[Bug 464430] Review Request: k12linux-quick-start-guide - Doc describing how to enable LTSP on Fedora Live LTSP.
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=464430
--- Comment #41 from Patrice Dumas pertu...@free.fr 2008-12-22 03:21:30 EDT
---
Right. Still approved.
In the %changelog, the % in %{version} should be escaped like %%{version}
The spec file is used for changelog entries that are in fact for upstream,
like:
- Used a different screenshot for step #10 in html which more clearly shows
the device names. Deleted the sentence that said to close the
window because it was replaced by the File-Save verbage added in
- Changed Step 10 in html doc to use File-Save rather quit, save; replaced
corresponding screenshot.
- Reworked opening section to cover running from LiveUSB and from hard disk,
since
document is mostly about network config to enable LTSP support.
- Added link to Fedora Installation Guide in reference to adding user IDs.
- Changed name and all allusions from README and ltsp-server-livesetupdocs to
k12linux-quick-start-guide.
- Changed screenshots so they show 'K12Linux Quick Start Guide' on desktop
instead
of 'README LTSP Server Setup'.
They should be in a NEWS file or Changelog or the like. Not a big deal since
the separation between the spec file and the tarball is quite artificial
anyway.
--
Configure 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 226463] Merge Review: system-config-netboot
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=226463 --- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2008-12-22 03:23:17 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=327623) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=327623) patch to silent rpmlint output on srpm -- 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 226462] Merge Review: system-config-lvm
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=226462 --- Comment #12 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2008-12-22 03:30:15 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 226463] Merge Review: system-config-netboot
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=226463 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #5 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2008-12-22 03:29:50 EDT --- Still there are rpmlint output not silent on rpms system-config-netboot.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/system-config-netboot/pxeosdialog.py 0644 system-config-netboot.noarch: E: non-readable /usr/share/system-config-netboot/netboot_gtk.py 0750 system-config-netboot.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/system-config-netboot/netboot_gtk.py 0750 system-config-netboot.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/system-config-netboot/netboot_gtk.py system-config-netboot.noarch: E: non-readable /usr/share/system-config-netboot/system-config-netboot.py 0750 system-config-netboot.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/system-config-netboot/system-config-netboot.py 0750 system-config-netboot.noarch: W: no-dependency-on usermode system-config-netboot.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided redhat-config-netboot AND system-config-netboot-cmd.noarch: E: non-readable /usr/share/system-config-netboot/pxeos.py 0750 system-config-netboot-cmd.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/system-config-netboot/pxeos.py 0750 system-config-netboot-cmd.noarch: E: non-readable /usr/share/system-config-netboot/pxeboot.py 0750 system-config-netboot-cmd.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/system-config-netboot/pxeboot.py 0750 system-config-netboot-cmd.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/system-config-netboot/firsttime.py 0644 system-config-netboot-cmd.noarch: E: non-readable /usr/share/system-config-netboot/diskless/updateDiskless 0700 system-config-netboot-cmd.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/system-config-netboot/diskless/updateDiskless 0700 system-config-netboot-cmd.noarch: E: non-readable /usr/share/system-config-netboot/diskless/syncfiles 0700 system-config-netboot-cmd.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/system-config-netboot/diskless/syncfiles 0700 system-config-netboot-cmd.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/system-config-netboot/diskless/diskless.init 0644 system-config-netboot-cmd.noarch: E: non-readable /usr/share/system-config-netboot/diskless/disklessrc 0700 system-config-netboot-cmd.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/system-config-netboot/diskless/disklessrc 0700 system-config-netboot-cmd.noarch: E: non-readable /usr/share/system-config-netboot/diskless/mkdiskless 0700 system-config-netboot-cmd.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/system-config-netboot/diskless/mkdiskless 0700 system-config-netboot-cmd.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/system-config-netboot/diskless.py 0644 system-config-netboot-cmd.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /tftpboot/linux-install/msgs/boot.msg system-config-netboot-cmd.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /tftpboot/linux-install/msgs/expert.msg system-config-netboot-cmd.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /tftpboot/linux-install/msgs/general.msg system-config-netboot-cmd.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /tftpboot/linux-install/msgs/param.msg system-config-netboot-cmd.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /tftpboot/linux-install/msgs/rescue.msg system-config-netboot-cmd.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /tftpboot/linux-install/msgs/snake.msg system-config-netboot-cmd.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /tftpboot/linux-install/pxelinux.0 Suggestions:- 1) why some of above mentioned files are non-readable? you can make them readable. 2) For config files guidelines says http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Configuration_files 3) Desktop files must be installed as per given http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#desktop-file-install_usage 4) Use following scriptlet for icon files https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#GTK.2B_icon_cache -- 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 476633] Review Request: perl-Devel-CheckOS - Check what OS we're running on
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=476633 Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 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 476632] Review Request: perl-Test-Compile - Check whether Perl module files compile correctly
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=476632 Bug 476632 depends on bug 476633, which changed state. Bug 476633 Summary: Review Request: perl-Devel-CheckOS - Check what OS we're running on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476633 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 435724] Review Request: fedora-ds-graph - an rrdtool-based graphing utility for Fedora Directory Server
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=435724 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 --- Comment #9 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2008-12-22 04:08:00 EDT --- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join should answer your questions. More precisely, see 1.1.9 (Get a Fedora Account ) and 1.1.11 (Get Sponsored) -- Configure 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-Linux_Security_Guide - A security guide for linux
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=476471 --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2008-12-22 03:58:09 EDT --- - The spec file name and the SRPM name are different. - Changelog entries are still missing. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs - URL should be https://fedorahosted.org/securityguide/ - Source0 should be point to the upstream source location, to the source tarball to be more precise. Please refer to https://fedorahosted.org/web/faq, Section 'How can I publish archive releases (tgz, zip, etc) for my project?' - If there are no 'BuildRequires:' or 'Requires:' leave those entries away. - Isn't this package 'BuildArch: noarch' ? - The license should be only 'Open Publication' See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses_2 - Your %file section seems to be unfinished I'm not able to rebuild your package on Fedora 9. *ERROR: Brand fedora is not installed* Either install fedora or change to a valid Brand. Installed Brands: echo common make: *** [pre] Error 1 The rpmlint output of the SRPM: [...@laptop024 SRPMS]$ rpmlint fedora-Linux_Security_Guide-10-en-US-1.0-3.src.rpm fedora-Linux_Security_Guide-10-en-US.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 2) fedora-Linux_Security_Guide-10-en-US.src: E: no-changelogname-tag fedora-Linux_Security_Guide-10-en-US.src: W: invalid-license Open Publication License 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. For translations, take a look at https://translate.fedoraproject.org/submit/maintainers/info -- Configure 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 226510] Merge Review: udev
