[Bug 467388] Review Request: mingw32-pdcurses - Curses library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467388 Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467388] Review Request: mingw32-pdcurses - Curses library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467388 Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tim.laurid...@googlemail.co ||m AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tim.laurid...@googlemail.co ||m Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com 2009-01-16 03:28:53 EDT --- I will review this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(lemen...@gmail.co ||m) --- Comment #35 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-16 04:00:19 EDT --- Sorry about that Kevin - I should have set the flag back. Peter? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467388] Review Request: mingw32-pdcurses - Curses library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467388 --- Comment #3 from Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com 2009-01-16 04:03:01 EDT --- $ rpmlint Download/mingw32-pdcurses-3.4-2.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw32-pdcurses-3.4-2.fc10.noarch.rpm mingw32-pdcurses.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-pdcurses.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/term.h mingw32-pdcurses.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/term.h mingw32-pdcurses.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libpdcurses.dll.a mingw32-pdcurses.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libpdcurses.dll.a mingw32-pdcurses.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/curses.h mingw32-pdcurses.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/curses.h mingw32-pdcurses.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/panel.h mingw32-pdcurses.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/panel.h mingw32-pdcurses.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libpdcurses.dll.a mingw32-pdcurses.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr i686-pc-mingw32 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings. This should be OK, because of the cross compiler nature of the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 #11 from Michal Nowak mno...@redhat.com 2009-01-16 04:05:40 EDT
---
http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/fltk2/fltk2.spec
http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/fltk2/fltk2-2.0.x-0.2.r6525.fc10.src.rpm
--
* Wed Jan 14 2009 Michal Nowak mno...@redhat.com - 2.0.x-0.2.r6525
- use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead of %%{buildroot}
- added library header files directories to %%files section
- fixed bad field in -doc sub-package to contain BR field
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467388] Review Request: mingw32-pdcurses - Curses library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467388
--- Comment #5 from Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com 2009-01-16
04:10:27 EDT ---
MUST:
* package is named appropriately
mingw32-*
* it is legal for Fedora to distribute this
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* specfile name matches %{name}
* summary and description fine
* correct buildroot
* %{?dist} is used
* package meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* changelog format fine
* Packager, Vendor ,Distribution tag not used
* License used and not Copyright
* Summary tag does not end in a period
* specfile is legible
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* make sure lines are = 80 characters
* specfile written in American English
* no -doc sub-package necessary
* /sbin/ldconfig used in packages containing libraries.
no native libs
* Not GUI app
* header files goes into -devel sub-package.
no native header files
* *.so goes into -devel sub-package.
no *.so files
* devel package require the base package using a fully versioned dependency
no *-devel
* *.la files is deleted.
no *.la files
* macros used appropriately and consistently
* no %makeinstall
* install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
* The spec file handles locales properly (%find_lang ) (no locales)
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package not relocatable
* package contains code
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
. %defattrs present ( %defattr(-, root, root, -))
* %clean present
* %doc files do not affect runtime
no docs
* follow the MinGW guidelines on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW
SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
no license file for Public Domain
* package should build on i386
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467388] Review Request: mingw32-pdcurses - Curses library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467388 --- Comment #4 from Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com 2009-01-16 04:10:07 EDT --- $ md5sum PDCurses-3.4.tar.gz 65c9b1d4c5ef3e031039da620d6199ee PDCurses-3.4.tar.gz (upstream) 4e04e4412d1b1392a7f9a489b95b331a rpmbuild/SOURCES/PDCurses-3.4.tar.gz (SRPM) X Source checksum don't match upstream -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467388] Review Request: mingw32-pdcurses - Curses library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467388 --- Comment #6 from Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com 2009-01-16 04:11:27 EDT --- if the source in the SRPM is fixed to match upstream, then i will approve 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 467388] Review Request: mingw32-pdcurses - Curses library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467388 --- Comment #7 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-16 04:16:13 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) $ md5sum PDCurses-3.4.tar.gz 65c9b1d4c5ef3e031039da620d6199ee PDCurses-3.4.tar.gz (upstream) 4e04e4412d1b1392a7f9a489b95b331a rpmbuild/SOURCES/PDCurses-3.4.tar.gz (SRPM) X Source checksum don't match upstream Are you sure about this one? I just downloaded it again and I get the same (4e04...) md5sum: $ wget 'http://downloads.sourceforge.net/pdcurses/PDCurses-3.4.tar.gz?modtime=1220886172big_mirror=0' --2009-01-16 09:10:47-- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/pdcurses/PDCurses-3.4.tar.gz?modtime=1220886172big_mirror=0 Resolving downloads.sourceforge.net... 216.34.181.60 Connecting to downloads.sourceforge.net|216.34.181.60|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found Location: http://surfnet.