[Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225778 --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 02:15:22 EDT --- Yes, the devel-file-in-non-devel-package and devel-dependency are bogus, gcc* are devel packages, the same for dangling-relative-symlink (the target of the symlink is provided by dependent package). I guess I could try to iconv the ChangeLog files and will definitely drop /usr/bin/gnative2ascii and can look at fighting crappy libtool to get rid of the rpaths. The obsolete-not-provided are useful there e.g. when backporting to older releases, though guess I could just comment them 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461011] Review Request: kde-plasma-lancelot - An alternative application launcher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461011 Kevin Kofler [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #1 from Kevin Kofler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 02:34:21 EDT --- Reviewing this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 411881] Package review: sim - Simple Instant Messenger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881 Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] | |) | --- Comment #24 from Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 02:37:29 EDT --- ^comment 21 That's great. I have already too many packages. I'll be happy when you maintain it. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459073] Review Request: iok - Indic onscreen virtual keyboard
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459073
--- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 02:39:09 EDT
---
Thanks. Here is the review:
+:ok, =:needs attention
MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[=] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
2bd14a41a710f8c91fd994df6322d748 iok-1.0.8.tar.gz
- Please provide the URL to the source tarball.
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items:
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
Package is APPROVED, after adding the missing source url.
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459073] Review Request: iok - Indic onscreen virtual keyboard
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459073 Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459073] Review Request: iok - Indic onscreen virtual keyboard
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459073 --- Comment #9 from Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 02:40:32 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=315721) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=315721) iok.spec-1.patch suggestion for improving the description -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456892] Review Request: aget - multi-threaded download accelerator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456892 --- Comment #8 from Marek Mahut [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 02:59:30 EDT --- BTW, aget is already in Fedora, but an orphan. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/aget -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454667] Review Request: truecrypt - Free open-source disk encryption software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454667 Valent Turkovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #7 from Valent Turkovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 03:08:18 EDT --- For those who are interested in TrueCrypt licence can look at it here: http://www.truecrypt.org/legal/license If the mail Tom sent is on some public mailing list I curious to see it. Cheers, Valent. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458391] Review Request: bro - Open-source, Unix-based Network Intrusion Detection System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458391 Daniel Kopeček [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459073] Review Request: iok - Indic onscreen virtual keyboard
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459073 --- Comment #10 from Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 03:32:34 EDT --- Jens, Thanks for your suggestions. Here is updated package Spec URL: http://paragn.fedorapeople.org/iok/iok.spec SRPM URL: http://paragn.fedorapeople.org/iok/iok-1.0.8-2.fc9.src.rpm Koji build = http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=805828 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459073] Review Request: iok - Indic onscreen virtual keyboard
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459073 --- Comment #11 from Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 03:42:10 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: iok Short Description: Indic onscreen virtual keyboard Owners: pnemade Branches: F-9 InitialCC: petersen -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 447457] Review Request: gupnp-av - UPnP-AV is a collection of helpers for building AV upnp apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447457 --- Comment #8 from Denis Leroy [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 03:41:27 EDT --- - rpmlint clean - name ok - license ok (LGPLv2+) - source md5sum ok - deps ok - dir ownership ok - devel package split ok - test programs compile and work ok Package is 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 250943] Review Request: x3d-xsl - Web3D Consortium stylesheets for X3D
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250943 Ondrej Vasik [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] |needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) |com)| --- Comment #10 from Ondrej Vasik [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 03:46:31 EDT --- I guess we are not waiting for Braden's updates (spec and SRPM was updated and updated version is available on location from Description) but we are waiting for Anthony's review promised in comment #1. Maybe someone else should take this review (I could do that, but I don't know if it is good idea since I would like to co-maintain this package once it will reach Fedora). So moving needinfo to Anthony : Do you still have time to do this review? Otherwise I will try to find someone else for it. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458969] Review Request: InetVis - 3-D scatter-plot visualization for network traffic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458969 Daniel Kopeček [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456892] Review Request: aget - multi-threaded download accelerator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456892 --- Comment #9 from Rakesh Pandit [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 04:45:52 EDT --- Yes. It needs this review to be complete as last commit was well over 6 months back. @Paul - these are not blocking issues, you may like to work on getting yourself sponsored :-) For help read HowToGetSponsored on wiki. (some more packaging + few unofficial reviews + mentioning to a sponsor in notes are keys) Note: I am not a sponsor. 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 411881] Package review: sim - Simple Instant Messenger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881 --- Comment #25 from Pavel Alexeev [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 04:50:26 EDT --- @Marcela Maslanova, very thanks. @Patrice Dumas, please wait to review, I'm update files shortly. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460732] Review Request: ocaml-reins - Library of OCaml persistent data structures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460732 --- Comment #6 from Richard W.M. Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 04:50:13 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ocaml-reins Short Description: Library of OCaml persistent data structures Owners: rjones Branches: F-9 InitialCC: rjones -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461105] New: Review Request: labrea - A sticky honeypot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: labrea - A sticky honeypot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461105 Summary: Review Request: labrea - A sticky honeypot 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://huzaifas.fedorapeople.org/spec/labrea.spec SRPM URL: http://huzaifas.fedorapeople.org/srpms/labrea-2.5.1-0.fc10.src.rpm Description: Intrusion detection sticky honey pot technology using virtual servers to detect and trap worms, hackers, and other malware. Builds: dist-f9: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=805862 dist-f10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=805871 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461106] New: Review Request: libnotifymm - C++ interface for libnotify