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=226510 --- Comment #9 from Harald Hoyer har...@redhat.com 2008-12-22 04:14:31 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) rpmlint with udev-135-3 of rawhide: udev.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/modprobe.d/floppy-pnp A configuration file is stored in your package without the noreplace flag. A way to resolve this is to put the following in your SPEC file: %config(noreplace) /etc/your_config_file_here bogus udev.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%trigger rm udev.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%trigger rm bogus udev.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/udev-post The service is enabled by default after chkconfig --add; for security reasons, most services should not be. Use - as the default runlevel in the init script's chkconfig: line and/or remove the Default-Start: LSB keyword to fix this if appropriate for this service. bogus udev.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/udev-post The service is enabled by default after chkconfig --add; for security reasons, most services should not be. Use - as the default runlevel in the init script's chkconfig: line and/or remove the Default-Start: LSB keyword to fix this if appropriate for this service. bogus udev.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name udev-post The init script name should be the same as the package name in lower case, or one with 'd' appended if it invokes a process by that name. bogus libudev-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on libudev/libudev-libs/liblibudev 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. bogus -- 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 226510] Merge Review: udev
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=226510 --- Comment #8 from Harald Hoyer har...@redhat.com 2008-12-22 04:13:09 EDT --- rpmlint with udev-135-3 of rawhide: udev.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/modprobe.d/floppy-pnp A configuration file is stored in your package without the noreplace flag. A way to resolve this is to put the following in your SPEC file: %config(noreplace) /etc/your_config_file_here udev.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%trigger rm udev.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%trigger rm udev.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/udev-post The service is enabled by default after chkconfig --add; for security reasons, most services should not be. Use - as the default runlevel in the init script's chkconfig: line and/or remove the Default-Start: LSB keyword to fix this if appropriate for this service. udev.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/udev-post The service is enabled by default after chkconfig --add; for security reasons, most services should not be. Use - as the default runlevel in the init script's chkconfig: line and/or remove the Default-Start: LSB keyword to fix this if appropriate for this service. udev.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name udev-post The init script name should be the same as the package name in lower case, or one with 'd' appended if it invokes a process by that name. libudev-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on libudev/libudev-libs/liblibudev 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. -- 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 477567] Review Request: nload - console ncurses network monitoring 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=477567
Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||fab...@bernewireless.net
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fab...@bernewireless.net
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2008-12-22
05:33:31 EDT ---
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: F9/i386
[x] Rpmlint output:
Source RPM:
[...@laptop024 SRPMS]$ rpmlint nload-0.7.2-1.fc9.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Binary RPM(s):
[...@laptop024 i386]$ rpmlint nload*
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
master : %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
spec file: %%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPLv2+ [1]
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Upstream source: 5b851ecf898edcd1f465946745e95eb6
Build source:5b851ecf898edcd1f465946745e95eb6
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly. %find_lang used for locales.
[x] %{optflags} or RPM_OPT_FLAGS are honoured.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly. %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every
%files section.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in 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.
[-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[x] -debuginfo subpackage is present and looks complete.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[!] Timestamps preserved with cp and install.
[x] Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags})
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[-] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: F9/i386
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1015818
[x] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] Changelog in allowed format
[1] Source header says GPLv2+
[2] Using make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL=install -p instead of
%{__make} install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} preserve the timestamps
Just some cosmetic stuff:
- Every BR on one line looks neat
- a dash between '...om.br -
[Bug 475755] Review Request: devtodo - Manage a hierarchical, prioritised list of outstanding tasks, jobs, or just reminders.
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=475755 Patrick Monnerat p...@datasphere.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Patrick Monnerat p...@datasphere.ch 2008-12-22 05:42:17 EDT --- Koji scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1015833 rpmlint silent Review accepted -- Configure 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 435276] Review Request: kBuild - A cross-platform build enviroment
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=435276 --- Comment #28 from Xavier Lamien lxt...@gmail.com 2008-12-22 05:49:59 EDT --- btw, do you mind to add me as co-owner ? -- Configure 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 464430] Review Request: k12linux-quick-start-guide - Doc describing how to enable LTSP on Fedora Live LTSP.
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=464430 --- Comment #42 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2008-12-22 05:57:51 EDT --- They should be in a NEWS file or Changelog or the like. Not a big deal since the separation between the spec file and the tarball is quite artificial anyway. I think it is entirely unimportant to do this... but Peter's decision as maintainer. I plan on importing the tarball into a bzr repo soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476632] Review Request: perl-Test-Compile - Check whether Perl module files compile correctly
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=476632
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2008-12-22
06:11:57 EDT ---
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 including the Perl specific items
[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} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of
Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of
the license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: b31de0c2dfcc363cae702f5e218493fb027f5f84
Test-Compile-0.08.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidel
ines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] 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.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if availabl
e.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: koji scratch build + devel/x86_64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: koji scratch build + devel/x86_64
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check is present and the tests pass.
