[Bug 460867] Review Request: perl-ORLite - Extremely light weight SQLite-specific ORM
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=460867 Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 04:03:27 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-ORLite Short Description: relation system specifically for SQLite Owners: mmaslano Branches: F-10 InitialCC: [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 463922] Review Request: ifstat - Interface statistics
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=463922 --- Comment #11 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 04:22:34 EDT --- (Just commenting again that as I guess I have no time to review this ticket for now, I appreciate if someone else would review this ticket) -- 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 464424] Review Request: GROMACS - a Molecular Dynamics package
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=464424 Jouni Väliaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #14 from Jouni Väliaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 04:23:28 EDT --- I tried to compile the latest gromacs-4.0-5.rc2.fc9.src.rpm on my i686 machine but it failed although compiling of the source code (gromacs-4.0-5.rc2) by ./comfigure and make was succesful. Could you also provide a working src.rpm for ia32? -- 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 463996] Review Request: tuxguitar - A multitrack tablature editor and player written in Java-SWT
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=463996
--- Comment #21 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 04:30:42 EDT
---
Okay, with your explanation and some googling I managed to play sounds by
tuxguitar.
Two things from me:
* One more thing for misc/tuxguitar.sh
- The line 142 should be:
exec ${JAVA} ${JAVA_FLAGS} ${PACKAGE_MAIN} $arg $@
i.e. add exec to replace the called shell to java process.
* Freeze at the end
- Now I can hear sounds played by tuxguitar. However every time
I quit tuxguitar it freezes and I have to kill the process
(tuxguitar) by SIGKILL. Would you have any clue?
Wolfy, are you also reviewing this? If you don't think there is
any blocker on this bug I think I can approve this package after I receive
a reply from Orcan about 2 issues above.
--
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 442371] Review Request: collectd - Statistics collection daemon for filling RRD files
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=442371 Alan Pevec [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #21 from Alan Pevec [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 04:31:11 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: collectd New Branches: F-10 Owners: rjones,berrange,apevec -- 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 464424] Review Request: GROMACS - a Molecular Dynamics package
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=464424 --- Comment #15 from Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 04:33:24 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14) I tried to compile the latest gromacs-4.0-5.rc2.fc9.src.rpm on my i686 machine but it failed although compiling of the source code (gromacs-4.0-5.rc2) by ./comfigure and make was succesful. The error messages, please. What distribution are you running? Could you also provide a working src.rpm for ia32? I'll have to wait until I can use the Fedora build system to see which architectures the SRPM builds under and make the necessary fixes to the spec file. (Including ExcludeArch for those architectures I can't get GROMACS to compile on.) -- 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 464171] Review Request: gedit-latex-plugin - Gedit plugin for composing and compiling LaTeX documents
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=464171 Sergio Pascual [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Sergio Pascual [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 04:46:17 EDT --- Thank you very much! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: gedit-latex-plugin Short Description: Gedit plugin for composing and compiling LaTeX documents Owners: sergiopr Branches: F-9 F-8 InitialCC: -- 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 464424] Review Request: GROMACS - a Molecular Dynamics package
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=464424
--- Comment #16 from Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 04:52:02 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #13)
BuildRequires: openmpi-devel
FYI: Alternatives support in openmpi will probably be gone in next release
(it's already gone from lam), so you might need something like this in the
future:
BuildRequires: environment-modules
and
. /etc/profile.d/modules.sh
module load %{_libdir}/openmpi/*/openmpi.module
before ./configure with mpi
OK.
Do you have any idea how this works in RHEL5? The newest update includes the
mpi-selector tool, which puts the MPI bin dir into the path.
export CFLAGS=%optflags -Wa,--noexecstack
Could this CFLAGS addition be limited only to files that need it? That'd
require some Makefile.in patching, of course.
Well, that would be of course nicer, but the flag only operates on assembly
files anyways :)
However, none of the above are blockers, so feel free to fix them after the
package is imported. Good work.
APPROVED
Thanks for bearing with me.
Based on this package and your reviews of other packages, I'm sponsoring you.
Please request packager group membership in the Fedora Account System and
I'll approve your request. Welcome aboard!
Done.
(Spec and SRPMS still in the same place.)
--
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 464432] Review Request: octopus - a TDDFT code
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=464432 --- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 05:00:03 EDT --- external_libs/expokit is non-free and must be removed from distributed sources unless you can convince its authors to relicense it under a free license. external_libs/metis-4.0 is non-free. external_libs/qshep is non-free as well. Oh my, you are right. This is a showstopper. I'm contacting upstream to see whether they have any plans to migrate to free implementations. Is there an automatic tool to check the licenses of the source files? - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. License: GPLv2+ Should be GPLv3+. IIUC LGPLv3+ libraries can only be linked in if GPLv2+ sources are upgraded to GPLv3. I'll re-check this, but I think I'm correct. OK. Funny, I based my SPEC on the SRPM available from the Octopus website. You'd think the developers had their licenses right.. SRPM source file doesn't match upstream: 54e00d2eb2af7fbd902876bef32b409e octopus-3.0.1.tar.gz e17887506f2596e1826d2d09bc75214f octopus-3.0.1.tar.gz.srpm Used the one from upstream SRPM. My bad. -- 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 464424] Review Request: GROMACS - a Molecular Dynamics package
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=464424 --- Comment #17 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 05:08:51 EDT --- Some notes: * EVR - At least EVR (Epoch-Version-Release) needs fixing: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages * configure - Doesn't the following work? --- # Single precision mkdir single cd single ln -sf ../configure %configure \ --disable-rpath --enable-shared \ --disable-static --enable-float \ ... --- * Namespace in %_bindir, generic names - Your srpm installs many exectables under %_bindir, which is not desired. Also some files has too generic names (like luck, wheel, highway, and so on), which is rather a blocker. Please move (almost all) executables under %_bindir to %_libexecdir/%name, for example and add executables under %_bindir which are _really_ needed. * Duplicate files --- $ rpm -qlp *rpm | sort | uniq -d /usr/bin/GMXRC /usr/bin/GMXRC.bash /usr/bin/GMXRC.csh /usr/bin/GMXRC.zsh /usr/bin/demux.pl - Fix these. -- 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 464424] Review Request: GROMACS - a Molecular Dynamics package
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=464424 --- Comment #18 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 05:14:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17) * Namespace in %_bindir, generic names - Your srpm installs many exectables under %_bindir, which is not desired. Also some files has too generic names (like luck, wheel, highway, and so on), which is rather a blocker. Please move (almost all) executables under %_bindir to %_libexecdir/%name, for example and add executables under %_bindir which are _really_ needed. - Or rename such files so that it makes sure that the names of files are peculiar to this 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 225721] Merge Review: ekiga
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=225721 --- Comment #5 from Peter Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 05:42:31 EDT --- Hi Deji, Can you re-review based on the current ekiga 3 build in rawhide. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=856416 -- 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 464424] Review Request: GROMACS - a Molecular Dynamics package
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=464424
--- Comment #20 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2008-10-02 06:02:59 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #16)
(In reply to comment #13)
BuildRequires: openmpi-devel
FYI: Alternatives support in openmpi will probably be gone in next release
(it's already gone from lam), so you might need something like this in the
future:
BuildRequires: environment-modules
and
. /etc/profile.d/modules.sh
module load %{_libdir}/openmpi/*/openmpi.module
before ./configure with mpi
OK.