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/pdcurses/PDCurses-3.4.tar.gz [following] --2009-01-16 09:10:48-- http://surfnet.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/pdcurses/PDCurses-3.4.tar.gz Resolving surfnet.dl.sourceforge.net... 130.59.138.20, 2001:620:0:1b::20 Connecting to surfnet.dl.sourceforge.net|130.59.138.20|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 331253 (323K) [application/x-tar] Saving to: `PDCurses-3.4.tar.gz' 100%[==] 331,253 222K/s in 1.5s 2009-01-16 09:10:50 (222 KB/s) - `PDCurses-3.4.tar.gz' saved [331253/331253] $ md5sum PDCurses-3.4.tar.gz 4e04e4412d1b1392a7f9a489b95b331a PDCurses-3.4.tar.gz -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467399] Review Request: mingw32-readline - MinGW port of readline for editing typed command lines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467399 Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tim.laurid...@googlemail.co ||m AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tim.laurid...@googlemail.co ||m Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com 2009-01-16 04:16:57 EDT --- I will take this one -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467388] Review Request: mingw32-pdcurses - Curses library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467388 --- Comment #8 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-16 04:18:24 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) $ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw32-pdcurses-3.4-2.fc10.noarch.rpm mingw32-pdcurses.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/term.h Actually I will correct the executable perms on these header files before uploading. The executable perms on the library files should be OK though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467399] Review Request: mingw32-readline - MinGW port of readline for editing typed command lines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467399 --- Comment #3 from Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com 2009-01-16 04:42:59 EDT --- $ rpmlint Download/mingw32-readline-5.2-4.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw32-readline-5.2-4.fc10.noarch.rpm mingw32-readline.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-readline.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/readline/keymaps.h mingw32-readline.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libhistory.dll.a mingw32-readline.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libhistory.dll.a mingw32-readline.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/readline/rlconf.h mingw32-readline.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/readline/tilde.h mingw32-readline.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/readline/rlstdc.h mingw32-readline.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/readline/history.h mingw32-readline.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/readline/rltypedefs.h mingw32-readline.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/readline/chardefs.h mingw32-readline.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/readline/readline.h mingw32-readline.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libreadline.dll.a mingw32-readline.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libreadline.dll.a mingw32-readline.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libreadline.dll.a mingw32-readline.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libhistory.dll.a mingw32-readline.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr i686-pc-mingw32 Should be ok, because of the cross compiler nature of the package -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467391] Review Request: mingw32-gdbm - MinGW port of GNU database routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467391 Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tim.laurid...@googlemail.co ||m AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tim.laurid...@googlemail.co ||m Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com 2009-01-16 04:48:35 EDT --- I will take this one -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467399] Review Request: mingw32-readline - MinGW port of readline for editing typed command lines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467399
Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com 2009-01-16
04:46:35 EDT ---
MUST:
* package must match the upstream source
e39331f32ad14009b9ff49cc10c5e751 readline-5.2.tar.gz (SRPM)
e39331f32ad14009b9ff49cc10c5e751 readline-5.2.tar.gz (upstream)
* package is named appropriately
mingw32-*
* it is legal for Fedora to distribute this
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* specfile name matches %{name}
* summary and description fine
* correct buildroot
* %{?dist} is used
* no license text included in package
* package meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* changelog format fine
* Packager, Vendor ,Distribution tag not used
* License used and not Copyright
* Summary tag does not end in a period
* specfile is legible
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* make sure lines are = 80 characters
* specfile written in American English
* no -doc sub-package necessary
* /sbin/ldconfig used in packages containing libraries.
no native libs
* GUI app, has .desktop file and uses desktop-file-install to install it.
not a gui app
* header files goes into -devel sub-package.
no native header files
* *.so goes into -devel sub-package.