[!] Final provides and requires are sane.
== Duplicate Requires for perl(UNIVERSAL::require)
*** APPROVED *** but please remove perl(UNIVERSAL::require) from Requires
--
Configure 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 476632] Review Request: perl-Test-Compile - Check whether Perl module files compile correctly
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=476632 Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476632] Review Request: perl-Test-Compile - Check whether Perl module files compile correctly
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=476632 --- Comment #2 from Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 2008-12-22 06:18:11 EDT --- I'll remove it. Thank you for your review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476632] Review Request: perl-Test-Compile - Check whether Perl module files compile correctly
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=476632 --- Comment #3 from Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 2008-12-22 06:18:27 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Test-Compile Short Description: Check whether Perl module files compile correctly Owners: mmaslano Branches: F-10 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 459281] Review Request: corosync - The Corosync Cluster 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=459281 Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||allis...@gmail.com --- Comment #13 from Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com 2008-12-22 06:32:45 EDT --- Hi Steve, if builds fine in koji, close this bug as 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 426751] Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426751 --- Comment #38 from Till Maas opensou...@till.name 2008-12-22 06:51:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #37) Ok thank you very much that looks very useful: it is quite a bit change to our packaging so I think I would like to leave the automatic dependency scripts for the next update of the guidelines after this one, if that is ok - that will give us a bit more time to test and play with them. Sure. Presumbly ghc should own those scripts? Yes or maybe better in a separate small package that is required by ghc to make it easier to update them. I am not yet sure, what the impact of %define _use_internal_dependency_generator 0 is for ghc packages. Naive question: what would be the consequence of leaving _use_internal_dependency_generator turned on? Turning off also disables all C library dependency checking? Anyway from what you say we can tweak the scripts to do the write thing. If it is turned on, then __find_requires is not used. According to this https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FilteringAutomaticDependencies instead of rpmdeps maybe /usr/lib/rpm/find-requires should be used. I will ask about this on fedora-devel. -- Configure 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 477567] Review Request: nload - console ncurses network monitoring 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=477567
--- Comment #2 from Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br 2008-12-22
07:07:35 EDT ---
[1] Source header says GPLv2+
[2] Using make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL=install -p instead of
%{__make} install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} preserve the timestamps
Just some cosmetic stuff:
- Every BR on one line looks neat
- a dash between '...om.br - 0.7.2-1' would be nice
fixed.
http://ispbrasil.com.br/nload/nload.spec
http://ispbrasil.com.br/nload/nload-0.7.2-2.fc10.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 435276] Review Request: kBuild - A cross-platform build enviroment
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=435276 --- Comment #29 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2008-12-22 08:44:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #28) btw, do you mind to add me as co-owner ? I'd be glad to. By the way, I noticed that you're planning to add VirtualBox into RPM Fusion, which I'm happy to hear, and which was the reason I added this review as well. I don't know whether you package is finished, or whether you based your package on Till's one as well, but you may want to have a short look at my package, just to cross-check [1]. [1] http://elvn.getrpm.net/rpm/el5/src/ -- Configure 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 477544] Review Request: libpcapnav - Wrapper library for libpcap offering navigation inside of a tracefile
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=477544
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2008-12-22
08:46:31 EDT ---
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
[!] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM: libpcapnav.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.8-2
['0.8-1.fc11', '0.8-1']
= either the newest changelog should be dropped or release tag should be
increased
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: MIT (with advertisement)
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: 9f585e8589f289d157732b040f2a213e8b6b239b
libpcapnav-0.8.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[x] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
[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.
[x] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[x] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x] 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.
[x] Final provides and requires are sane.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if 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.
[x] Package functions as described.
[x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check is present and the test passes.
=== Issues ===
1. Release tag for the package does not coincide with the changelog
*** APPROVED *** but please fix the release tag before commit
--
Configure 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 477545] Review Request: libnetdude - Management framework for pcap packet traces
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=477545 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477544] Review Request: libpcapnav - Wrapper library for libpcap offering navigation inside of a tracefile
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=477544 Andreas Thienemann andr...@bawue.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Andreas Thienemann andr...@bawue.net 2008-12-22 09:04:08 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: libpcapnav Short Description: Wrapper library for libpcap offering navigation inside of a tracefile Owners: ixs Branches: F-9 F-10 -- Configure 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 477223] Review Request: qedje - A library combining the benefits of Edje and Qt
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=477223 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2008-12-22 09:07:49 EDT --- qedje-0.3.0-2.fc10,qzion-0.3.0-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qedje-0.3.0-2.fc10,qzion-0.3.0-2.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 477221] Review Request: qzion - QZion is an canvas abstraction used by and made for QEdje
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=477221 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2008-12-22 09:07:46 EDT --- qedje-0.3.0-2.fc10,qzion-0.3.0-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qedje-0.3.0-2.fc10,qzion-0.3.0-2.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 460887] Review Request: libpcapnav - a libpcap trace file navigation library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460887 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Alias|libpcapnav | -- Configure 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 477546] Review Request: netdude - Inspection, analysis and manipulation of tcpdump trace 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=477546 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||netdude -- Configure 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 477544] Review Request: libpcapnav - Wrapper library for libpcap offering navigation inside of a tracefile
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=477544 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||libpcapnav -- Configure 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 460885] Review Request: netdude - a libpcap trace file manipulation 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=460885 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Alias|netdude | -- Configure 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 460886] Review Request: libnetdude - a libpcap trace file manipulation library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460886 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Alias|libnetdude | -- Configure 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 477545] Review Request: libnetdude - Management framework for pcap packet traces
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=477545 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||libnetdude -- Configure 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 435724] Review Request: fedora-ds-graph - an rrdtool-based graphing utility for Fedora Directory Server
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=435724 --- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2008-12-22 09:32:59 EDT --- Note that the Package Review Process document does explicitly link to the Join document; see the second paragraph in the Contributor section. -- Configure 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 477313] Review Request: ocaml-preludeml - OCaml utility functions
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=477313 --- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2008-12-22 09:55:43 EDT --- Upstream have added a LICENSE file and also added licensing info to all of the src/* files. I'm just starting a 2 week vacation, so I will have only irregular contact until the beginning of January. -- Configure 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 477313] Review Request: ocaml-preludeml - OCaml utility functions
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=477313 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(rjo...@redhat.com ||) --- Comment #6 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2008-12-22 09:56:24 EDT --- Set to NEEDINFO of me, to look at when I get back. -- Configure 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 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD 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=453083 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com Blocks||182235 -- Configure 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 477545] Review Request: libnetdude - Management framework for pcap packet traces
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=477545
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2008-12-22
09:58:51 EDT ---
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} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: MIT (with advertisement)
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: 04be6bd30f854ad790ebc0e4082a664c12521ba7
libnetdude-0.11.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[x] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
[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.