Do you have any idea how this works in RHEL5? The newest update includes the
mpi-selector tool, which puts the MPI bin dir into the path.
Yeah, that's a pain, but RHEL5.2 seems to have its own mechanism that works in
similar fashion to environment-modules.
--
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 464424] Review Request: GROMACS - a Molecular Dynamics package
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=464424 --- Comment #19 from Jouni Väliaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 05:15:20 EDT --- I was using the latest updated fedora 2.6.26.3-29.fc9.i686. The output of rpmbuild -bb gromacs.spec output.txt 21 is available at http://bioinf.uta.fi/~java/gromacs/output.txt I have not yet tested to compile mpi version from the source code. Here are the last lines of output: + mkdir mpi-single + cd mpi-single + ../configure --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu --build=i686-pc-linux-gnu --target=i386-redhat-linux-gnu --program-prefix= --prefix=/usr --exec-prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/bin --sbindir=/usr/sbin --sysconfdir=/etc --datadir=/usr/share --includedir=/usr/include --libdir=/usr/lib --libexecdir=/usr/libexec --localstatedir=/var --sharedstatedir=/usr/com --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info --disable-rpath --enable-shared --disable-static --enable-float --with-external-blas --with-external-lapack --with-gsl --with-x --enable-mpi --program-suffix=_mpi checking build system type... i686-pc-linux-gnu checking host system type... i686-pc-linux-gnu checking for a BSD-compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c checking whether build environment is sane... yes checking for a thread-safe mkdir -p... /bin/mkdir -p checking for gawk... gawk checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... yes checking how to create a ustar tar archive... gnutar checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-cc... no checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-icc... no checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-xlc... no checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc... no checking for cc... cc checking for C compiler default output file name... a.out checking whether the C compiler works... yes checking whether we are cross compiling... no checking for suffix of executables... checking for suffix of object files... o checking whether we are using the GNU C compiler... yes checking whether cc accepts -g... yes checking for cc option to accept ISO C89... none needed checking for style of include used by make... GNU checking dependency style of cc... gcc3 checking dependency style of cc... gcc3 checking for mpxlc... no checking for mpicc... mpicc checking whether the MPI cc command works... yes checking for catamount... no checking how to run the C preprocessor... mpicc -E checking whether mpicc accepts -O3... yes checking whether mpicc accepts -malign-double... yes checking whether mpicc accepts -funroll-all-loops... yes ** * Using CFLAGS from environment variable * ** checking for grep that handles long lines and -e... /bin/grep checking for egrep... /bin/grep -E checking for ANSI C header files... no checking for sys/types.h... yes checking for sys/stat.h... yes checking for stdlib.h... yes checking for string.h... yes checking for memory.h... yes checking for strings.h... yes checking for inttypes.h... yes checking for stdint.h... yes checking for unistd.h... yes checking whether byte ordering is bigendian... no checking for int... yes checking size of int... configure: error: cannot compute sizeof (int) See `config.log' for more details. error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.28652 (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.28652 (%build) -- 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 462309] Review Request: publican-ovirt - Common documentation files for oVirt
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=462309 --- Comment #1 from Alan Pevec [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 06:02:49 EDT --- upstream release to https://fedorahosted.org/releases/p/u/publican/ in progress done in the meantime: http://fedorahosted.org/releases/p/u/publican/publican-ovirt-0.4.tgz -- 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 461307] Review Request: perl-Software-License Packages that provide templated software licenses
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=461307 --- Comment #5 from Daniel Berrange [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 06:06:31 EDT --- Odd that it source tar.gz doesn't exist there - it is certainly supposed to. I'll change the URL to point to the alternate location indexed by author instead of by module. -- 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 463770] Package review: perl-Module-Math-Depends
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=463770 Marcela Maslanova [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 463763] Package review: perl-Module-Inspector
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=463763 Bug 463763 depends on bug 463770, which changed state. Bug 463770 Summary: Package review: perl-Module-Math-Depends https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463770 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464424] Review Request: GROMACS - a Molecular Dynamics package
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=464424
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
--- Comment #21 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2008-10-02 06:09:50 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #17)
Some notes:
* EVR
- At least EVR (Epoch-Version-Release) needs fixing:
Right, I seem to have missed that. Thanks for noticing.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
* configure
- Doesn't the following work?
---
# Single precision
mkdir single
cd single
ln -sf ../configure
%configure \
--disable-rpath --enable-shared \
--disable-static --enable-float \
...
---
Thanks, I was thinking about how to avoid the long versions and this should
work.
* Namespace in %_bindir, generic names
- Your srpm installs many exectables under %_bindir, which is not desired.
Also some files has too generic names (like luck, wheel, highway, and so
on),
which is rather a blocker.