no *.so files
* macros used appropriately and consistently
* no %makeinstall
* install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
* The spec file handles locales properly (%find_lang )
no locales
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package not relocatable
* package contains code
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
* %defattrs present
* %clean present
* %doc files do not affect runtime
* packages is following the MinGW guidelines
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW)
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 467391] Review Request: mingw32-gdbm - MinGW port of GNU database routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467391 --- Comment #3 from Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com 2009-01-16 04:54:34 EDT --- $ rpmlint Download/mingw32-gdbm-1.8.0-1.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw32-gdbm-1.8.0-1.fc10.noarch.rpm mingw32-gdbm.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-gdbm.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/gdbm.h mingw32-gdbm.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libgdbm.la mingw32-gdbm.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libgdbm.dll.a mingw32-gdbm.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libgdbm.dll.a mingw32-gdbm.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libgdbm.dll.a mingw32-gdbm.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr i686-pc-mingw32 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings. Looks like false positives, because of the cross compiler nature of the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467399] Review Request: mingw32-readline - MinGW port of readline for editing typed command lines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467399 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-16 05:00:42 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mingw32-readline Short Description: MinGW port of readline for editing typed command lines Owners: rjones berrange lfarkas Branches: EL-5 F-10 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 467391] Review Request: mingw32-gdbm - MinGW port of GNU database routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467391
Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com 2009-01-16
05:02:55 EDT ---
MUST:
* package must match the upstream source
cd543862287f55ad66e62cc9d82cc906 gdbm-1.8.0.tar.gz (upstream)
cd543862287f55ad66e62cc9d82cc906 gdbm-1.8.0.tar.gz (srpm)
* package is named appropriately
mingw32-*
* it is legal for Fedora to distribute this
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* specfile name matches %{name}
* summary and description fine
* correct buildroot
* %{?dist} is used
* no license text included in package
* package meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* changelog format fine
* Packager, Vendor ,Distribution tag not used
* License used and not Copyright
* Summary tag does not end in a period
* specfile is legible
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* make sure lines are = 80 characters
* specfile written in American English
* no -doc sub-package necessary
* /sbin/ldconfig used in packages containing libraries.
no native libs
* GUI app, has .desktop file and uses desktop-file-install to install it.
not a gui app
* header files goes into -devel sub-package.
no native header files
* *.so goes into -devel sub-package.
no *.so files
* macros used appropriately and consistently
* no %makeinstall
* install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
* The spec file handles locales properly (%find_lang )
no locales
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package not relocatable
* package contains code
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
* %defattrs present
* %clean present
* %doc files do not affect runtime
* packages is following the MinGW guidelines
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW)
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 467396] Review Request: mingw32-freetype - MinGW Windows Freetype 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=467396 Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tim.laurid...@googlemail.co ||m AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tim.laurid...@googlemail.co ||m Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com 2009-01-16 05:12:22 EDT --- i will take this one -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467391] Review Request: mingw32-gdbm - MinGW port of GNU database routines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467391 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-16 05:16:34 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mingw32-gdbm Short Description: MinGW port of GNU database routines Owners: rjones berrange lfarkas Branches: EL-5 F-10 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 467396] Review Request: mingw32-freetype - MinGW Windows Freetype 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=467396 --- Comment #3 from Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com 2009-01-16 05:16:51 EDT --- $ rpmlint Download/mingw32-freetype-2.3.7-5.fc10.src.rpm mingw32-freetype.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: freetype-2.1.10-enable-ft2-bci.patch mingw32-freetype.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch2: freetype-2.3.0-enable-spr.patch mingw32-freetype.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch3: freetype-2.2.1-enable-valid.patch mingw32-freetype.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch4: freetype-2.2.1-memcpy-fix.patch 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Patches should be applied or removed from 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 225707] Merge Review: dosfstools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225707 --- Comment #5 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-01-16 05:18:28 EDT --- ping? -- 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 467396] Review Request: mingw32-freetype - MinGW Windows Freetype 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=467396 --- Comment #6 from Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com 2009-01-16 05:30:10 EDT --- if the patch issue is handled, then i will remove the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467396] Review Request: mingw32-freetype - MinGW Windows Freetype 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=467396
--- Comment #4 from Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com 2009-01-16
05:26:52 EDT ---
MUST:
* package must match the upstream source
83306194817ebdea554133b4232a34aa freetype-2.3.7.tar.bz2 (SRPM)
83306194817ebdea554133b4232a34aa freetype-2.3.7.tar.bz2
2ba135e6a126ed86e9b462167511ced8 freetype-doc-2.3.7.tar.bz2 (SRPM)
2ba135e6a126ed86e9b462167511ced8 freetype-doc-2.3.7.tar.bz2
* package is named appropriately
mingw32-*
* it is legal for Fedora to distribute this
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* specfile name matches %{name}
* summary and description fine
* correct buildroot
* %{?dist} is used
* no license text included in package
* package meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* changelog format fine
* Packager, Vendor ,Distribution tag not used
* License used and not Copyright
* Summary tag does not end in a period
* specfile is legible
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* make sure lines are = 80 characters
* specfile written in American English
* no -doc sub-package necessary
* /sbin/ldconfig used in packages containing libraries.