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: libnotifymm - C++ interface for libnotify https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461106 Summary: Review Request: libnotifymm - C++ interface for libnotify 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.poolshark.org/src/libnotifymm.spec SRPM URL: http://www.poolshark.org/src/libnotifymm-0.6.1-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: libnotifymm provides a C++ interface to the libnotify library. Highlights include typesafe callbacks, widgets extensible via inheritance and a comprehensive set of widget classes that can be freely combined to quickly create complex user interfaces. libnotifymm is part of the gtkmm project. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 426751] Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426751 --- Comment #18 from Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 05:00:48 EDT --- As I already mentioned in comment 14 and elsewhere, the ghc_gen_filelists macro is broken and needs to be fixed (even though the macros were already accepted by the packaging committee;). At the same time I think it might be worth doing some slight simplication of the macros. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461105] Review Request: labrea - A sticky honeypot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461105 Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 05:03:49 EDT --- Use prefixes in %configure and make install instead %makeinstall -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 426751] Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426751
--- Comment #19 from Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 05:05:08 EDT
---
Created an attachment (id=315727)
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=315727)
ghc-X11.spec+macros
eg this spec file with embedded macros from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Haskell/GHCMacroDefs gives:
+ pushd /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/ghc-X11-1.4.2-1.fc10.i386
+ echo '%defattr(-,root,root,-)'
+ find ./usr/lib/ghc-6.8.3/X11-1.4.2 '(' -name '*_p.a' -o -name '*.p_hi' ')'
+ sed 's/^.//'
+ echo '%defattr(-,root,root,-)'
+ find ./usr/lib/ghc-6.8.3/X11-1.4.2 -type d
+ sed 's/^./%dir /'
+ find ./usr/lib/ghc-6.8.3/X11-1.4.2 '!' '(' -type d -o -name '*_p.a' -o -name
'*.p_hi' ')'
+ sed 's/^.//'
+ sed 's,^/,%exclude /,' '%{ghc_tar_dir}/ghc-X11-files.prof'
sed: can't read %{ghc_tar_dir}/ghc-X11-files.prof: No such file or directory
RPM build error:
Error: /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.zA1wEN の不正な終了ステータス (%install)
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.zA1wEN の不正な終了ステータス (%install)
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461106] Review Request: libnotifymm - C++ interface for libnotify
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461106 --- Comment #1 from Rakesh Pandit [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 05:20:11 EDT --- Failed to build on rawhide test box x86_64. Snippet from build log: g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DG_LOG_DOMAIN=\libnotifymm\ -I../../libnotify -I../../libnotify -I/usr/include/glibmm-2.4 -I/usr/lib64/glibmm-2.4/include -I/usr/include/sigc++-2.0 -I/usr/lib64/sigc++-2.0/include -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib64/glib-2.0/include -I/usr/include/gtkmm-2.4 -I/usr/lib64/gtkmm-2.4/include -I/usr/include/giomm-2.4 -I/usr/lib64/giomm-2.4/include -I/usr/include/gdkmm-2.4 -I/usr/lib64/gdkmm-2.4/include -I/usr/include/pangomm-1.4 -I/usr/include/atkmm-1.6 -I/usr/include/gtk-2.0 -I/usr/lib64/gtk-2.0/include -I/usr/include/cairomm-1.0 -I/usr/include/pango-1.0 -I/usr/include/cairo -I/usr/include/atk-1.0 -I/usr/include/freetype2 -I/usr/include/dbus-1.0 -I/usr/lib64/dbus-1.0/include -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -c notify.cc -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/notify.o notification.cc: In static member function 'static void Notify::Notification_Class::class_init_function(void*, void*)': notification.cc:168: error: invalid conversion from 'void (*)(NotifyNotification*)' to 'void (*)(NotifyNotification*, gint)' notification.cc: In static member function 'static void Notify::Notification_Class::closed_callback(NotifyNotification*)': notification.cc:214: error: too few arguments to function notification.cc: In member function 'virtual void Notify::Notification::on_closed()': notification.cc:477: error: too few arguments to function make[4]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/libnotifymm-0.6.1/libnotify/libnotifymm' make[3]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/libnotifymm-0.6.1/libnotify/libnotifymm' make[4]: *** [notification.lo] Error 1 make[3]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/libnotifymm-0.6.1/libnotify' make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: *** [all] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/libnotifymm-0.6.1/libnotify' make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 RPM build errors: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.8NC4b5 (%build) Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.8NC4b5 (%build) Child returncode was: 1 EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output. # ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target x86_64 --nodeps builddir/build/SPECS/libnotifymm.spec'] Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/mock/trace_decorator.py, line 70, in trace result = func(*args, **kw) File /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/mock/util.py, line 316, in do raise mock.exception.Error, (Command failed. See logs for output.\n # %s % (command,), child.returncode) Error: Command failed. See logs for output. # ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target x86_64 --nodeps builddir/build/SPECS/libnotifymm.spec'] LEAVE do -- EXCEPTION RAISED -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 447457] Review Request: gupnp-av - UPnP-AV is a collection of helpers for building AV upnp apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447457 --- Comment #9 from Peter Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 05:21:47 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: gupnp-av Short Description: GUPnP-AV is a collection of helpers for building UPnP AV applications Owners: pbrobinson Branches: F-8 F-9 InitialCC: pbrobinson Cvsextras Commits: yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461105] Review Request: labrea - A sticky honeypot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461105 --- Comment #2 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 05:22:21 EDT --- fixed. SPEC: http://huzaifas.fedorapeople.org/spec/labrea.spec SRPM URL: http://huzaifas.fedorapeople.org/srpms/labrea-2.5.1-1.fc10.src.rpm [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/labrea-2.5.1-1.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461105] Review Request: labrea - A sticky honeypot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461105 Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461007] Review Request: libftdi - Library to program and control the FTDI USB controller
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461007 --- Comment #1 from Rakesh Pandit [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 05:33:49 EDT --- Builds on rawhide - x86_64 rpmlint output clean: rpmlint libftdi-0.13-1.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint libftdi-0.13-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint libftdi-debuginfo-0.13-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint libftdi-devel-0.13-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461105] Review Request: labrea - A sticky honeypot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461105 Luke Macken [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461105] Review Request: labrea - A sticky honeypot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461105
Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 05:49:59 EDT
---
suggestions-
1)you should drop options to %configure
2)make install should be
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL=install -p
3)Drop INSTALL file from %docs
4)macro usage should be unique
either use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
5)buildroot tag should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root
Submit new SRPM after fixing above issues and bump release
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461007] Review Request: libftdi - Library to program and control the FTDI USB controller
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461007 Rakesh Pandit [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #2 from Rakesh Pandit [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 06:02:59 EDT --- will do detailed review shortly, 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458346] Review Request: gflags - Library for commandline flag processing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458346 --- Comment #12 from Rakesh Pandit [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 05:57:05 EDT --- Updated: SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/gflags.spec SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/gflags-0.9-6.fc10.src.rpm Build on F-8 test-box also. 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461105] Review Request: labrea - A sticky honeypot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461105 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #4 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 06:09:21 EDT --- SPEC: http://huzaifas.fedorapeople.org/spec/labrea.spec SRPM: http://huzaifas.fedorapeople.org/srpms/labrea-2.5.1-2.fc10.src.rpm 3)Drop INSTALL file from %docs This has not been done , because the INSTALL file contains instructions on how to use the app :) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458548] Review Request: liburiparser - URI parsing library - RFC 3986