Please move (almost all) executables under %_bindir to %_libexecdir/%name,
for
example and add executables under %_bindir which are _really_ needed.
You're right. I guess I have to withdraw the approval until we resolve this.
Thanks for catching it.
* Duplicate files
---
$ rpm -qlp *rpm | sort | uniq -d
/usr/bin/GMXRC
/usr/bin/GMXRC.bash
/usr/bin/GMXRC.csh
/usr/bin/GMXRC.zsh
/usr/bin/demux.pl
- Fix these.
Ehhh, this happened after I asked Jussi to move the GMXRC.* scripts to
subpackages and forgot that he had %{_bindir}/* in the main package.
rpmlint should catch such things.
--
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 461307] Review Request: perl-Software-License Packages that provide templated software licenses
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=461307 Daniel Berrange [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Daniel Berrange [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 06:07:41 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Software-License Short Description: Package that provides templated software licenses Owners: berrange Branches: F-9 InitialCC: perl-sig -- 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 464424] Review Request: GROMACS - a Molecular Dynamics package
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=464424 --- Comment #22 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 06:11:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19) I was using the latest updated fedora 2.6.26.3-29.fc9.i686. The output of rpmbuild -bb gromacs.spec output.txt 21 is available at http://bioinf.uta.fi/~java/gromacs/output.txt I have not yet tested to compile mpi version from the source code. Here are the last lines of output: [...] checking size of int... configure: error: cannot compute sizeof (int) See `config.log' for more details. error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.28652 (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.28652 (%build) Please post the failed test output from config.log. It builds fine in mock/devel-i386 and mock/f9-x86_64. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462173] Review Request: terminator - the robot future of terminals
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=462173 Chris Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #7 from Chris Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 06:13:19 EDT --- Hey guys, thanks very much for the packaging efforts. Without wishing to rain on your parade, I think it's worth mentioning that 0.11 has been released now. I don't think it should significantly affect the packaging end of things though. -- 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 464424] Review Request: GROMACS - a Molecular Dynamics package
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=464424
--- Comment #23 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 06:15:05 EDT
---
Some more notes:
* Directory ownership issue
- Please make it sure that directories which are created when
installing a rpm are correctly owned by the rpm (or rpms
which the rpms depends on).
The following may be rather difficult to find out, but for
example:
# rpm -i gromacs-libs-4.0-6.rc2.fc10.i386.rpm
gromacs-devel-4.0-6.rc2.fc10.i386.rpm
# env LANG=C rpm -qf /usr/share/gromacs/template/
gromacs-devel-4.0-6.rc2.fc10.i386
# env LANG=C rpm -qf /usr/share/gromacs/
file /usr/share/gromacs is not owned by any package
Here gromacs-devel Requires gromacs-libs, however neither of
-devel, -libs packages Requires -common.
So the above install succeeds.
However the directory %{_datadir}/gromacs is owned by -common
package so with this install %{_datadir}/gromacs is not
owned by any packages, which is not right.
Here -devel package must require -common directly or indirectly.
Also, please check the ownership of %{_datadir}/gromacs/template/
or so.
* ldconfig
- Why does -devel package call /sbin/ldconfig?
* Summary
%package devel
Summary: Header files and static libraries for GROMACS
- What does static libraries mean here?
* Timestamps
- When using install or cp commands add -p option to
keep timestamps on installed files.
Also try
make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL=install -p install
This method usually works for Makefiles generated by recent
autotools.
* Using %_builddir
-
# Install manual
install -c -m 644 %{SOURCE1} %{_builddir}/gromacs-4.0_rc2/
-
- install -cpm 0644 %{SOURCE1} . is sufficient.
--
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 452211] Review Request: spu-binutils - Binutils for the SPU on IBM Cell processors
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=452211 --- Comment #17 from Aidan Delaney [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 06:26:00 EDT --- @Robert Scheck: I cannot replicate this issue on my F9 i686 system on which autoconf autodetects the host as i386-redhat-linux-gnu. Can you provide more info on your system such as the OS version? -- 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 458660] Review Request: perl-Graph-Easy
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=458660 --- Comment #9 from Marcela Maslanova [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 06:30:19 EDT --- Well, this package was needed and maybe will be needed again for Padre. Could we close it, when we don't need it at this moment? -- 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 462251] Review Request: PyMOL - python molecular graphics
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=462251
--- Comment #4 from Gianluca Sforna [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 06:36:25
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
you will need to create the tarball from upstream SVN, documenting the
procedure in the spec file (usually the easiest way is to add a small script
to compose the tarball).
Done.
That's better, but getting sources off the 1.1 branch does not guarantee we can
reproduce the build at any random time in the future because the branch will
likely be modified by bug fix commits.
You need to locate a suitable revision (possibly, but not necessarily, off the
1.1 branch) and pull that one. I failed to note this also imply you need rename
the release tag according to:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#SnapshotPackages
so the package will be named something like:
pymol-1.1-x.MMDDsvnREV
* There is no need to prepare and fill the docs directory, a single line in
the files section like:
This was only done since the python setup script does not install the files
into RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
Yeah, that's normal. But files listed in %doc are picked up from RPM_BUILD_DIR
so it will work (I just tested it locally)
* it's the first time I see the sanity check on RPM_BUILD_ROOT before
removing
it. I can't remember any guideline against it, but I'd avoid it anyway.
removed.
