Now, there are some new rpmlint complaints:
xorg-x11-drv-nouveau.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.0.10-1
1:0.0.10-0.20080221git.fc9
See below; basically you want your changelog entry to match the actual EVR
you're using, although many folks skip the epoch.
xorg-x11-drv-nouveau-debuginfo.x86_64: W: filename-too-long-for-joliet
xorg-x11-drv-nouveau-debuginfo-0.0.10-0.20080221git.fc9.x86_64.rpm
I guess this is unavoidable.
Other minor quibbles: Best to start your release at 1.whatever instead of
0.whatever to distinguish it from the prerelease case. (Prereleases count
up from 0.1, releases and post-release snapshots count up from 1.)
I don't quite understand the dependency on hwdata, since this package doesn't
install anything into /usr/share/hwdata.
Abbreviated checklist:
* source files match upstream (verified by manual untar/diff)
X doesn't quite meet the versioning guidelines (start post-release snapshots
from release 1.x, please)
* specfile is properly named and uses macros consistently.
X The git_version stuff seems somewhat convoluted and seems to not actually
work.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
X license text not included in package.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint has valid complaints.
? final provides and requires are sane:
nouveau_drv.so()(64bit)
xorg-x11-drv-nouveau = 1:0.0.10-0.20080221git.fc9
=
? hwdata
kernel-drm-nouveau = 10
xorg-x11-server-Xorg = 1.3.0.0-6
--
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 433638] Review Request: perl-Math-MatrixReal - Manipulate matrix of Reals
Please 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-Math-MatrixReal - Manipulate matrix of Reals https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433638 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 18:57 EST --- Imported and built, thanks for the quick 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 433644] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-CurveFit - Nonlinear Least Squares Curve Fitting
Please 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-Algorithm-CurveFit - Nonlinear Least Squares Curve Fitting https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433644 Bug 433644 depends on bug 433638, which changed state. Bug 433638 Summary: Review Request: perl-Math-MatrixReal - Manipulate matrix of Reals https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433638 What|Old Value |New Value 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 433643] Review Request: perl-Math-Symbolic - Symbolic calculations
Please 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-Math-Symbolic - Symbolic calculations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433643 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 18:58 EST --- Imported and built, thanks! -- 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 434557] Review Request: perl-Log-Trivial - Very simple tool for writing very simple log files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Log-Trivial - Very simple tool for writing very simple log files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434557 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 18:56 EST --- * rpmlint is silent * free software, license file not included * follow packaging guidelines * match upstream 8618cf5e6ffb68d0056b9c9cfc8c56e8 Log-Trivial-0.31.tar.gz * sane provides Provides: perl(Log::Trivial) = 0.31 I don't think the signing issue can be solved without upstream using a known key. Some BuildRequires are missing from fedora, it would be better to have them, but I won't make it a blocker. I suggest using rm debug*.list to notice when something changes. 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 433312] Review Request: opengrok - A wicked fast source browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: opengrok - A wicked fast source browser Alias: opengrok-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433312 Bug 433312 depends on bug 433272, which changed state. Bug 433272 Summary: Please update JFlex to 1.4.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433272 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- 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 431186] Review Request: itools - Command line tools for The Islamic Tools and Libraries Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: itools - Command line tools for The Islamic Tools and Libraries Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431186 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 19:11 EST --- This failed to build for me: + ./autogen.sh Running autoconf... ./autogen.sh: line 20: autoconf: command not found You can now run ./configure and then make. + exit 0 which is kind of surprising because the build didn't fail there. Instead it continues until: + ./configure --build=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu --program-prefix= --prefix=/usr --exec-prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/bin --sbindir=/usr/sbin --sysconfdir=/etc --datadir=/usr/share --includedir=/usr/include --libdir=/usr/lib64 --libexecdir=/usr/libexec --localstatedir=/var --sharedstatedir=/usr/com --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.90648: line 36: ./configure: Permission denied error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.90648 (%build) I added a build dependency on automake and things get further, but still fail at: checking for -litl in /usr/lib/itl... checking for -litl in /usr/lib/... no library 'itl' is missing + make -j8 make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found. Stop. Now, libitl-devel is indeed installed, but I'm building on an x86_64 machine so the library is in /usr/lib64. I guess the package will need some fixing. -- 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 430653] Review Request: baracuda - VNC system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: baracuda - VNC system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430653 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 19:15 EST --- It seems the initial links are invalid now. -- 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 211763] Review Request: jikes - Java source to bytecode compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jikes - Java source to bytecode compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=211763 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 18:46 EST --- I am no longer interested in reviewing this. Is anyone else? -- 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 430931] Review Request: kate-ctags-plugin - Plugin for Kate editor to use ctags
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kate-ctags-plugin - Plugin for Kate editor to use ctags https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430931 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 19:17 EST --- Any chance of getting a package which builds properly? -- 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 427121] Review Request: grib_api - ECMWF encoding/decoding GRIB 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: grib_api - ECMWF encoding/decoding GRIB software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427121 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 427121] Review Request: grib_api - ECMWF encoding/decoding GRIB 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: grib_api - ECMWF encoding/decoding GRIB software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427121
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 20:18 EST ---
Builds OK; rpmlint has many complaints about the .sh files in the
documentation being executable, for example:
grib_api-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/grib_api-devel-1.3.0/examples/precision_fortran.sh
which, though I don't like executable documentation in general, I suppose are
OK as long as they don't generate additional dependencies. (They don't seem
to do so.)
Also,
grib_api-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/share/doc/grib_api-devel-1.3.0/data/missing_new.grib2
which I guess is used by one of the examples and needs to be empty (although
you should verify this; we don't really want to be shipping empty files unless
there's some reason for it).