no native libs
* GUI app, has .desktop file and uses desktop-file-install to install it.
not a gui app
* header files goes into -devel sub-package.
no native header files
* *.so goes into -devel sub-package.
no *.so files
* macros used appropriately and consistently
* no %makeinstall
* install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
* The spec file handles locales properly (%find_lang )
no locales
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package not relocatable
* package contains code
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
* %defattrs present
* %clean present
* %doc files do not affect runtime
* packages is following the MinGW guidelines
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467396] Review Request: mingw32-freetype - MinGW Windows Freetype 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=467396 --- Comment #5 from Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com 2009-01-16 05:29:15 EDT --- rpmlint ../rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw32-freetype-2.3.7-5.fc10.noarch.rpm mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/bin/freetype-config mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/ftcid.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/ftmm.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/ttunpat.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/config/ftheader.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/ftsizes.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/freetype2.pc mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/ftcache.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/fttypes.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/config/ftstdlib.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/ftstroke.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/fttrigon.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/t1tables.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/ft2build.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/ftotval.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/fterrdef.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/ftrender.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/ftsnames.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/ftlist.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/config/ftconfig.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/ftgzip.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/ftmodapi.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/ftchapters.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/ftxf86.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/ftgasp.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/ftlzw.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/ftmoderr.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/ftbbox.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/ftimage.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/ftbdf.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libfreetype.dll.a mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libfreetype.dll.a mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/config/ftoption.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/ftgxval.h mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/freetype2/freetype/ftlcdfil.h
[Bug 283081] Review Request: condor - Batch system for High Throughput Computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=283081 Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugs.mich...@gmx.net, ||nsan...@redhat.com --- Comment #22 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-01-16 05:36:54 EDT --- Requires: pcre Requires: postgresql-libs Requires: openssl Requires: krb5-libs Requires: gsoap All these ought to be removed in favour of the automatic dependencies on the library SONAMEs. It's not very obvious, but the review guidelines mention it in the packaging guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#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 480215] Review Request: slsnif - Serial line sniffer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480215
--- Comment #2 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-16
05:55:40 EDT ---
Serial line sniffer (slsnif). slsnif is a serial port logging utility. is not
OK. I suggest Serial line sniffer (slsnif) is a serial port logging utility.
How can I test the applications, short of manually creating /dev/pty? strace
says:
open(/dev/ptyp0, O_RDWR|O_NOCTTY|O_NONBLOCK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or
directory)
open(/dev/ptyp1, O_RDWR|O_NOCTTY|O_NONBLOCK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or
directory)
open(/dev/ptyp2, O_RDWR|O_NOCTTY|O_NONBLOCK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or
directory)
open(/dev/ptyp3, O_RDWR|O_NOCTTY|O_NONBLOCK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or
directory)
open(/dev/ptyp4, O_RDWR|O_NOCTTY|O_NONBLOCK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or
directory)
open(/dev/ptyp5, O_RDWR|O_NOCTTY|O_NONBLOCK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or
directory)
[...]