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458548 --- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 06:11:16 EDT --- First of all, why do you name this srpm as liburiparser instead of using uriparser which you say is the project name? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461105] Review Request: labrea - A sticky honeypot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461105 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458548] Review Request: liburiparser - URI parsing library - RFC 3986
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458548 --- Comment #8 from Rakesh Pandit [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 06:30:43 EDT --- I just though about keeping consistency with ubuntu package. what is correct i n your view ? to better use tarball/project name. - Naming guidelines. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458548] Review Request: liburiparser - URI parsing library - RFC 3986
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458548 --- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 06:40:27 EDT --- No. Please use debian/ubuntu naming way. Debian packages use many lib-foo names which Fedora does not use. Use upstream tarball names as much as possible. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458548] Review Request: liburiparser - URI parsing library - RFC 3986
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458548 --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 06:48:13 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) No. Please use debian/ubuntu naming way. I meant Please don't use debian/ubuntu naming way, sorry... -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458548] Review Request: liburiparser - URI parsing library - RFC 3986
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458548 --- Comment #11 from Rakesh Pandit [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 06:58:29 EDT --- okay - Will update soon. 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 426751] Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426751 --- Comment #20 from Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 07:00:28 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=315734) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=315734) ghc-X11.spec+macros-revised I would really like to suggest that we do the macros and packaging in this way. This is a lightly cleaned up and simplified set of packages, which I would be happy to go ahead with. :) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461105] Review Request: labrea - A sticky honeypot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461105
--- Comment #5 from Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 07:05:58 EDT
---
+ is OK
- is NEEDs WORK
Review:
+ package builds in mock (rawhide i386).
koji build = http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=806045
- rpmlint is silent for SRPM. But NOT for RPM.
labrea.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/labrea.conf
== use following in SPEC
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/labrea.conf
+ source files match upstream.
e76d506e82b60cc5477ccee1b3368cda labrea-2.5-stable-1.tar.gz
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ Spec file is legible.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
+ license is open source-compatible.
+ License text is included in package.
+ %doc files present.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code.
+ no static libraries.
+ no .pc file present.
+ no -devel subpackage exists.
+ no .la files.
+ no translations are available.
+ Does owns the directories it creates.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ no scriptlets are used.
+ Not a GUI app.
Don't forget to fix conffile rpmlint message before import.
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461105] Review Request: labrea - A sticky honeypot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461105 Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461119] Review Request: libtiger - Rendering library for Kate streams using Pango and Cairo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461119 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||458714 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461119] New: Review Request: libtiger - Rendering library for Kate streams using Pango and Cairo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: libtiger - Rendering library for Kate streams using Pango and Cairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461119 Summary: Review Request: libtiger - Rendering library for Kate streams using Pango and Cairo 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/libtiger.spec SRPM URL: http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/libtiger-0.1.1-1.fc8.kwizart.src.rpm Description: Rendering library for Kate streams using Pango and Cairo -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455032] Review Request: iwl5000-firmware - Firmwa re for Intel® PRO /Wireless 5000 A/G/N network adaptors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455032 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] ||com --- Comment #11 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 08:04:40 EDT --- *** Bug 459689 has been marked as a duplicate 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461054] Review Request: qrq - Morse telegraphy trainer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461054
--- Comment #2 from Lucian Langa [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 08:36:44 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #1)
I have to assume that you have tested this on F8 or F9 and had
no issues with sound output.
THat's right. I even test this on rawhide, no issues at all.
The only real problem I see is that the compiler isn't called with the proper
set of flags. This is trivially fixed by calling make thusly:
make CFLAGS=%{optflags} %{?_smp_mflags}
updated, bumped version:
http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/qrq.spec
http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/qrq-0.1.4-3.fc9.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458624] Review Request: teseq - An utility for rendering terminal typescripts human readable
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458624 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 08:43:06 EDT --- teseq-1.0.0-2.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/teseq-1.0.0-2.fc8 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458624] Review Request: teseq - An utility for rendering terminal typescripts human readable
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458624 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 08:43:03 EDT --- teseq-1.0.0-2.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/teseq-1.0.0-2.fc9 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458446] Review Request: perl-HTML-FromText - Convert plain text to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458446 --- Comment #6 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 09:03:58 EDT --- Spec URL: http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/perl-HTML-FromText.spec SRPM URL: http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/perl-HTML-FromText-2.05-2.fc8.kwizart.src.rpm Description: Convert plain text to HTML Changelog - Add fixperms Mail sent today to report the problem at make test. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 411881] Package review: sim - Simple Instant Messenger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881 --- Comment #26 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 08:58:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #25) @Marcela Maslanova, very thanks. @Patrice Dumas, please wait to review, I'm update files shortly. You should open a new review and close this one as a duplicate. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 411881] Package review: sim - Simple Instant Messenger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881 --- Comment #27 from Pavel Alexeev [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 09:42:55 EDT --- Ok, I do that. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 411881] Package review: sim - Simple Instant Messenger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881 Pavel Alexeev [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #28 from Pavel Alexeev [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 09:43:54 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 461131 *** -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461131] Review Request: sim - Simple Instant Messenger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461131 Pavel Alexeev [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #1 from Pavel Alexeev [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 09:43:54 EDT --- *** Bug 411881 has been marked as a duplicate 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461131] New: Review Request: sim - Simple Instant Messenger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: sim - Simple Instant Messenger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461131 Summary: Review Request: sim - Simple Instant Messenger 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora9/sim/sim.spec SRPM URL: http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora9/sim/sim-0.9.5-1.SVN20080904rev2258.src.rpm Description: SIM - Multiprotocol Instant Messenger SIM (Simple Instant Messenger) is a plugins-based open- source instant messenger that supports various protocols (ICQ, Jabber, AIM, MSN, LiveJournal, Yahoo!). It uses the. QT library and works on X11 (with optional KDE support). SIM has countless features, many of them are listed at: http://sim-im.berlios.de/ -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453847] Review Request: gpt - The Grid Packaging Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453847 --- Comment #12 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 09:49:02 EDT --- The package seems right from a strict packaging point of view, now regarding the patches, I find them a bit too important to have them in fedora and not upstream. And they are not perfect either since some hardcoded paths should be set from ./configure. But these are certainly already better than without them, and it would be much better if upstream already acked them as is before improving them. In the general case I would have tend to leave this review open and wait for upstream to adapt the software to be easier to package, with your help and patches, but this blocks many other packagaes, so I am not so sure about what to do. What's your opinion? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461131] Review Request: sim - Simple Instant Messenger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461131 --- Comment #2 from Pavel Alexeev [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 10:01:28 EDT --- rpmlint for spec and source package is silent. But on binary is not: $ rpmlint sim-0.9.5-1.SVN20080904rev2258.athlon.rpm sim.athlon: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsim.so sim.athlon: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/sim-0.9.5/AUTHORS 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. So, I have 3 questions: 1) Why symlink to library is considered as devel-file?? 2) So, file AUTHORS in upstream SVN has 0 size. Should I exclude them from package?? I think I shouldn't - what if it filling in future. 3) License tag I set to GPLv2 by included in source text of license, but I doubt: On sites (http://sim-im.org/wiki/Main_Page , http://developer.berlios.de/projects/sim-im/ ) it is marked just us GPL. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461131] Review Request: sim - Simple Instant Messenger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461131 Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #3 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 10:13:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) So, I have 3 questions: 1) Why symlink to library is considered as devel-file?? It is used to link against the library with -lsim at build time. It is not used at runtime. So it should be in devel such that one have to install the devel package to link against the library. The file used at runtime should be like /usr/lib/libsim.so.? and the library should have a 'soname' in the binary ELF headers that causes the dynamic loader, ld to load the library. 2) So, file AUTHORS in upstream SVN has 0 size. Should I exclude them from package?? I think I shouldn't - what if it filling in future. This one is up to you, leave it in if you prefer to. 3) License tag I set to GPLv2 by included in source text of license, but I doubt: On sites (http://sim-im.org/wiki/Main_Page , http://developer.berlios.de/projects/sim-im/ ) it is marked just us GPL. The source of information, here, are the file headers, and the README or the like that should state the author's intention. If there is nothing else that 'this is under the GPL', this means GPL+ that is any version of the GPL, and not GPLv2. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461131] Review Request: sim - Simple Instant Messenger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461131 --- Comment #4 from Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 10:15:05 EDT --- 1/ rpmlint is quite talkative :) .so is devel file for him. 2/ it's only warning, you can ignore it. Normally install the file in %doc 3/ You need to check license in code and COPYING in source tarball. Maybe you should contact upstream about it. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453848] Review Request: globus-core - Globus Toolkit - Globus Core
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453848 Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #2 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 10:26:01 EDT --- Mattias, any comment? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461139] New: Review Request: arabeyes-core-fonts - Core Arabic fonts form Arabeyes.org
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: arabeyes-core-fonts - Core Arabic fonts form Arabeyes.org https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461139 Summary: Review Request: arabeyes-core-fonts - Core Arabic fonts form Arabeyes.org 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://subhodip.fedorapeople.org/arabeyes-core-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://subhodip.fedorapeople.org/arabeyes-core-fonts-0.02-2.fc9.src.rpm Description: This package contains core Arabic fonts from Arabeyes.org project. It covers Arabic, Farsi, Urdu and Pashto languages, and is suitable for on screen display koji build :http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=800603 Can anybody review this ..please . -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458430] Review Request: lcdf-typetools - Tools for manipulating OpenType and PostScript fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458430
--- Comment #5 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 10:25:33 EDT
---
Issues:
The %_prefix definition and the %configure switches settings are not useful,
see
rpm --eval %configure
Why disabling the self auto tests?
You should remove
[ $RPM_BUILD_ROOT != / ]
I think that it is better not to have a dependency on
/usr/share/texmf/web2c/mktexupd
this file is supposed to be installed when kpathsea is installed, and
kpathsea is an automatic soname dependency.
Most of the files are under the GPLv2+ according to the license headers.
Others are under the CLICK license.
In the README they are said to be under the GPLv2 only.
I think that a short comment should explain the licensing,
in the spec file. Like
# header file GPLv2+ and CLICK license (BSD no advertising),
# in README GPLv2 only.
What is under the 'Redistributable, no modification permitted' license?
This doesn't look acceptable in fedora?
It is better not to use fedora in the spec file, dist should be
preferred.
The
otftotfm.cc.TTinOTFrename
patch needs an explanation in the spec file
The auto-t42.patch is more or less explained in the README file, could be
worth saying it in a comment in spec file, that the README explains the
patch.
Suggestions:
I suggest naming the patch after the package name, and with the version
string showing in which version they were added, like:
Patch0: lcdf-typetools-2.71-TTinOTFrename.patch
I think it could be possible to include as a Source file
http://www.read.cs.ucla.edu/click/license
I personally prefer having globs for man pages to catch different
compression schemes, or no compression, for example like
%{_mandir}/man1/cfftot1.1*
About the t42 patch:
I think I understood the t42 map stuff. It looks correct to me, but
certainly suboptimal -- though no more than doing a link with
dvipsPreferOutline instead of having dvips use that to prefer outline
fonts to bitmap fonts.
You should certainly patch the man page of otftotfm to explain what
this does.
Also I don't really understand what otftotfm does with updmap. How
do the new map file become known by updamp? Does it add the .map it
generates in updmap.cfg (not the t42 map, the regular map)?
What do texlive people think about this whole issue, and upstream?
I am reluctant to let this be added to fedora only, in case it has to be
withdrawn later, the users would be left with a setup that doesn't
work anymore.