You should use a complete URL for Source0; this seems to work:
http://www.ecmwf.int/products/data/software/download/software_files/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
I note that 1.4.0 is out; did you want to update to it? A naive update fails
to build because __dist_doc seems to have been changed a bit.
I believe the software is LGPLv3; that's what the upstream web site says, and
the LICENSE and source files seem to agree:
* Licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License which
* incorporates the terms and conditions of version 3 of the GNU
* General Public License.
although that language is kind of bizarre and they also package a copy of the
GPLv3 (and a second copy of LGPLv3 for good measure, I guess) all in the
top-level directory of the tarball. Can you check with upstream to see
if they intend one or the other? Without clarification from them I am
inclined to say that LGPLv3 is correct.
The API documentation is about 70% of the -devel package, but I don't think
that's big enough to warrant splitting the package.
* source files match upstream:
36f31407f0c4aa64991f65f5d362d2b3efd986ea25b0d8f214772b21665a170b
grib_api-1.3.0.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK (although some definition of grib might be considered to
be kind to the users.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
X latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
? rpmlint has one complaint which may be valid.
* final provides and requires are sane:
grib_api-1.3.0-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm
grib_api = 1.3.0-1.fc9
=
libjasper.so.1()(64bit)
grib_api-devel-1.3.0-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm
grib_api-static = 1.3.0-1.fc9
grib_api-devel = 1.3.0-1.fc9
=
/bin/sh
grib_api = 1.3.0-1.fc9
* %check is present and all tests pass:
All 19 tests passed
All 14 tests passed
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* static libraries are in the -devel package, which is OK because there are no
dynamic libraries provided. The -static provide is present as required.
* no libtool .la 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 227190] Review Request: php-pear-Auth-OpenID - PHP OpenID
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Auth-OpenID - PHP OpenID https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227190 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 20:23 EST --- And it's been another month. I will close this ticket soon if there is no response. -- 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 201061] Review Request: iserverd - Groupware ICQ server clone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: iserverd - Groupware ICQ server clone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201061 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 20:47 EST --- It's been another month; closing this out. -- 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 232790] Review Request: ming - SWF output 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: ming - SWF output library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=232790 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 20:48 EST --- It's been another month. Has anything happened upstream? -- 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 433418] Review Request: librdmacm - Userspace RDMA Connection 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: librdmacm - Userspace RDMA Connection Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433418 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 23:31 EST --- Thanks for the review -- sorry for the glitches. I just uploaded new packages: Spec URL: http://digitalvampire.org/fedora/librdmacm.spec SRPM URL: http://digitalvampire.org/fedora/librdmacm-1.0.6-2.fc8.src.rpm which should fix both the issues you found: * Fri Feb 22 2008 Roland Dreier [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1.0.6-2 - Spec file cleanups from Fedora review: add BuildRequires for libibverbs, and move the static library to -devel-static. The only rpmlint complaint now is: librdmacm-devel-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation which I think is OK, because all the documentation just happens to be in other packages. -- 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 433418] Review Request: librdmacm - Userspace RDMA Connection 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: librdmacm - Userspace RDMA Connection Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433418 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-22 23:40 EST --- Looks good except the name of the static lib package should be just librdmacm-static. But just three trivial changes to the spec which you can easily make when you check in, so: 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 433253] Review Request: dotconf - Required for speech dispatcher on OLPC XO
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: dotconf - Required for speech dispatcher on OLPC XO
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433253
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-23 00:04 EST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Created an attachment (id=295663)
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=295663action=view) [edit]
Patch to resolve multilib issue
* As we don't ship libpool.a, the part related to libpool.a
can be removed from dotconf-config.in.
* -L%{_libdir} is always unneeded.
The attached patch should resolve multilib issue.
When you modify your spec file, please change the release number
to avoid confusion.
SRPM URL:
http://www.nsitonline.in/assim/stuffs/olpc/dotconf/dotconf-1.0.13-4.fc7.src.rpm
SPEC File: http://www.nsitonline.in/assim/stuffs/olpc/dotconf/dotconf.spec
Thanks for the providing the patches. I have uploaded both the patches on the
server (http://www.nsitonline.in/assim/stuffs/olpc/dotconf/) and all the SRPMs
also. Have removed all the rpmlint errors and incremented the version.
I hope to get this resolved soon..
--
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 432607] Review Request: kmid - A midi/karaoke player for KDE 4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kmid - A midi/karaoke player for KDE 4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432607 [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 432607] Review Request: kmid - A midi/karaoke player for KDE 4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kmid - A midi/karaoke player for KDE 4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432607 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-23 00:44 EST --- Hmmm, I can't download the files from the scratch build to run rpmlint on them, Koji errors. :-( -- 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 221717] Review Request: agg - C++ rendering framework, move from core to shared
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: agg - C++ rendering framework, move from core to shared https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=221717 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-23 00:40 EST --- These rpmlint complaints remain: agg.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaggplatformsdl.so.2.0.4 _Z8agg_mainiPPc agg.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaggplatformX11.so.2.0.4 _Z8agg_mainiPPc I'm not sure what to make of these. agg.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libaggplatformsdl.so.2.0.4 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 agg.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libaggplatformsdl.so.2.0.4 /lib64/libm.so.6 agg.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libaggplatformX11.so.2.0.4 /lib64/libm.so.6 I don't think these are particularly problematic, but the tweak on the CommonRpmlintIssues page fixes them up if they bother you. If I have some free time over the weekend I'll try to finish this off. -- 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