open(/dev/ptyTe, O_RDWR|O_NOCTTY|O_NONBLOCK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or
directory)
open(/dev/ptyTf, O_RDWR|O_NOCTTY|O_NONBLOCK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or
directory)
dup(2) = 4
fcntl(4, F_GETFL) = 0x8002 (flags O_RDWR|O_LARGEFILE)
fstat(4, {st_mode=S_IFCHR|0600, st_rdev=makedev(136, 5), ...}) = 0
mmap(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) =
0x2aaad000
lseek(4, 0, SEEK_CUR) = -1 ESPIPE (Illegal seek)
write(4, Failed to open a pty: No such fi..., 48Failed to open a pty: No such
file or directory
and the application dies
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478640] Review Request: mingw32-dlfcn - Implements a wrapper for dlfcn (dlopen dlclose dlsym dlerror)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478640 Adel Gadllah adel.gadl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Adel Gadllah adel.gadl...@gmail.com 2009-01-16 05:54:01 EDT --- REVIEW: [+] = OK [-] = NOT OK [1] = SEE COMMENTS [?] = WTF? === [+] source files match upstream: sha1: 0b691107a23554d927987d4ddfca6e84dfd85313 [+] package meets naming and versioning guidelines. [+] specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. [+] dist tag is present. [+] build root is correct. [+] license field matches the actual license. [+] license is open source-compatible. LGPLv2+ [+] license text included in package. [+] latest version is being packaged. [+] BuildRequires are proper. [+] compiler flags are appropriate. [+] %clean is present. [+] package builds in koji. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1058151 [+] package installs properly. [1] rpmlint is silent. [+] final provides and requires are sane [+] no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. [+] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. [+] no duplicates in %files. [+] file permissions are appropriate. [+] no scriptlets present. [+] code, not content. [+] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. [+] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. [2] no headers. [+] no pkgconfig files. [+] no libtool .la droppings. COMMENTS 1: not silent. mingw32-dlfcn.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libdl.dll.a mingw32-dlfcn.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/dlfcn.h mingw32-dlfcn.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libdl.dll.a mingw32-dlfcn.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr i686-pc-mingw32 Those are fine thought (package used for cross compiling) 2: header is present, but its fine (cross compile package) Package looks good = 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 480215] Review Request: slsnif - Serial line sniffer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480215 --- Comment #3 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-16 05:58:03 EDT --- Uhm, and it cannot use different parity types ? My PBX requires very specific settings, defaults never work... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478640] Review Request: mingw32-dlfcn - Implements a wrapper for dlfcn (dlopen dlclose dlsym dlerror)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478640 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-16 06:36:04 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mingw32-dlfcn Short Description: Implements a wrapper for dlfcn (dlopen dlclose dlsym dlerror) Owners: rjones berrange lfarkas Branches: EL-5 F-10 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 478640] Review Request: mingw32-dlfcn - Implements a wrapper for dlfcn (dlopen dlclose dlsym dlerror)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478640 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||467396 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467396] Review Request: mingw32-freetype - MinGW Windows Freetype 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=467396 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||478640 --- Comment #7 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-16 06:37:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) if the patch issue is handled, then i will remove the package. Heh, hope you meant approve :-) In hindsight, this package was a bit of a mess, so I have made lots of improvements in the new version, including using all the patches. Spec URL: http://hg.et.redhat.com/cgi-bin/hg-misc.cgi/fedora-mingw--devel/file/tip/freetype/mingw32-freetype.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/mingw/fedora-10/src/SRPMS/mingw32-freetype-2.3.8-1.fc10.src.rpm * Fri Jan 16 2009 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com - 2.3.8-1 - New upstream version 2.3.8. - Use the patches from the Fedora native package. - Disable patented code. - Don't build the static library. - Use _smp_mflags. - BR mingw32-dlfcn (not required, but uses it if installed). - Add license file to doc section. $ rpmlint mingw32-freetype-2.3.8-1.fc11.src.rpm mingw32-freetype-2.3.8-1.fc11.noarch.rpm | grep -v devel-file-in-non-devel-package mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libfreetype.dll.a mingw32-freetype.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libfreetype.la mingw32-freetype.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libfreetype.dll.a mingw32-freetype.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr i686-pc-mingw32 These can all be ignored. (Note that the MinGW packaging guidelines allow the *.la file). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468376] Review Request: mingw32-SDL - MinGW Windows port of SDL cross-platform multimedia 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=468376 --- Comment #6 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-16 06:41:46 EDT --- dlfcn (bug 478640) has now been 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 472525] Review Request: kio_sysinfo - KIO slave which shows basic system information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472525 Lukáš Tinkl lti...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lti...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468376] Review Request: mingw32-SDL - MinGW Windows port of SDL cross-platform multimedia 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=468376 Adel Gadllah adel.gadl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Adel Gadllah adel.gadl...@gmail.com 2009-01-16 07:18:17 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) dlfcn (bug 478640) has now been approved. I know, because I was the one who reviewed it ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468376] Review Request: mingw32-SDL - MinGW Windows port of SDL cross-platform multimedia 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=468376 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-16 07:42:22 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mingw32-SDL Short Description: MinGW Windows port of SDL cross-platform multimedia library Owners: rjones berrange lfarkas Branches: EL-5 F-10 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 476979] Review Request: python-libasyncns - Python binding for the libasyncns