[x] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[x] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x] 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.
[x] Final provides and requires are sane.
== see also note 1
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if 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.
[x] Package functions as described.
[x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check is present and the test passes.
=== Notes ===
1. The documentation from the devel package includes:
/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/libnetdude
/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/libnetdude/libnetdude
/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/libnetdude/libnetdude/*
I suggest to preserve to shorten the tree and relocate the content from
/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/libnetdude/libnetdude to
/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/libnetdude. It's not technically incorrect but it is a
bit odd to have a folder containg nothing else but one folder with the same
name.
*** 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 438811] Review Request: php-pear-HTML-AJAX - PHP and JavaScript AJAX library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438811 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464013] Review Request: findbugs-bcel - Byte Code Engineering Library with findbugs extensions
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=464013 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 438808] Review Request: php-pear-DB-ldap - A DB compliant interface to LDAP servers
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=438808 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477545] Review Request: libnetdude - Management framework for pcap packet traces
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=477545 Andreas Thienemann andr...@bawue.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Andreas Thienemann andr...@bawue.net 2008-12-22 10:12:33 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: libnetdude Short Description: Management framework for pcap packet traces Owners: ixs Branches: F-9 F-10 -- Configure 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 475058] Review Request: netbeans-platform - NetBeans 6.5 Platform 9
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=475058 Victor G. Vasilyev victor.vasil...@sun.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |netbeans-platform9 -|netbeans-platform - |NetBeans 6.5 Platform 9 |NetBeans 6.5 Platform 9 --- Comment #2 from Victor G. Vasilyev victor.vasil...@sun.com 2008-12-22 10:14:43 EDT --- Lillian, I agree that the updates will be more smooth if the version number will be removed from the package names. Hence: 1. This Review Request is renamed (natbeans-platform9 - netbeans-platform) 2. A new release is prepared: Spec URL: http://victorv.fedorapeople.org/files/netbeans-platform.spec SRPM URL: http://victorv.fedorapeople.org/files/netbeans-platform-6.5-2.fc11.src.rpm Changes: - The platform version number is removed from the package names - Obsoletes are added for the netbeans-platform8* packages There are two rpmlint warnings additionally to the mentioned above: netbeans-platform.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided netbeans-platform8 netbeans-platform-javadoc.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided netbeans-platform8-javadoc due to I've decided that the obsoleting packages are not a compatible replacements for the old ones. Successful scratch koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1016108 -- Configure 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 477546] Review Request: netdude - Inspection, analysis and manipulation of tcpdump trace 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=477546 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2008-12-22 10:30:36 EDT --- mock build failed here, more precisely during the autogen sequence: Netdude Build Tools Setup Checking whether we have all tools available ... All necessary tools found. running libtoolize libtoolize: putting auxiliary files in `.'. libtoolize: copying file `./ltmain.sh' libtoolize: putting auxiliary files in `.'. libtoolize: copying file `libltdl/config/compile' libtoolize: copying file `libltdl/config/config.guess' libtoolize: copying file `libltdl/config/config.sub' libtoolize: copying file `libltdl/config/depcomp' libtoolize: copying file `libltdl/config/install-sh' libtoolize: copying file `libltdl/config/missing' libtoolize: copying file `libltdl/config/ltmain.sh' libtoolize: putting macros in `libltdl/m4'. libtoolize: copying file `libltdl/m4/argz.m4' libtoolize: copying file `libltdl/m4/libtool.m4' libtoolize: copying file `libltdl/m4/ltdl.m4' libtoolize: copying file `libltdl/m4/ltoptions.m4' libtoolize: copying file `libltdl/m4/ltsugar.m4' libtoolize: copying file `libltdl/m4/ltversion.m4' libtoolize: copying file `libltdl/m4/lt~obsolete.m4' libtoolize: putting libltdl files in `libltdl'. libtoolize: `COPYING.LIB' not found in `/usr/share/libtool/libltdl' error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.9T8tG4 (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.9T8tG4 (%build) EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output. # bash -l -c 'rpmbuild -bb --target x86_64 --nodeps //builddir/build/SPECS/netdude.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 477546] Review Request: netdude - Inspection, analysis and manipulation of tcpdump trace 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=477546 --- Comment #3 from Andreas Thienemann andr...@bawue.net 2008-12-22 10:35:30 EDT --- Interesting. Let me find out what exactly changed in rawhide to make it fail now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(bl...@verdurin.co ||m) --- Comment #48 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-22 11:01:24 EDT --- ping again? -- Configure 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 466301] Review Request: ario - Music Player Daemon 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=466301 --- Comment #17 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-22 11:06:40 EDT --- Please also submit a push request for F-10 on bodhi. -- Configure 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 476926] Review Request: tcl-tclxml - XML parsing utilities for Tcl
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=476926 Wart w...@kobold.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #7 from Wart w...@kobold.org 2008-12-22 11:10:12 EDT --- Imported and built. Many thanks for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476536] Review Request: zapplet - Zenoss monitoring tray applet
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=476536 Brian Pepple bdpep...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bdpep...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477122] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Authorization-Roles - Role based authorization for Catalyst based on Catalyst::Plugin::Authentication