You removed too much ;) %install and %clean section must start with
rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}
I was suggesting removing just to the check ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} != /
lastly, mock build still fails due to unpackaged egg-info file, please add
%{python_sitearch}/*egg-info
to %files. Full details at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python
--
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 464432] Review Request: octopus - a TDDFT code
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=464432 --- Comment #10 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 06:47:14 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) Is there an automatic tool to check the licenses of the source files? I'm using licensecheck.pl from debian-utils. Perhaps it could be added to fedora-rpmdevtools. - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. License: GPLv2+ Should be GPLv3+. IIUC LGPLv3+ libraries can only be linked in if GPLv2+ sources are upgraded to GPLv3. I'll re-check this, but I think I'm correct. OK. Funny, I based my SPEC on the SRPM available from the Octopus website. You'd think the developers had their licenses right.. See comment #8. SRPM source file doesn't match upstream: 54e00d2eb2af7fbd902876bef32b409e octopus-3.0.1.tar.gz e17887506f2596e1826d2d09bc75214f octopus-3.0.1.tar.gz.srpm Used the one from upstream SRPM. My bad. Maybe ask upstream why they are different? -- 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 464424] Review Request: GROMACS - a Molecular Dynamics package
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=464424 --- Comment #24 from Jouni Väliaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 06:59:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #22) Please post the failed test output from config.log. It builds fine in mock/devel-i386 and mock/f9-x86_64. Ok. Something is probably wrong on my PC configuration. Here are the config.log files: http://bioinf.uta.fi/~java/gromacs/single/config.log http://bioinf.uta.fi/~java/gromacs/mpi-single/config.log http://bioinf.uta.fi/~java/gromacs/double/config.log -- 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 464424] Review Request: GROMACS - a Molecular Dynamics package
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=464424 --- Comment #25 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 07:16:52 EDT --- (In reply to comment #24) (In reply to comment #22) Please post the failed test output from config.log. It builds fine in mock/devel-i386 and mock/f9-x86_64. Ok. Something is probably wrong on my PC configuration. Here are the config.log files: http://bioinf.uta.fi/~java/gromacs/mpi-single/config.log ./conftest: error while loading shared libraries: libmpi.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory Looks like your openmpi is not installed properly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 452211] Review Request: spu-binutils - Binutils for the SPU on IBM Cell processors
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=452211 --- Comment #18 from Jochen Roth [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 07:24:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16) I think, you need some kind of ExclusiveArch or ExcludeArch for that, because on i386, I'm getting: Hi Robert, I wasn't able to reproduce the problem you are facing. Have a look for my build result here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=856414name=build.log -- 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 458994] Review Request: liveusb-creator - A liveusb creator
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=458994 Kushal Das [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 464424] Review Request: GROMACS - a Molecular Dynamics package
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=464424 --- Comment #26 from Jouni Väliaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 08:21:50 EDT --- (In reply to comment #25) (In reply to comment #24) (In reply to comment #22) Please post the failed test output from config.log. It builds fine in mock/devel-i386 and mock/f9-x86_64. Ok. Something is probably wrong on my PC configuration. Here are the config.log files: http://bioinf.uta.fi/~java/gromacs/mpi-single/config.log ./conftest: error while loading shared libraries: libmpi.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory Looks like your openmpi is not installed properly. Thanks! You were right. I removed openmpi-1.2.4-2.fc9.i386 and openmpi-libs-1.2.4-2.fc9.i386 packages. I had to use --noscripts option because of error: %preun(openmpi-1.2.4-2.fc9.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 2 (bug?) Then I reinstall then by yum install openmpi openmpi-libs and now the gromacs builds properly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 463768] Package review: perl-PAR
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=463768 Marcela Maslanova [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 457517] Review Request: perl-Padre - Perl Application Development and Refactoring Environment
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=457517 Bug 457517 depends on bug 463768, which changed state. Bug 463768 Summary: Package review: perl-PAR https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463768 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460912] Review Request: DeviceKit-power - Power Management Service
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=460912 Richard Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #11 from Richard Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 09:06:02 EDT --- Thanks Kevin. -- 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 463123] Review Request: gnomint - Graphical x509 Certification Authority management tool
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=463123 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||m) --- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 11:22:04 EDT --- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462982] Review Request: buffer - General purpose buffer program
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=462982 Bruno Cornec [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #10 from Bruno Cornec [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 11:24:44 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) I'll take care of this. For the moment there are a few issues: 1. major one: during compilation the mandatory gcc flags as imposed by Fedora (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags) are not used. Instead compilation is done with -Wall -O6 -fomit-frame-pointer Fixed. 2. minor issues: - I see no point in applying all the debian patches. We have no need for the content of the debian folder. You do not package it, which is OK, but I would have adjusted the patches to better fit Fedora. Not a blocker, feel free to leave it as it is. I chose to keep the debian specific stuff, in order to be able to easily back port further Debian patches (which are useful also for the Fedora package) in the future if needed. Removing the creation of the debian content would make a different patch. If it's not a big issue I'd rather keep it like that. - there is a missing s in the Summary(fr) line (des bande - des bandes) Fixed as well. Please look at ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/test/fedora/9/buffer.spec and ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/test/fedora/9/buffer-1.19-1.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 454220] Review Request: germanium - a download manager for eMusic.com
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=454220 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||m) --- Comment #40 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 11:22:56 EDT --- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454220] Review Request: germanium - a download manager for eMusic.com
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=454220 Adam Huffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] | |m) | --- Comment #41 from Adam Huffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 11:35:39 EDT --- I haven't proceeded further with this package as eMusic has changed the download format, meaning that as it stands germanium won't be able to download music from the site. I've corresponded with the upstream author about this and am working on changing the file parsing to deal with the new .emx format. Once that's done I'll upload a new version and work on importing the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458660] Review Request: perl-Graph-Easy
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=458660 --- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 11:37:24 EDT --- If it's no longer needed, obviously you can close the review ticket and anything which depends on it. Its up to you, and there is certainly no shortage of packages for me to 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 445126] Review Request: mirrormanager - Fedora MirrorManager server and client
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=445126
Paul Howarth [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #22 from Paul Howarth [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 11:38:11 EDT
---
What's the point of %define debug_package %{nil} in this package?