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454667] Review Request: truecrypt - Free open-source disk encryption software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454667 --- Comment #8 from Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 10:36:08 EDT --- The email correspondence has been directly with the TrueCrypt upstream. I sent them another email yesterday, so we seem to be making some progress, albeit, slowly. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461139] Review Request: arabeyes-core-fonts - Core Arabic fonts from Arabeyes.org
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461139 Paul Howarth [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |arabeyes-core-fonts -|arabeyes-core-fonts - Core |Core Arabic fonts form |Arabic fonts from |Arabeyes.org |Arabeyes.org -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461131] Review Request: sim - Simple Instant Messenger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461131 --- Comment #5 from Pavel Alexeev [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 10:48:41 EDT --- PD == Patrice Dumas MM = Marcela Maslanova (In reply to comment #3, #4) PD It is used to link against the library with -lsim at build time. PD It is not used at runtime. Even as used! I'm just delete (rename) it: $ sim sim: error while loading shared libraries: libsim.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory MM 1/ rpmlint is quite talkative :) .so is devel file for him. I also think in this case. PD one have to install the devel package to link against the library. PD The file used at runtime should be like PD PD /usr/lib/libsim.so.? In is /usr/lib/libsim.so.0.0.0 with 2 symlinks on it: /usr/lib/libsim.so.0 and /usr/lib/libsim.so PD This one is up to you, leave it in if you prefer to. MM 2/ it's only warning, you can ignore it. Normally install the file in %doc Ok, I leave it. PD The source of information, here, are the file headers, and the PD README or the like that should state the author's intention. PD If there is nothing else that 'this is under the GPL', this means PD GPL+ PD that is any version of the GPL, and not GPLv2. MM 3/ You need to check license in code and COPYING in source tarball. File COPYING contains text of GPL2. It is a file, about I say included in source text of license before. MMMaybe you should contact upstream about it. Off course, in case if we can't make decision here. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 451302] Review Request: kopete-bonjour
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451302 Rex Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] | |edu)| --- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 10:53:40 EDT --- Yes, but I won't have much free time this week. If someone else wants to help out here, go for it. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461139] Review Request: arabeyes-core-fonts - Core Arabic fonts from Arabeyes.org
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461139 --- Comment #1 from Subhodip Biswas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 10:57:58 EDT --- http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/8221 please see this for reference . -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 451302] Review Request: kopete-bonjour
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451302 Rex Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459177] Review Request: python-peak-rules - Generic functions and business rules support systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459177 --- Comment #7 from Rob Crittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 11:05:15 EDT --- The license is ok now and the package builds and passes rpmlint but will not install due to missing dependencies: python-peak-util-addons = 0.6 is needed by python-peak-rules-0.5a1.dev-0.2569.fc10.noarch python-peak-util-assembler = 0.3 is needed by python-peak-rules-0.5a1.dev-0.2569.fc10.noarch python-peak-util-extremes = 1.1 is needed by python-peak-rules-0.5a1.dev-0.2569.fc10.noarch These aren't found in the F10 repo either. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235115] Review Request: tl-netty2 - Event based network application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=235115 Nuno Santos [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX Flag|needinfo? | --- Comment #2 from Nuno Santos [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 11:08:59 EDT --- I'm closing the ticket as it's not relevant anymore, thank you for the reminder. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235117] Review Request: servletapi4 - Java servlet and JSP implementation classes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=235117 Nuno Santos [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] | |m) | --- Comment #5 from Nuno Santos [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 11:09:30 EDT --- I'm closing the ticket as it's not relevant anymore, thank you for the reminder. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235121] Review Request: backport-util-concurrent - Backport of java.util.concurrent API, introduced in Java 5.0
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=235121 Nuno Santos [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] | |m) | --- Comment #2 from Nuno Santos [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 11:09:55 EDT --- I'm closing the ticket as it's not relevant anymore, thank you for the reminder. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459639] Review Request: binclock - ncurses binary clock
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459639 --- Comment #2 from Adam Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 11:17:30 EDT --- I made a mistake on the license since I didn't see it listed in the code and no specific GPL version on the sourceforge page, my mistake. I have made the fixes that were suggested in the package review. New package and spec files: SPEC URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/binclock.spec SRPM URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/binclock-0.3.2-2.src.rpm Thanks for the feedback! :) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460244] Review Request: alt-ergo - Alt-Ergo automatic theorem prover
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460244 --- Comment #5 from David A. Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 11:21:15 EDT --- Okay, my review above was based on a misunderstanding. Basically, the Fedora infrastructure problems are causing all sorts of nasty problems. Package ocaml-ocamlgraph is required, and it's already approved and submitted to Bodhi, but it's not actually in the repository because everything is still frozen from the infrastructure problems. *Sigh*. This package builds cleanly on my system, so it clearly works on _an_ architecture. I have no reason to believe it would fail on others, and even if it did, that wouldn't cause the package to be unacceptable. So under the formal review of the _required_ items, this changes to: n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed The other items are all optional. I have every reason to believe that they will succeed once koji and Bodhi are fully operational, but since they are _optional_, they're not reasons to fail the package. Basically, this _package_ is ready... the problem is that the Fedora _infrastructure_ is not ready. So I will approve the package, which will permit setting up the CVS packages. It won't build until Bodhi releases get unfrozen (due to the dependencies), but once the Bodhi infrastructure is fully working again, it'll work. 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461131] Review Request: sim - Simple Instant Messenger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461131 --- Comment #6 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 11:29:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) PD == Patrice Dumas MM = Marcela Maslanova (In reply to comment #3, #4) PD It is used to link against the library with -lsim at build time. PD It is not used at runtime. Even as used! I'm just delete (rename) it: $ sim sim: error while loading shared libraries: libsim.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory You deleted another file, not the symlink. If you do a ldd /usr/bin/sim you'll see that the .so file isn't used, instead /usr/lib/libsim.so.0.0.0 is used. MM 1/ rpmlint is quite talkative :) .so is devel file for him. I also think in this case. It is indeed a devel file. PD one have to install the devel package to link against the library. PD The file used at runtime should be like PD PD /usr/lib/libsim.so.? In is /usr/lib/libsim.so.0.0.0 with 2 symlinks on it: /usr/lib/libsim.so.0 and /usr/lib/libsim.so In /usr/lib/libsim.so.0.0.0, there is a soname: objdump -p /usr/lib/libsim.so.0.0.0 | grep SONAME should give about SONAME libsim.so.0 The libsim.so.0 is here such that you can have an idea about the soname without actually looking at the file binary headers. The .so is used to link against the library file at build time. PD The source of information, here, are the file headers, and the PD README or the like that should state the author's intention. PD If there is nothing else that 'this is under the GPL', this means PD GPL+ PD that is any version of the GPL, and not GPLv2. MM 3/ You need to check license in code and COPYING in source tarball. File COPYING contains text of GPL2. It is a file, about I say included in source text of license before. If there is only a COPYING, then it is any version of the GPL. See also question 3 on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460244] Review Request: alt-ergo - Alt-Ergo automatic theorem prover
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460244 --- Comment #6 from Alan Dunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 11:32:08 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: alt-ergo Short Description: Alt-Ergo automatic theorem prover Owners: amdunn Branches: F-8 F-9 InitialCC: Packager Commits: yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459639] Review Request: binclock - ncurses binary clock
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459639 --- Comment #3 from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 11:41:54 EDT --- The problems of the license still stands. What makes you think it is GPLv2 ? As long as it is not mentioned anywhere in the source ? In my opinion you should get in touch with the author and ask him for a clarification. The other option is to ask Fedora legal. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456341] Review Request: netbeans-platform8 - NetBeans 6.1 Platform 8
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456341
--- Comment #10 from Victor G. Vasilyev [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04
11:47:55 EDT ---
The third release is prepared for review.