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=477122 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2008-12-22 11:44:02 EDT --- perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Authorization-Roles-0.07-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Authorization-Roles-0.07-1.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 477122] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Authorization-Roles - Role based authorization for Catalyst based on Catalyst::Plugin::Authentication
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=477122 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2008-12-22 11:44:05 EDT --- perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Authorization-Roles-0.07-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Authorization-Roles-0.07-1.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226166] Merge Review: mtx
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=226166
--- Comment #9 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2008-12-22 11:54:09 EDT ---
In my opinion using %doc for the content of the contrib directory is
appropriate. Here is my reasoning:
- %{datadir}/%{name} is being used for data (pictures, ui definition, ...) of
the applications in the package (utils from contrib are not data, but
executables), FHS defines /usr/share as architecture-independent data
- both we and upstream don't provide any support for the utils, using
%{datadir}/%{name} can imply that support is provided
- there are other packages that store contrib as %doc exactly in this sense
--
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 435724] Review Request: fedora-ds-graph - an rrdtool-based graphing utility for Fedora Directory Server
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=435724 --- Comment #11 from Chris St. Pierre stpie...@nebrwesleyan.edu 2008-12-22 11:53:36 EDT --- The text was: A Contributor is defined as someone who wants to submit (and maintain) a package in Fedora. As a Contributor, you should have already made a package which adheres to the Package Naming Guidelines and Packaging Guidelines. You should also be aware of ForbiddenItems. If you are unsure how to become a contributor, or if you need more detailed instructions on this process, you should read PackageMaintainers/Join. The link is now unburied: A Contributor is defined as someone who wants to submit (and maintain) a package in Fedora. To become a contributor, you must follow the detailed instructions on this process at PackageMaintainers/Join. As a Contributor, you should have already made a package which adheres to the Package Naming Guidelines and Packaging Guidelines. You should also be aware of ForbiddenItems. Additionally, the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored mentions the proper procedure when submitting your first review request, which I evidently didn't follow, since my bug didn't block FE-NEEDSPONSOR until you added that for me (thanks!). I can't seem to find that procedure anywhere, though; if there's more to it than using the form at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedoraformat=extras-review, could you point me to that documentation, too, so I can a) make sure I didn't miss anything; and b) edit the wiki accordingly to make that more clear. Thanks again. FAS username is 'cstpierre'. Sponsorship will be found eventually, I suppose. -- Configure 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 475471] Review Request: poi - Java API to Access Microsoft Format 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=475471 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp --- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-22 12:46:53 EDT --- * License issue Almost all files are under ASL 2.0, however - The following file is under GPLv3 src/resources/scratchpad/org/apache/poi/hdgf/chunks_parse_cmds.tbl Would you check how this file is used? - The following files have some questionable (?) license terms: src/documentation/content/xdocs/entity/* Would you check how these files are used? * Preshipped binaries - The source zip file contains many preshipped binary files such as .xlsx files. Would you remove these files? * koji build - By the way rebuild failed on dist-f11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1016360 -- Configure 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 473205] Review Request: gPlanarity - puzzle game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473205 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(a...@antistof.dk) --- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-22 12:50:59 EDT --- Adam, would you address the issue commented by wolfy? -- Configure 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 226166] Merge Review: mtx
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=226166 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #10 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2008-12-22 12:58:46 EDT --- I respect your decision. We disagree at this point but this can't be regarded as a blocker. --- This Merge Review (mtx) is APPROVED by oget --- Closing the bug now. -- 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 475508] Review Request: javassist - The Java Programming Assistant provides simple Java bytecode manipulation
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=475508 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477567] Review Request: nload - console ncurses network monitoring 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=477567 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2008-12-22 13:41:48 EDT --- I see no further blocker, package 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 226166] Merge Review: mtx
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=226166 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp --- Comment #11 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-22 13:42:28 EDT --- Just more comments: * export CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS should not be needed. Please check what %configure actually does by $ rpm --eval %configure * Please avoid to use %makeinstall unless impossible https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477567] Review Request: nload - console ncurses network monitoring 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=477567 Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br 2008-12-22 13:51:00 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: nload Short Description: Console Ncurses Network Monitoring Tool Owners: itamarjp Branches: F-10 F-9 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 475508] Review Request: javassist - The Java Programming Assistant provides simple Java bytecode manipulation
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=475508
Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-22
13:58:40 EDT ---
For 3.9.0-1
* License
- The license tag for this package should be
MPLv1.1 or LGPLv2+.
* Macros
- Use macros consistently (for cosmetic issue). Please
use %{name} or %name, not both.
Other issues are okay. Please modify the issue above
when importing into Fedora CVS.