noarch packages don't generate debuginfo 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 452211] Review Request: spu-binutils - Binutils for the SPU on IBM Cell processors
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=452211 Robert Scheck [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #19 from Robert Scheck [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 11:38:30 EDT --- Looks like this was a local issue on single box which seems to be a bit broken. Finally a scratch build in Koji worked as expected. Package looks good to me, thus: APPROVED Note, that I'm not really able to test the spu functionally itself, just the packaging and around. And please fix the last remaining warning before importing or shortly after: spu-binutils.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.18.50.0.9-6 2.18.50.0.9-5.fc10 -- 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 206487] Review Request: jd - A 2ch browser
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=206487 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #13 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 11:50:11 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: jd New Branches: F-10 Owners: mtasaka Early branching request. -- 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 206487] Review Request: jd - A 2ch browser
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=206487 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+, fedora-review? |fedora-cvs?, fedora-review+ -- 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 452211] Review Request: spu-binutils - Binutils for the SPU on IBM Cell processors
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=452211 Jochen Roth [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #21 from Jochen Roth [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 11:59:18 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: spu-binutils Short Description: A GNU collection of binary utilities Owners: jroth Branches: EL-5 InitialCC: adrian -- 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 452211] Review Request: spu-binutils - Binutils for the SPU on IBM Cell processors
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=452211 --- Comment #20 from Jochen Roth [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 11:58:24 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19) APPROVED Thanks a lot! spu-binutils.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.18.50.0.9-6 2.18.50.0.9-5.fc10 Yes, I'm sorry I accidentally created the SRPM for the scratch build with the wrong .spec file. I already fixed 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 451772] Review Request: ume-launcher - a full screen application launcher for gnome
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=451772 Jonathan Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 12:12:51 EDT --- Updated the spec file to fix your comments so far, and also updated to the latest upstream release. SPEC: http://jonrob.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/ume-launcher.spec SRPM: http://jonrob.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/ume-launcher-0.6.3-1.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 462250] Review Request: Pmw - python megawidgets
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=462250
--- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 12:16:33 EDT
---
For 1.3.2-2:
* URL
- I think http://pmw.sourceforge.net/ is better for URL
* SourceURL
- For tarball on sourceforge.net please refer to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
* %prep
---
%setup -q -n Pmw.1.3.2/src
---
- After rebuilding the directory Pmw.1.3.2/src under %_builddir
But it leaved Pmw.1.3.2 directory undeleted, which is not
right.
%setup directory (relative to %_builddir) must not contain
any slash.
%build
%install
rm -rf
* License
--- Some files under src/Pmw/Pmw_1_3/contrib/ are under GPLv2+
--- Others are under MIT (from src/Pmw/Pmw_1_3/doc/copyright.html)
- So the license tag should be MIT and GPLv2+.
* %clean, %install
- %clean section is empty
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines :
MUST: Each package must have a %clean section,
- Also %install does not contain any cleaning line.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PreppingBuildRootForInstall
* Directory ownership issue
- The directory %{python_sitelib}/ itself is owned by python and
should not be owned by this rpm.
* Documents
- As license information is in src/Pmw/Pmw_1_3/doc/copyright.html
at least this file should be included in %doc.
I guess
-
%doc src/Pmw/Pmw_1_3/doc/
-
is better.
--
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 452211] Review Request: spu-binutils - Binutils for the SPU on IBM Cell processors
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=452211 --- Comment #22 from Chitlesh GOORAH [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 12:26:36 EDT --- Hello Jochen, I'm curious to know why you didn't add the Branches F-9 and F-10 ? I'm willing to list this package to be part of the Fedora Electronic Lab. I'm inviting you guys to subscribe to this low traffic mailing list :) https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-electronic-lab-list -- 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 456190] Review Request: dosemu - dos emulator
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=456190 --- Comment #16 from Justin Zygmont [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 12:30:33 EDT --- my apologies for the long delay, I will continue to work on this and other packages, and update further. Thanks for everyone's patience and help. -- 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 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 Erik van Pienbroek [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Erik van Pienbroek [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 12:31:52 EDT --- Thanks for the review! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: libmicrohttpd Short Description: Lightweight library for embedding a webserver in applications Owners: epienbro Branches: F-8 F-9 EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC: epienbro -- 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 463123] Review Request: gnomint - Graphical x509 Certification Authority management tool
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=463123 Adam Huffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] | |m) | --- Comment #5 from Adam Huffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 12:47:21 EDT --- I found a fix for that compilation error, but then there was another error. Again I corresponded with the upstream author and it appears to be a glib bug: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=316221 Is it acceptable to turn off -Werror in the meantime? -- 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 462251] Review Request: PyMOL - python molecular graphics
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=462251 --- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 13:04:08 EDT --- Also, * Please write the origin of SOURCE1 (if possible write a full URL, or write comments how you gained the SOURCE1) * Remove redundant Requires. python-pwm already Requires python, tkinter so these need not be listed on the Requires of this rpm. * When using or install commands add -p option to keep timestamps on installed files. * Replace %_usr by %_prefix -- 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 #32 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 13:14:06 EDT
---
I still have some comments.
Instead of %define with_kde, please use bcond_with or bcond_without.
The kdebase = 3.0.0 BuildRequires is strange. Shouldn't it be
kdebase-devel = 3.0.0? And I don't really see the reason why it
shouldn't also be set on fedora 8?
You should not repeat the summary in the %description.
The checkout instructions are not enough, you should add the command
that allows you to do the archive.
The line with
CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS CXXFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS
seems unuseful to me
And you use $LOCALFLAGS but it is not set??
Remove the # Setup for parallel builds, use instead
make %{?_smp_mflags}
You should not do
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}
in %clean.
You install icons, so it is likely that a post script is missing.
Remove the Distribution tag.
Why the BuildRequires autoconf, automake?
Also remove gcc and gcc-c++ from BuildRequires, please, they are in the
minimal buildroot. I also thought that zip was there too, but I am
too lazy to check.
openssl Requires should be picked up automatically.
Some suggestions, feel free not to use these:
* the TABs look bad in my editor, maybe you could either use only spaces
or use tabs more consistently
* The BuildRequires line that is very long could be split in 2 lines
* remove from the description the text:
SIM has countless features, many of them are listed at:
http://sim-im.berlios.de/
since the URL is already a rpm tag.
--
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 463996] Review Request: tuxguitar - A multitrack tablature editor and player written in Java-SWT
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=463996
--- Comment #22 from Orcan Ogetbil [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 13:16:45 EDT
---
* One more thing for misc/tuxguitar.sh
- The line 142 should be:
exec ${JAVA} ${JAVA_FLAGS} ${PACKAGE_MAIN} $arg $@
i.e. add exec to replace the called shell to java process.