Spec URL:
http://nbi.netbeans.org/files/documents/210/2059/netbeans-platform8.spec
SRPM URL:
http://nbi.netbeans.org/files/documents/210/2165/netbeans-platform8-6.1-3.fc10.src.rpm
Changes:
- The %%{buildroot} is used everywhere instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- The java, java-devel and jpackage-utils requirenments are used
The rpmlint shows no errors and no warnings against SRPM.
It also shows no errors against all RPMs.
A list of warnings against all RPMs is the same as for the Release 2.
All the warnings was explained in the comment #9 .
Succesful koji build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=806654
It is strange for me why if I strongly follow the Fedora guidelines then I
don't see any 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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458446] Review Request: perl-HTML-FromText - Convert plain text to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458446 --- Comment #7 from Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 12:03:17 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i386). koji Build =http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url fb8ae4ab0cae0b57101f78b046b3927b HTML-FromText-2.05.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test gave All tests successful. Files=5, Tests=13, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.01 sys + 0.21 cusr 0.02 csys = 0.26 CPU) + Package perl-HTML-FromText-2.05-2.fc10 = Provides: perl(HTML::FromText) = 2.05 Requires: /usr/bin/perl perl(Email::Find::addrspec) perl(Exporter::Lite) perl(HTML::Entities) perl(HTML::FromText) perl(Scalar::Util) perl(Text::Tabs) perl(strict) perl(vars) 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458446] Review Request: perl-HTML-FromText - Convert plain text to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458446 --- Comment #8 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 12:17:20 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-HTML-FromText Short Description: Convert plain text to HTML Owners: kwizart Branches: F-8 F-9 EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC: perl-sig Cvsextras Commits: yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459915] Review Request: dink-data - Adventure and role-playing game (data)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459915
Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 12:38:03 EDT
---
Some notes for 1.08-1:
* %setup
- %setup is missing, which may cause some strange build failure
like the following thread:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-February/thread.html#01956
Add %setup -q -c -T, for example.
* Macros
- Use macros for standard directories:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros
For example, /usr/share must be %{_datadir}.
* Output when unpackaging archive
- Suppress the output when unpackging archive by unzip -qq.
When you unzips zip archive at %setup, setup uses -qq
option by default.
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458624] Review Request: teseq - An utility for rendering terminal typescripts human readable
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458624 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #18 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 12:46:36 EDT --- Okay, now closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458391] Review Request: bro - Open-source, Unix-based Network Intrusion Detection System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458391
R P Herrold [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #8 from R P Herrold [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 12:55:05 EDT ---
I find that the .spec file as issued, has a (disabled) option which causes a
./configure to fail on older systems. This patch fixes that issue:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] bro]$ diff -u bro.spec-ORIG bro.spec
--- bro.spec-ORIG 2008-09-04 12:50:54.0 -0400
+++ bro.spec2008-09-04 12:49:50.0 -0400
@@ -43,6 +43,10 @@
%build
./autogen.sh
+# fix up ./configure to elide unsuppoted option
+for i in `find . -name configure `; do
+ sed -i -e '[EMAIL PROTECTED]@# [EMAIL PROTECTED]' $i
+done
%configure --enable-brov6 --disable-broccoli
%{__make} %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS+=-I/usr/include/ncurses
[EMAIL PROTECTED] bro]$
-- Russ herrold
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454867] Review Request: brickshooter - A small puzzle game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454867 Stefan Posdzich [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] | |ightlinux.org) | --- Comment #4 from Stefan Posdzich [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 12:52:06 EDT --- I have written more then one email to upstream. No response yet. I will write one more -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458449] Review Request: perl-Log-TraceMessages - Perl extension for trace messages used in debugging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458449 --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 13:11:46 EDT --- Initial cc: perl-sig is at cvs creation step. (once package is approved). I didn't get what you meant by Data::Dumper Extracted perl dependencies seems clean to me. Provides: perl(Log::TraceMessages) = 1.4 Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) = 3.0.3-1 Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Exporter) perl(FileHandle) perl(strict) perl(vars) Vérification des fichiers non empaquetés: /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /var/tmp/perl-Log-TraceMessages-1.4-1.fc8.kwizart-root-builder -- The missing Build dependency has just been approved , so I hope to follow with this one 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461131] Review Request: sim - Simple Instant Messenger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461131 --- Comment #7 from Pavel Alexeev [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 14:17:20 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) You deleted another file, not the symlink. If you do a ldd /usr/bin/sim you'll see that the .so file isn't used, instead /usr/lib/libsim.so.0.0.0 is used. Indeed /usr/lib/libsim.so.0 It is indeed a devel file. So, in case of sim do not used by any other programs it is may just be safely excluded from package. And why second /usr/lib/libsim.so.0 symlink is not devel?? If there is only a COPYING, then it is any version of the GPL. See also question 3 on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ Thank you very much for the link. According 1 answer of it, I see source. sim/sim.spp (this is file contains main) and few others says: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. So, I change License of package to GPLv2+ P.S. F9 koji build successful - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=806367 F8 - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=807153 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459934] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Pg - Parse and format PostgreSQL dates and times