This package (javassist) is APPROVED by mtasaka
--
Configure 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 459444] Review Request: ctdb - Clustered TDB
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=459444 --- Comment #14 from Chris Feist cfe...@redhat.com 2008-12-22 14:52:01 EDT --- Kevin, Can you make me the owner (at least for now until Abhi gets a sponsor)? Thanks, Chris -- Configure 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 226463] Merge Review: system-config-netboot
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=226463 --- Comment #6 from Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com 2008-12-22 15:04:54 EDT --- Ok, so it looks it needs more love, I'll take a deeper look to fix it. Sorry I didn't checked rpmlint, hoping package is in better condition... -- 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 226166] Merge Review: mtx
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=226166 --- Comment #12 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2008-12-22 15:07:48 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) Just more comments: * export CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS should not be needed. Please check what %configure actually does by $ rpm --eval %configure the export line will be removed in next release * Please avoid to use %makeinstall unless impossible https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used the hand-written Makefiles doesn't support DESTDIR, so use of %makeinstall is needed, patch to correct the situation has been already submitted upstream -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474412] Review Request: giver - A simple file sharing desktop application
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=474412 --- Comment #3 from Luis Nabais dex...@gmail.com 2008-12-22 15:20:11 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=327687) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=327687) Spec file builddeps fixed Updated giver spec file to fix missing perl-XML-Parser build dependency -- Configure 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 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP 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=431250 --- Comment #49 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2008-12-22 15:37:10 EDT --- So what's up with this ticket? The last comment from the submitter was a comple of months ago. As for the emacs stuff, I would suggest that you follow the emacs packaging guidleines if you intend to package the emacs stuff, but other packages have simply taken the step of packaging a lone .el file as documentation and leaving it to the end user to set that up if they want it. Also, the package in comment #30, which seems to be the most recent one, fails to build for me in rawhide: Running aclocal Running autoconf configure: WARNING: unrecognized options: --disable-rpath configure: error: cannot run /bin/sh ./config.sub -- Configure 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 218022] Review Request: clamsmtp - SMTP filter daemon for anti-virus checking using ClamAV
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=218022
Matthias Saou matth...@rpmforge.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|needinfo?(matth...@rpmforge |
|.net) |
--- Comment #14 from Matthias Saou matth...@rpmforge.net 2008-12-22 15:44:40
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Were you going to move the clamd socket and pidfile to /var/run, and the
logfile to /var/log?
I've updated to 1.10 and made those two changes, but during some testing on a
system with selinux enabled, I now get this :
ERROR: LOCAL: Socket file /var/run/clamsmtp/clamd.smtp.sock could not be bound:
Permission denied
With these selinux log entry :
type=1400 audit(0.000:35061): avc: denied { create } for pid=24756
comm=clamd.smtp name=clamd.smtp.sock
scontext=unconfined_u:system_r:clamd_t:s0
tcontext=unconfined_u:object_r:var_run_t:s0 tclass=sock_file
For this to work, should I try to include something in the package or ask to
get the default policy updated?
--
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 218022] Review Request: clamsmtp - SMTP filter daemon for anti-virus checking using ClamAV
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=218022 --- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2008-12-22 15:52:41 EDT --- I've found the selinux folks easy enough to work with; it's worth at least asking them for help with a policy. -- 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 437626] Review Request: miredo - Implementation of Teredo proposed standard
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=437626 --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2008-12-22 15:56:24 EDT --- Any response from the original submitter? It's been 2.5 months now, and if there's no further response soon, I'm going to close this ticket and ask Charles to submit his own review request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 452584] Review Request: mldonkey - Client for several P2P networks
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=452584 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski r...@greysector.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #28 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski r...@greysector.net 2008-12-22 16:01:11 EDT --- I guess I shouldn't have set review flag to + before the legal issues are resolved. -- Configure 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 467643] Review Request: sugar-speak - Speak for Sugar
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=467643 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2008-12-22 16:05:25 EDT --- sugar-speak-9-3.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sugar-speak-9-3.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 437626] Review Request: miredo - Implementation of Teredo proposed standard
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=437626 --- Comment #6 from Charles R. Anderson c...@wpi.edu 2008-12-22 16:13:12 EDT --- I have been in contact with Stjepan and he agreed that I could take over the submission of this package. I was waiting for Judy to be done, which it now is. Yesterday I was going to mention that I was ready to continue working on this now, but I need to spend more time investigating the various components (miredo, miredo-server, isatapd) to figure out how to best split this package. It seems that kernels = 2.6.24 already have built-in ISATAP support. -- Configure 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 470913] Review Request: lv2core - An Audio Plugin Standard
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=470913 --- Comment #7 from Anthony Green gr...@redhat.com 2008-12-22 16:28:32 EDT --- Closed - thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470913] Review Request: lv2core - An Audio Plugin Standard
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=470913 Anthony Green gr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 437626] Review Request: miredo - Implementation of Teredo proposed standard