FIXED
* Freeze at the end
That happened to me once (when I was running tuxguitar with timidity and
openjdk) out of so many and I reported it to the author. See
http://www.tuxguitar.com.ar/forum/4/817/need-help-with-packaging-for-fedora/
Search for OutOfMemoryError.
But I wasn't able to re-produce this. As I indicated in the above link we can
try playing with the stack sizes (the memory allocation for each thread,
indicated by -Xms128m -Xmx128m in the launching script). The author suggested
to increase them while google says decreasing might help.
I suggest switching to sun's java (no need to recompile, just use
alternatives) and try to see if it will freeze again. If it doesn't then
there is a problem with openjdk and we need it to report to them.
We might be able to get more feedback once the package hits rawhide.
The updated files:
SRPM(F-8): http://6mata.com:8014/tuxguitar/tuxguitar-1.0-7.fc8.src.rpm
SRPM(F-9): http://6mata.com:8014/tuxguitar/tuxguitar-1.0-7.fc9.src.rpm
SPEC: http://6mata.com:8014/tuxguitar/tuxguitar.spec
%changelog
* Thu Oct 02 2008 Orcan Ogetbil orcanbahri[AT]yahoo[DOT]com - 1.0-7
- Added exec to replace the called shell to java process in the launching
script
--
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 463123] Review Request: gnomint - Graphical x509 Certification Authority management tool
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=463123 --- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 13:23:37 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) Is it acceptable to turn off -Werror in the meantime? 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 459455] Review Request: fmit - Free Music Instrument Tuner
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=459455 --- Comment #9 from jebba [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 14:10:35 EDT --- /me looks at calendar Ok, I updated fmit.spec and fmit-0.97.7-2.fc9.src.rpm with updates per Kevin's #7 comments. ftp://ftp.blagblagblag.org/pub/BLAG/developers/jebba/jebbadora -- 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 464621] Review Request: etherboot - roms needed for pxe boot
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=464621
--- Comment #6 from Eduardo Habkost [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 14:20:33
EDT ---
%{__global_cflags} added to x86_64. Changes at:
http://ehabkost.fedorapeople.org/etherboot-5.4.4-4.fc10.src.rpm
http://ehabkost.fedorapeople.org/etherboot.spec.diff
http://ehabkost.fedorapeople.org/etherboot.spec
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=857432
--
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 462982] Review Request: buffer - General purpose buffer program
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=462982
--- Comment #11 from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 14:29:11
EDT ---
In order to make tracking easier for everyone, please bump the release tag each
time you modify the spec file (and _add_ a corresponding changelog entry, not
_replace_ the previous one as you have done). For instance
%changelog
* Thu Oct 02 2008 Bruno Cornec [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.19-2.fc9
- fix compilation flags
* Sat Sep 20 2008 Bruno Cornec [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.19-1.fc9
- Updated to 1.19
as of 02.oct.2008, ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/test/fedora/9/buffer.spec still
has the missing s in Summary(fr).
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -XX))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing th
e text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: a2bb4ed163cb166bf54a1ba341c8d1fcba48f271
buffer-1.19.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[-] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packag
ing Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, i
f available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on:
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
=== Issues ===
1.Summary(Fr) should be fixed before uploading to CVS
*** APPROVED ***
I will take a look at your other packages and if satisfied I will sponsor you.
--
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 187317] Review Request: mindi
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=187317 --- Comment #37 from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 14:50:34 EDT --- We have an issue here. Fedora packages MUST be able to be built using ONLY the content of the Fedora repository. Hence the Require: mindi-busybox will prevent building mindi, as long as mindi-busybox is not a valid Fedora package. And I do not see even a review request for such a beast. Note that I believe that a fork of an existing package would not be accepted without an approval from the packaging committee. I am sure that a proper solution could be found, once the correct arguments are presented. -- 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 437192] Review Request: simdock - Fast and customizable dockbar
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=437192 --- Comment #4 from Terje Røsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 14:50:42 EDT --- Updated package: - fix patch macro - install desktop file spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/simdock/simdock.spec srpm: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=857464name=simdock-1.2-2.fc10.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=857463 -- 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 463242] Review Request: ACE ssh module
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=463242 Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #2 from Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 15:04:49 EDT --- Combining this package into https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463226 as a subpackage. -- 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 463226] Review Request: Appliance Configuration Engine
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=463226 --- Comment #4 from Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 15:08:28 EDT --- Per a comment from Bill Nottingham, I have moved all ace-* modules into a subpackge. The chaneged srpm and spec file are below: Spec URL: http://bkearney.fedorapeople.org/ace.spec SRPM URL: http://bkearney.fedorapeople.org/ace-0.0.3-4.fc9.src.rpm rpmlint is clean builds in koji on f9: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=857555 -- 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 463236] Review Request: ACE PHP module
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=463236 Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #2 from Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 15:10:04 EDT --- Combining this package into https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463226 as a subpackage. -- 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 463235] Review Request: ACE Mysql module
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=463235 Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #2 from Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 15:10:34 EDT --- Combining this package into https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463226 as a subpackage. -- 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 463241] Review Request: ACE Postgres module
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=463241 Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #2 from Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 15:09:33 EDT --- Combining this package into https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463226 as a subpackage. -- 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 463232] Review Request: ACE Console Module
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=463232 Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #2 from Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 15:11:14 EDT --- Combining this package into https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463226 as a subpackage. -- 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 463229] Review Request: ACE Banners Module
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=463229 Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #5 from Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 15:12:28 EDT --- Combining this package into https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463226 as a subpackage. -- 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 463227] Review Request: ACE Apache module
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=463227 Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #2 from Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 15:13:06 EDT --- Combining this package into https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463226 as a subpackage. -- 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 463231] Review Request: ACE Basic Site Module