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459934 Chris Weyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #5 from Chris Weyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 14:16:18 EDT --- Imported and built. Thanks for the 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461131] Review Request: sim - Simple Instant Messenger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461131 --- Comment #8 from Pavel Alexeev [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 14:21:42 EDT --- Forgot link: http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora9/sim/sim-0.9.5-2.SVN20080904rev2258.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 451744] Review Request: root - The CERN analyzer for high to medium energy physics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451744 --- Comment #5 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 14:26:52 EDT --- Hi Patrice and Axel, Sorry for the long absence, but only a few days after submitting this for review my laptop died, and had to reformat my desktop to RedHat 5 as per our labs standards. But in any case, I now have a laptop again, and am returning to packaging root. I don't have a new package to submit yet, but I do have some comments and questions. Patrice: The only apparent difference between root and root.exe seems to be that root displays a splash screen and then calls root.exe. I had originally not included the cernlib requirement because I thought cernlib was not being developed anymore. At least, the last release seems to have been in 2006. Maybe the root people will update minicern more often then cernlib will get updated. From my personal preference I'd prefer minicern, but if the Fedora standards require cernlib-utils to be used, I guess I'll make those changes. I thought unrar was only part of livna. Is this up for inclusion in F10? Also, how do I add the fedora flags? Should I patch the Makefile to include them, or is there a different method to include this into the spec file. The packaging guidelines are not very clear on this matter. I will be uploading a new package shortly, as soon as I address the issues that Patrice brought up. I'll be using 5.20.00 as it's been released already. There is a new development version in the works, but won't be released until December 18, so I've made not attempts to update to that. --Juan Carlos -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458548] Review Request: uriparser - URI parsing library - RFC 3986
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458548 Rakesh Pandit [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: uriparser - |liburiparser - URI parsing |URI parsing library - RFC |library - RFC 3986 |3986 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458548] Review Request: liburiparser - URI parsing library - RFC 3986
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458548 --- Comment #12 from Rakesh Pandit [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 14:35:37 EDT --- SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/uriparser-0.7.1-4.fc10.src.rpm SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/uriparser.spec Build successfully on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=807202 rpmlint output: clean rpmlint uriparser-0.7.1-4.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint uriparser-0.7.1-4.fc10.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings rpmlint uriparser-devel-0.7.1-4.fc10.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint uriparser-debuginfo-0.7.1-4.fc10.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458430] Review Request: lcdf-typetools - Tools for manipulating OpenType and PostScript fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458430 --- Comment #6 from Vasile Gaburici [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 14:42:37 EDT --- I'll only reply to a questions, I'll change the spec to reflect the other remarks. (In reply to comment #5) Issues: Why disabling the self auto tests? 1) Fedora's TeXLive doesn't use $SELFAUTO* variables in its texmf.cnf. So, to use otftotfm with it, there's no need for otftotfm to check for those. The $SELFAUTO* stuff is useful only if you move the _entire_ TL tree from a location to another, e.g. the mount point of the TL DVD is not known for some arbitrary Unix/Windows system. That model doesn't fit so well with rpm because you'd have to store somewhere where you've relocated the texlive packages already installed so you can put the rest (later) in the same place. AFAIK, rpm doesn't have this feature. $ rpm -qi texlive | grep Relocations Name: texlive Relocations: (not relocatable) 2) If you install upstream's TL 2008 (not from rpms), which does use $SELFAUTO variables in its texmf.cnf, into /opt/tl/2008 for instance, then kpathsea-linked binaries installed outside this tree, which include anything installed from rpms, don't really work with TL 2008, even if you change the TEXMFCNF environment variable to point to TL 2008's texmf.cnf. The reason is that any kpathsea-linked binary from (say) /usr/bin, will read TL 2008's texmf.cnf and set TEXMFMAIN and similar variables relative to the path of the binary, i.e. /usr/bin, completely ignoring where the TL 2008 tree is actually located; that's what $SELFAUTOPARENT does. So, $SELFAUTO* configuration isn't useful for rpm-installed binaries in this case either. To actually get kpathsea-linked binaries from /usr/bin to work with a separate TL tree, you need to change TL's texmf.cnf, either directly, or via a shell variables so that it doesn't use $SELFAUTO* stuff. See for instance: http://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2008-August/017338.html I think it could be possible to include as a Source file http://www.read.cs.ucla.edu/click/license Doesn't GPLv2 trump the BSD license that some of the (library) files come under? What is under the 'Redistributable, no modification permitted' license? This doesn't look acceptable in fedora? The -tex subpackage (otftotfm) includes Adobe's Glyph List, hence the different subpackage license. The license for AGL is given at the top of the file: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/opentype/archives/glyphlist.txt This file also included as-is in Fedora's dvipdfmx even though not mentioned in the license. See: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-September/msg0.html The data from that file is used in other programs dealing with Adobe fonts, e.g. freetype and poppler. So, the license is probably okay for Fedora. About the t42 patch: I think I understood the t42 map stuff. It looks correct to me, but certainly suboptimal -- though no more than doing a link with dvipsPreferOutline instead of having dvips use that to prefer outline fonts to bitmap fonts. You should certainly patch the man page of otftotfm to explain what this does. Yes the patch is functional but has rough edges w.r.t. documentation and configurablility. I applied it following our discussion on the devel mailing list, so you'd be able to see what I was talking about. What do texlive people think about this whole issue, and upstream? I did send the t42 patch upstream to Eddie. He had very quick turnaround applying upstream some other patches I've sent him (see the spec Changelog), but for this one I haven't heard back. I'll ping again. Also I don't really understand what otftotfm does with updmap. How do the new map file become known by updamp? Does it add the .map it generates in updmap.cfg (not the t42 map, the regular map)? Yes, it adds a line to the per-user updmap.cfg, which is normally in ~/.texlive2007/texmf-config/web2c. The line it adds makes updmap include ~/.texlive2007/texmf-var/fonts/map/dvips/lcdftools/lcdftools.map, which is entirely maintained by otftotfm. I am reluctant to let this be added to fedora only, in case it has to be withdrawn later, the users would be left with a setup that doesn't work anymore. I can certainly disable the patch for now; I would also be more comfortable if upstream applied it because it's a fairly significant new feature. The files (fonts, encodings, maps) that otftotfm installs work however even if you completely remove lcdf-typetools from the system. Lcdf-typetools are only needed during the font installation/conversion; the files produced, even with the t42 add-on patch, do not require anything but bog standard web2c TeX, something that TeXLive more than qualifies for. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this
[Bug 459880] Review Request: anyremote2html - WEB interface for anyRemote
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459880
--- Comment #7 from anyremote [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 14:58:59 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
* Use cp -a (or cp -pr) instead of cp -r.