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=437626 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks|177841 |201449 Resolution||NOTABUG --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2008-12-22 16:35:56 EDT --- I'm going to go ahead and close this, since Stjepan won't be the submitter and he probably doesn't want to be spammed with the review commentary from here on out. Please go ahead and open your own review ticket when you have a package ready for review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477199] Review Request: PolicyKit-kde - PolicyKit integration for the KDE 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=477199 --- Comment #3 from Ngo Than t...@redhat.com 2008-12-22 16:33:44 EDT --- http://than.fedorapeople.org/PolicyKit-kde-0.0-0.20081219svn.fc10.src.rpm http://than.fedorapeople.org/PolicyKit-kde.spec This library calls itself private, is it really? If nothing should link against it, we should not ship this symlink at all. But if it is getting linked against, it should be in a -devel package (even if that's the only file in -devel). The strange thing is: shouldn't there be some public API for the client library? Why is the only library in this package called private? yes, it's private. There is no public API at the moment, but it will follow later as Dario even told me. Missing %post -p /sbin/ldconfig Missing %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig it's fixed I already mentioned this one in IRC, you said you uploaded a fixed specfile, but it's still broken in both the specfile and the SRPM which are now it's fixed. PS: Dario will move it to extragear soon and it will follow the KDE version scheme in the future. our package will use 0.0 as version temporary, we will fix it later when PolicyKit-kde official released. -- Configure 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 470914] Review Request: slv2 - An LV2 host library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470914 Bug 470914 depends on bug 470913, which changed state. Bug 470913 Summary: Review Request: lv2core - An Audio Plugin Standard https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470913 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure 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 225638] Merge Review: cdparanoia
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=225638 Matthias Saou matth...@rpmforge.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Matthias Saou matth...@rpmforge.net 2008-12-22 16:42:11 EDT --- CC'ing ajax, since he seems to have updated the package quite a bit lately. I've updated the cleaned up spec file found here : http://thias.fedorapeople.org/merge-review/cdparanoia/ -- 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 225620] Merge Review: bluez-libs
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=225620 Matthias Saou matth...@rpmforge.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #4 from Matthias Saou matth...@rpmforge.net 2008-12-22 16:43:45 EDT --- CVS now contains an empty dead.package file, so closing... -- 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 462311] Review Request: raidutils - Utilities to manage Adaptec I2O compliant RAID controllers
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=462311 Jaroslaw Gorny jaroslaw.go...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jaroslaw.go...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477683] Review Request: fltk2 - C++ user interface toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477683 Michal Nowak mno...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu -- Configure 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 477199] Review Request: PolicyKit-kde - PolicyKit integration for the KDE 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=477199 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org 2008-12-22 17:02:18 EDT --- PS: Dario will move it to extragear soon and it will follow the KDE version scheme in the future. our package will use 0.0 as version temporary, we will fix it later when PolicyKit-kde official released. Makes sense. rpmlint now comes up with only this harmless warning: PolicyKit-kde-devel.i386: W: no-documentation I'm going to go through the checklist ASAP. -- Configure 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 477683] New: Review Request: fltk2 - C++ user interface toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: fltk2 - C++ user interface toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477683 Summary: Review Request: fltk2 - C++ user interface toolkit Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mno...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/fltk2/fltk2.spec SRPM URL: http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/fltk2/fltk2-2.0.x-0.1.r6525.fc10.src.rpm Description: FLTK is a cross-platform C++ GUI toolkit for UNIX®/Linux® (X11), Microsoft® Windows®, and MacOS® X. FLTK provides modern GUI functionality without the bloat and supports 3D graphics via OpenGL® and its built-in GLUT emulation. FLTK is designed to be small and modular enough to be statically linked, but works fine as a shared library. -- Configure 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 474909] Review Request: gxmms2 - A graphical audio player
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=474909 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||fed...@christoph-wickert.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@christoph-wickert.de Bug 474909 depends on bug 474908, which changed state. Bug 474908 Summary: Review Request: xmms2 - A modular audio framework and plugin architecture https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474908 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure 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 462311] Review Request: raidutils - Utilities to manage Adaptec I2O compliant RAID controllers
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=462311 Jaroslaw Gorny jaroslaw.go...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225620] Merge Review: bluez-libs
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=225620 Matthias Saou matth...@rpmforge.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |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 477683] Review Request: fltk2 - C++ user interface toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477683 --- Comment #1 from Michal Nowak mno...@redhat.com 2008-12-22 17:11:53 EDT --- Known problems http://fltk.org/str.php?L2109 W: no-soname /usr/lib/libfltk2* -- provide SONAME for FLTK2 libs http://fltk.org/str.php?L2111 W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libfltk2.so.2.0 and perhaps http://fltk.org/str.php?L2110 E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib/libfltk2* -- Configure 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 226032] Merge Review: libjpeg
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=226032 Matthias Saou matth...@rpmforge.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(t...@redhat.com) --- Comment #5 from Matthias Saou matth...@rpmforge.net 2008-12-22 17:13:57 EDT --- I've updated the modified spec file and patch against the latest libjpeg from CVS, still found here : http://thias.fedorapeople.org/merge-review/libjpeg/ -- 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 225638] Merge Review: cdparanoia
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=225638 Matthias Saou matth...@rpmforge.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(a...@redhat.com) -- 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 477683] Review Request: fltk2 - C++ user interface toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477683 --- Comment #2 from Michal Nowak mno...@redhat.com 2008-12-22 17:24:45 EDT --- That looks like the SONAME problem :( fltk2-fluid-2.0.x-0.1.r6525.fc10.i386 from /home/newman/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/fltk2-fluid-2.0.x-0.1.r6525.fc10.i386.rpm has depsolving problems -- Missing Dependency: libfltk2.so is needed by package fltk2-fluid-2.0.x-0.1.r6525.fc10.i386 (/home/newman/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/fltk2-fluid-2.0.x-0.1.r6525.fc10.i386.rpm) fltk2-fluid-2.0.x-0.1.r6525.fc10.i386 from /home/newman/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/fltk2-fluid-2.0.x-0.1.r6525.fc10.i386.rpm has depsolving problems -- Missing Dependency: libfltk2_images.so is needed by package fltk2-fluid-2.0.x-0.1.r6525.fc10.i386 (/home/newman/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/fltk2-fluid-2.0.x-0.1.r6525.fc10.i386.rpm) Error: Missing Dependency: libfltk2.so is needed by package fltk2-fluid-2.0.x-0.1.r6525.fc10.i386 (/home/newman/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/fltk2-fluid-2.0.x-0.1.r6525.fc10.i386.rpm) Error: Missing Dependency: libfltk2_images.so is needed by package fltk2-fluid-2.0.x-0.1.r6525.fc10.i386 (/home/newman/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/fltk2-fluid-2.0.x-0.1.r6525.fc10.i386.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 474909] Review Request: gxmms2 - A graphical audio player
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=474909
Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2008-12-22
17:55:57 EDT ---
Review for
46209efc4032e5c76ef176de60dc3bd6 gxmms2-0.7.0-1.fc11.src.rpm
OK - MUST: rpmlint silent on all packages.
OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
OK - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license (GPLv2) and
meets the Licensing Guidelines.
FIX - MUST: The License field in the package spec file does not the actual
license: License field is GPLv2#, but I can't find the or any later version
anywhere in the headers of the source.
OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc.
OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English.
OK - MUST: The spec file for the is legible.
OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source by
MD5 5419a977d75e33f201fa63f5c5d196a6
OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on
i386
OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
OK - MUST: The package is not designed to be relocatable.
OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates.
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. Every %files section includes
a %defattr(...) line.
OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
OK - MUST: The package contains code, or permissible content.
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application.
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
OK - MUST: The Package contains a GUI application and includes a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section.
OK - MUST: The Package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
OK - MUST: The package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install.
OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
OK - SHOULD: The reviewer has tested that the package builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
OK - SHOULD: Both packages function as described.
Notes:
1. I wonder if gxmms2 should have Requires: xmms2.
2. The BuildRequires: gkrellm-devel could be moved to the gkrellxmms2
subpackage
3. If you fix the license tag this package is
APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477698] New: Review Request: hyphen-sk - Slovak hyphenation rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: hyphen-sk - Slovak hyphenation rules https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477698 Summary: Review Request: hyphen-sk - Slovak hyphenation rules Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caol...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/hyphen-sk.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/hyphen-sk-0.20031227-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Slovak hyphenation rules as used by openoffice.org to determine the best place to automatically hyphenation Slovakian text -- Configure 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 459444] Review Request: ctdb - Clustered TDB
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=459444 --- Comment #15 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2008-12-22 18:59:52 EDT --- Sadly no, unless you get someone else to review this package. You can't both be reviewer and maintainer of a new 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 472060] Review Request: mumbles - growl like notification system 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=472060
Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@christoph-wickert.de
--- Comment #10 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de
2008-12-22 19:17:56 EDT ---
Does not build in rawhide, because rawhide has python-2.6, but your spec file
hardcodes the python version in the %files section:
%{python_sitelib}/%{name}-%{version}-py2.5.egg-info
^^^
To make this more flexible replace with
%{python_sitelib}/%{name}-%{version}-py%{python_version}.egg-info
and add
%{!?python_version: %define python_version %(%{__python} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_version; print get_python_version())}
at the beginning of your spec.
Another small fix: desktop-file-install will complain that the icon in the
specfile is specified with file extension although it does not have an absolute
path. A little sed fix for the %prep section:
# small fix to avoid warning from desktop-file-install
sed -i 's!mumbles.png!mumbles!' bin/mumbles.desktop
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455165] Review-Request: maatkit - Essential command-line utilities for MySQL
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=455165 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2008-12-22 19:32:13 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: maatkit Short Description: Essential command-line utilities for MySQL Owners: lkundrak Branches: F-9 F-10 My sincere apologies to Sven Lankes for not acting on this for so long. -- Configure 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 449869] Review Request: tasque - A simple task management app
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=449869 --- Comment #44 from David Kaylor dkay...@gmail.com 2008-12-22 20:03:10 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: tasque New Branches: f-10 Owners: dkaylor -- Configure 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 449869] Review Request: tasque - A simple task management app
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=449869 David Kaylor dkay...@gmail.com 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 435724] Review Request: fedora-ds-graph - an rrdtool-based graphing utility for Fedora Directory Server
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=435724 --- Comment #12 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2008-12-22 20:16:41 EDT --- Well, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored says it all in the first 2 paragraphs. Quoting from over there: - it is necessary for you to show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines. - The best ways for you to illustrate your understanding of the packaging guidelines are to submit quality packages and to assist with package reviews. Prospective sponsors will want to see what reviews you have done, so go ahead and tell them when you submit your first package review request and add comments to your open review ticket with information about your activities. To cut it short: the current procedure asks for you to prove your packaging skills (in the context of Fedora rules). You can do that either by doing pre-reviews[*] of existing bugs ( http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html is a cached list of open tickets) and/or by submitting several [ new ] packages. [*]Comment #1 is an example of such a pre-review. Only sponsored people may perform formal reviews. -- Configure 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 477546] Review Request: netdude - Inspection, analysis and manipulation of tcpdump trace 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=477546 --- Comment #4 from Andreas Thienemann andr...@bawue.net 2008-12-22 20:25:29 EDT --- New SRPM at http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/netdude/netdude-0.5.0-2.src.rpm. * Tue Dec 23 2008 Andreas Thienemann andr...@bawue.net - 0.5.0-2 - Added explicit libtool-ltdl-devel dependency - Changed lt_ptr_t to lt_ptr in order to work around deprecated ltdl apis -- Configure 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 477546] Review Request: netdude - Inspection, analysis and manipulation of tcpdump trace 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=477546 --- Comment #5 from Andreas Thienemann andr...@bawue.net 2008-12-22 20:27:46 EDT --- FYI libtool changed from 1.5 to 2.0 needing mentioned changes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