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=463231 Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #2 from Bryan Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 15:11:47 EDT --- Combining this package into https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463226 as a subpackage. -- 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 462381] Review Request: beediff - Visual tool for comparing and merging files
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=462381 --- Comment #4 from Terje Røsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 16:20:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) Everything seems fine, except for setting a vendor_id in the desktop-install. Please fix that too and I'll approve the package. Found it, it's in a irc log: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes20080603#t12:15 rdieter: abadger1999: ah, I had almost forgotten about that. iirc, mclassen kinda wanted the the .desktop file --vendor recommendations changed to *not* recommend using --vendor=fedora Who can change the Wiki Package 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 461793] Review Request: spu-gcc - Cross Compiling GNU GCC targeted at spu
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=461793 --- Comment #2 from Aidan Delaney [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 17:05:42 EDT --- Jochen and I considered two methods of breaking the circularity concerning building spu-gcc and spu-newlib. The problem is that spu-gcc needs spu-newlib during build, whereas spu-newlib needs spu-gcc during its build. The two ways of solving this are (a) do a build on a unified source tree for gcc and newlib, xor (b) provide some bootstrap gcc compiler to build newlib, which can then be used to build spu-gcc. After some investigation we found that (a) is quite brittle. None of the configurations of gcc+newlib (that we tried) build in a unified tree. Therefore we have opted for (b). A simple spu-gcc-bootstrap is available here: http://foss.it.brighton.ac.uk/~balor/rpm/spu-gcc/r1/spu-gcc-bootstrap.spec and a spu-gcc which conflicts with spu-gcc-bootstrap is available here: http://foss.it.brighton.ac.uk/~balor/rpm/spu-gcc/r1/spu-gcc.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461791] Review Request: spu-newlib - C library targeted at spu
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=461791 --- Comment #2 from Aidan Delaney [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 17:09:18 EDT --- This updated version of spu-newlib builds using the spu-gcc-bootstrap compiler provided by bug #461793: http://foss.it.brighton.ac.uk/~balor/rpm/spu-newlib/r1/spu-newlib.spec spu-newlib is then a BuildRequires of spu-gcc. This breaks a problem with circular dependencies in the build process. -- 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 465362] New: Review Request: anyconnect -- client for Cisco AnyConnect V{N
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: anyconnect -- client for Cisco AnyConnect V{N
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465362
Summary: Review Request: anyconnect -- client for Cisco
AnyConnect V{N
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://david.woodhou.se/anyconnect.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.infradead.org/pub/anyconnect-f9/anyconnect-0.91-1.src.rpm
Description: This package provides a client for Cisco's AnyConnect VPN, which
uses HTTPS and DTLS protocols.
--
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 462446] Review Request: ttf2pt1 - TrueType to Adobe Type 1 font converter
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=462446 --- Comment #12 from Patrice Dumas [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 18:10:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) I guess I've already invalidated the documentation somewhat by moving the README*, FONT* and similar files to defaultdocdir. The manual pages refers to these as /usr/share/ttf2pt1/README etc. But this feels a bit more invasive. Or is it part of packaging to actually rewrite the documentation for the package? It is better for integration, but at some point you can also decide that it is not needed and you have better things to do, not to mention that it increases complexity. So, your choice. It would be better if convert looked for convert.cfg somewhere else than in pwd. Maybe, maybe not. It describes what convert should do, and in that sense has some similarities with a Makefile. There may be several such files, each converting different sources. Reading the sample it looks more like a regular config file. So a search path in /usr/share/ then /etc/ then $HOME/... and then the current directory with the latter overriding the former would be better. But this is to be done with upstream. But in any case, I wouldn't change such a thing in the role of packager, would I? That seems like a discussion to have with upstreams if one want to change it. Indeed. Spec URL: ftp://ftp.uddeborg.se/pub/ttf2pt1/ttf2pt1.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.uddeborg.se/pub/ttf2pt1/ttf2pt1-3.4.4-5.src.rpm I think that the 'other' applications should better be installed they look generic enough to be of use. However they should certainly have their name prefixed with ttf2pt1 to avoid polluting the global namespace with the names that are not very well chosen, and for utilities that are not very important. cmpf and dmpf could also be prefixed, a 4 letter name is not very good, and in any case one has to look at te ttf2pt1 documentation to see what tey are useful to, and the other utilities are already prefixed. The stuff in TeX is not generic enough, in my opinion, to be put in the system dirs, leaving it in %doc is right. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 465372] New: Review Request: chntpw - Change passwords in Windows SAM files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: chntpw - Change passwords in Windows SAM files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465372 Summary: Review Request: chntpw - Change passwords in Windows SAM files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/chntpw.spec SRPM URL: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/chntpw-0.99.6-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: This is a utility to (re)set the password of any user that has a valid (local) account on your Windows NT/2k/XP/Vista etc system. You do not need to know the old password to set a new one. It works offline, that is, you have to shutdown your computer and boot off a floppydisk or CD or another system. Will detect and offer to unlock locked or disabled out user accounts! There is also a registry editor and other registry utilities that works under linux/unix, and can be used for other things than password editing. -- 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 465381] New: Review Request: sugar-moon - Lunar Activity for the sugar desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: sugar-moon - Lunar Activity for the sugar desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465381 Summary: Review Request: sugar-moon - Lunar Activity for the sugar desktop 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://bkearney.fedorapeople.org/sugar-moon.spec SRPM URL: http://bkearney.fedorapeople.org/sugar-moon-7-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Moon activity for the sugar desktop Builds in Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=858272 One error in rpmlint: Empty File One warning in rpmlint: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities I am requesting sponsorship via anohter ticket. So it is a race condition between this ticket and that as to if I will require sponsorship. -- 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 465382] New: Review Request: bouncycastle-mail - Additional libraries for Bouncy Castle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: bouncycastle-mail - Additional libraries for Bouncy
Castle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465382
Summary: Review Request: bouncycastle-mail - Additional
libraries for Bouncy Castle
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://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/bouncycastle-mail.spec
SRPM URL:
http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/bouncycastle-mail-1.41-1.fc10.src.rpm
Description: SMIME/CMS packages for Bouncy Castle
Depends on bouncycastle-%{version} which is in koji and will be in rawhide
shortly. The spec file is directly taken from bouncycastle and modified
accordingly.
See:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465203
--
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 465179] Review Request: hunspell-mg - Malagasy hunspell dictionaries
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=465179 Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 00:01:47 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock. Koji build = http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=858406 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream. 08f1bb21c5204669b3fd3bac1136d3e8 mg_MG.zip + 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. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + no scriptlets are used. + Not a GUI app. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 465177] Review Request: hunspell-km - Khmer hunspell dictionaries
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=465177 Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 00:03:53 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock. Koji build = http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=858402 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream. a22266cfa40fb23a79be27a239321a3f km_spellchecker_OOo30_V_1.0.2.oxt + 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. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + no scriptlets are used. + Not a GUI app. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 465176] Review Request: Armenian hunspell dictionaries - Armenian hunspell dictionaries
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=465176 Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 00:02:47 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock. Koji build = http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=858404 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream. 7ca1904aecf53163909ced527663a2ef myspell-hy-0.10.1.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. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + no scriptlets are used. + Not a GUI app. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 461139] Review Request: Thabit-fonts -Thabit-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 #9 from Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 00:05:51 EDT --- Nicolas, I feel like this would be a good candidate for naming arabeyes-Thabit-fonts. Maybe after f10 we should consider revising the fonts packaging 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 226592] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-evdev
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=226592 Peter Hutterer [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Peter Hutterer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 00:19:19 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: xorg-x11-drv-evdev New Branches: F-10 Owners: xgl-maint Please create F-10 branch for stabilization work. -- 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 462309] Review Request: publican-ovirt - Common documentation files for oVirt
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=462309 Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 00:16:02 EDT --- Suggestions:- 1)Source failed to verify with upstream URL 8e60459257b6ec5d43ad34b5cd330a8f publican-ovirt-0.4.tgz (from upstream URL) 2c02784aa82bb23498d9b8f07654ab1d publican-ovirt-0.4.tgz (from SRPM) Re upload SRPM with correct source tarball. 2) from Packaging Guidelines, consider preserving timestamps http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Timestamps 3) good if you use defattr usage as %defattr(-,root,root,-) -- 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 226654] Merge Review: xorg-x11-xkb-utils
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=226654 Peter Hutterer [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #1 from Peter Hutterer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 00:22:37 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: xorg-x11-xkb-utils New Branches: F-10 Owners: xgl-maint Please create F-10 branch for stabilization work. -- 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 451772] Review Request: ume-launcher - a full screen application launcher for gnome
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=451772
--- Comment #6 from Tim Lauridsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 00:47:43 EDT
---
rpmlint ume-launcher-0.6.3-1.fc9.i386.rpm
ume-launcher.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/xdg/autostart/ume-launcher.desktop
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint ume-launcher-0.6.3-1.fc9.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
The warning is ok and can be ignored.
(. not checked, * = ok, X = not OK)
* Package is matching naming guidelines.
* spec file in named %{name}.spec
* it is legal for Fedora to distribute this
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible have the right good license shortname :
LGPLv2+
* License file must be in %doc (it it exists)
* Spec file is written in American English
* Spec file is legible.
X Sources match upstream.
MD5SUM:
f9699b350edd71acf727411cf7d0b287 rpmbuild/SOURCES/ume-launcher_0.6.3.tar.gz
a9b58c94a1c4c0d59018ff14f4e3aa34 Download/ume-launcher_0.6.3.tar.gz
* summary and description fine
* correct buildroot
* %{?dist} is used
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* package meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* changelog format fine
* Packager/Vendor/Distribution/Copyright tags not used
* Summary tag does not end in a period
* Package compiles and build into RPM's on : i386 etc.
* no Exclude Arch
* BuildRequires for all build requerements (- the ones on the Exception list)
* locales are handed using %find_lang
* no shared libs
* Package own all created directories.
* No duplicate files in %files
* Every %files section includes a %defattr(...) line
* Package has a %clean with a rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
* consistently use of macros
* Package contains code or or permissable content.
* No large documentation
* files in %doc dont affect runtime.
* no header files
* no static libs
* package has no pkgconfig (.pc) files
* no -devel subpackage
* no ..la libtool archives
* gui application, desktop-file-validate is used on .desktop file
* package don't own files and dirs owned by other packages.
* %install starts with an rm -rf %{buildroot}
* rpm package filenames is in valid UTF-8.
* no Rpath
* no config files
* no init scripts
* no %makeinstall used
* no Requires(pre,post)
* rpmlint is ok on SRPM
* rpmlint is ok on RPM's.
Fix the sources and i will approve 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 462309] Review Request: publican-ovirt - Common documentation files for oVirt
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=462309 --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 00:48:21 EDT --- Please bump the upstream version (eg to 0.4.1 or 0.5) when changing the tarball to avoid confusion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209617] Review Request: comix - A user-friendly, customizable image viewer
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=209617 --- Comment #6 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 01:01:46 EDT --- cvs done -- 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 462309] Review Request: publican-ovirt - Common documentation files for oVirt
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=462309
Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 01:15:30 EDT
---
Here is the review:
+:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing
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 meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
Open Publication
[+] 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.
please see above comments
[+] 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. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[=] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
see above: (-,root,root,-) is preferred
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
(it wouldn't hurt to add a macro say %publicandir for %{_datadir}/publican
though maybe would probably come first in the other publican packages)
[+] 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 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.
Please fix the earlier mentioned points and I think the package can be
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 462309] Review Request: publican-ovirt - Common documentation files for oVirt
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=462309 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 462711] Review Request: Mothanna-fonts - Mothanna-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=462711 Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[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 209617] Review Request: comix - A user-friendly, customizable image viewer
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=209617 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 220443] Review Request: gnome-commander - A nice and fast file manager for the GNOME desktop
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=220443 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 220443] Review Request: gnome-commander - A nice and fast file manager for the GNOME desktop
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=220443 --- Comment #5 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 01:42:10 EDT --- cvs done -- 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 442371] Review Request: collectd - Statistics collection daemon for filling RRD files
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=442371 --- Comment #22 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 01:52:23 EDT --- cvs done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 #14 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 01:55:12 EDT --- cvs done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 442371] Review Request: collectd - Statistics collection daemon for filling RRD files
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=442371 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