* and use 'make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install=install -p'
OK
- %{_defaultdocdir}/ is marked as %doc by default so the prefix %doc is
redundant.
OK
- which I could download from the URL does not coincide with
the one in your srpm.
Updated to coincide with each other.
- Corrected files permissions and specs
OK
Updated files:
Spec URL: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/anyremote/anyremote2html.spec
SRPM URL:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/anyremote/anyremote2html0.5.2-3.fc9.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226418] Merge Review: sharutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226418 Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 15:24:09 EDT --- After recent checkins, this builds fine and rpmlint is silent. All of the above suggestions seem to have been addressed. One minor problem is that Requires(pre): info should be Requires(post): info. This is trivial, so I have committed a fix. * source files match upstream: 2f29604c9bc4471fb35975c10074bb3585dea66ebc52b5560989a370f2e3f00e sharutils-4.7.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * 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. * license text included in package. * 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 is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: sharutils = 4.7-2.fc10 sharutils(x86-64) = 4.7-2.fc10 = /bin/bash /bin/sh /usr/bin/perl info perl(File::Temp) * %check is present and all tests pass: == All 5 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. * %find_lang used properly to collect locale files. * scriptlets are OK (info page installation). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456298] Review Request: netbeans-resolver - Resolver subproject of xml-commons patched for NetBeans
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456298 Lillian Angel [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456298] Review Request: netbeans-resolver - Resolver subproject of xml-commons patched for NetBeans
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456298
Lillian Angel [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]
||un.com)
--- Comment #7 from Lillian Angel [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 15:39:36 EDT
---
2 issues to be resolved.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
* 1 Packaging Guidelines
o 1.1 Naming
ok
o 1.2 Legal
ok
o 1.3 No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries
removed. ok
o 1.4 Writing a package from scratch
ok
o 1.5 Modifying an existing package
ok
o 1.6 Filesystem Layout
ok
o 1.7 Use rpmlint
$ rpmlint -i
/notnfs/langel/rpm/RPMS/noarch/netbeans-resolver-6.1-4.fc9.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
o 1.8 Changelogs
ok
o 1.9 Tags
ok
o 1.10 BuildRoot tag
ok
o 1.11 Requires
ok
o 1.12 BuildRequires
ok
1.13 Summary and description
Change the description so it does not extend pass 80 chars/line
o 1.14 Encoding
ok
o 1.15 Documentation
ok
o 1.16 Compiler flags
ok
o 1.17 Debuginfo packages
n/a
o 1.18 Exclusion of Static Libraries
n/a
o 1.19 Duplication of system libraries
n/a
o 1.20 Beware of Rpath
n/a
o 1.21 Configuration files
n/a
o 1.22 Initscripts
n/a
o 1.23 Desktop files
n/a
o 1.24 Macros
ok
o 1.25 Handling Locale Files
n/a
o 1.26 Timestamps
ok
o 1.27 Parallel make
n/a
o 1.28 Scriptlets requirements
n/a
o 1.29 Running scriptlets only in certain situations
n/a
o 1.30 Scriplets are only allowed to write in certain directories
n/a
o 1.31 Conditional dependencies
n/a
o 1.32 Build packages with separate user accounts
n/a
o 1.33 Relocatable packages
n/a
o 1.34 Code Vs Content
ok
o 1.35 File and Directory Ownership
ok
o 1.36 Users and Groups
ok
o 1.37 Web Applications
ok
o 1.38 Conflicts
ok
o 1.39 No External Kernel Modules
n/a
o 1.40 No Files or Directories under /srv
n/a
o 1.41 Application Specific Guidelines
n/a
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
MUST Items:
- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
ok
- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
ok
- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
.
ok
- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
ok
- MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
ok
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
No. The license field says ASL 2.0, where as the actual license is ASL 1.1.
- MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
ok
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
ok
- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is
unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora
is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest
(http://www.ioccc.org/).
ok
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
ok
- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
ok
- MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
ok
- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
ok
- MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
ok
- MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
ok
- MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
ok
- MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.
- MUST: A package must not
[Bug 457108] Review Request: libss7 - SS7 protocol services to applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457108
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey C. Ollie [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 16:10:08
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I'll review it, but I don't understand what this command for:
ln -s libss7.so.1.0 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/libss7.so.1
The Makefile installs a link from libss7.so to libss7.so.1 but the library is
actually libss7.so.1.0, so an additional link is needed from libss7.so.1 to
libss7.so.1.0. Normally this is taken care of by ldconfig, but since the build
is run as non-root ldconfig is not run.
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457808] Review Request: gwibber - An open source microblogging client for GNOME developed with Python and GTK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457808 --- Comment #9 from Ian Weller [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 16:18:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) any plans to push this to stable repository? Yes, after it becomes stable. I'm working with the developer on getting some major things fixed before I push it there. Hopefully it'll be looking good by F10. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225642] Merge Review: chkfontpath
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225642 Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 16:28:26 EDT --- This ticket is pointless since chkfontpath has been removed from the distro. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457924] Review Request: libmicrohttpd - Lightweight library for embedding a webserver in applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457924 --- Comment #9 from Erik van Pienbroek [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 16:29:13 EDT --- Upstream has removed the (GPL) opencdk and openpgp code from the SVN repository, so the license can stay at LGPL. I've just sent a mail to upstream's mailing list questioning when a new release can be expected (or if a SVN snapshot can be used) and I'm awaiting a response. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461054] Review Request: qrq - Morse telegraphy trainer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461054 --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 17:13:59 EDT --- Looks good to me now. 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459639] Review Request: binclock - ncurses binary clock
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459639 --- Comment #4 from Adam Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-04 17:29:20 EDT --- I sent an email to the author, awaiting a return email. I went with GPLv2 with this revision since the debian packaging information suggested it, but will be sure to get in contact with either the author or Fedora legal for explicit clarification. Thanks again for the feedback! I will update as soon as I know something. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