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476979 Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com 2009-01-16 08:55:17 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: python-libasyncns Short Description: Python binding for libasyncns Owners: mcepl Branches: F-9 F-10 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 467398] Review Request: mingw32-gettext - GNU libraries and utilities for producing multi-lingual messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467398 --- Comment #17 from Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com 2009-01-16 09:55:04 EDT --- Source matches upstream 58a2bc6d39c0ba57823034d55d65d606 gettext-0.17.tar.gz (upstream) 58a2bc6d39c0ba57823034d55d65d606 gettext-0.17.tar.gz (srpm) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467398] Review Request: mingw32-gettext - GNU libraries and utilities for producing multi-lingual messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467398 Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tim.laurid...@googlemail.co ||m AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tim.laurid...@googlemail.co ||m Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #15 from Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com 2009-01-16 09:52:20 EDT --- I will take this one too -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467398] Review Request: mingw32-gettext - GNU libraries and utilities for producing multi-lingual messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467398 --- Comment #16 from Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com 2009-01-16 09:53:54 EDT --- $ rpmlint mingw32-gettext-0.17-6.fc10.src.rpm (SRPM) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint mingw32-gettext-0.17-6.fc10.noarch.rpm (RPMS) mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man3/bindtextdomain.3 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man1/xgettext.1 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man1/msgfilter.1 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man3/dgettext.3 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man1/autopoint.1 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man3/dcgettext.3 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man1/gettext.1 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man1/msgcat.1 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man1/msgcomm.1 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man1/msginit.1 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man1/msgconv.1 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man1/msgen.1 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man1/envsubst.1 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man1/msggrep.1 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man3/dngettext.3 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man1/msguniq.1 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man3/textdomain.3 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man1/msgmerge.1 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man1/msgunfmt.1 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man1/msgattrib.1 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man1/msgexec.1 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man3/gettext.3 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man3/bind_textdomain_codeset.3 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man3/dcngettext.3 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man3/ngettext.3 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man1/gettextize.1 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man1/recode-sr-latin.1 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man1/msgcmp.1 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man1/ngettext.1 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man1/msgfmt.1 mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/gettext/intl/finddomain.c mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/gettext/intl/gettext.c mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/gettext/intl/dgettext.c mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/gettext/intl/ngettext.c mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/gettext/intl/localename.c mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/gettext/intl/textdomain.c mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/doc/gettext/examples/hello-objc-gnustep/AppController.h mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/doc/gettext/examples/hello-c++-kde/hellowindow.h mingw32-gettext.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/gettext/intl/osdep.c mingw32-gettext.noarch: E:
[Bug 467398] Review Request: mingw32-gettext - GNU libraries and utilities for producing multi-lingual messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467398 --- Comment #18 from Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com 2009-01-16 09:58:30 EDT --- rpmlint is a little noicy, but it looks like false positives. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467398] Review Request: mingw32-gettext - GNU libraries and utilities for producing multi-lingual messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467398
Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #19 from Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com 2009-01-16
10:06:30 EDT ---
MUST:
* package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
mingw32-*
* spec file name match base package
* package meet Packaging Guidelines
* package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
Guidelines
* License field match the actual license.
* available license(s) file(s) is included in %doc.
* spec file is written in American English.
* spec file is legible.
* package compile on x86
* build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires
* no linux locales
* no shared libs
* package not relocatable
* package own all directories that it creates.
* no duplicate files in the %files listing.
* Permissions on files must be set properly. (%defattr(...) line)
* %clean section present and contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
* package is consistently using macros
* package contain code, or permissable content
* no large doc
* %doc does not affect runtime
* no linux headers
* no static libs
* no *.pc files
* no *.so.* libs
* no -devel packages
* package dont contain .la libtool archives.
* not a GUI app.
* no files or directories already owned by other packages.
* %install begins with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
* filenames is valid UTF-8
SHOULD:
* source package include license text(s) in separate file from upstream
? builds in mock.
I have not tried, but I don't think it is a problem
* no scriptlets
* no subpackages
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 467398] Review Request: mingw32-gettext - GNU libraries and utilities for producing multi-lingual messages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467398 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #20 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-16 10:48:15 EDT --- Tim, thanks for looking at these. When I upload this package, I will upload one which removes the man pages, which should result in a less verbose rpmlint. The man pages are available in the native Fedora package, so they are not required here as well. Spec file: http://hg.et.redhat.com/cgi-bin/hg-misc.cgi/fedora-mingw--devel/file/tip/gettext/mingw32-gettext.spec * Fri Jan 16 2009 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com - 0.17-7 - Remove the manpages - already available in base Fedora gettext-devel. - Use _smp_mflags for build. - Added list of potential BRs. - Added license file to doc section. --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mingw32-gettext Short Description: GNU libraries and utilities for producing multi-lingual messages Owners: rjones berrange lfarkas Branches: EL-5 F-10 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 226638] Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226638
Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tcall...@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-01-16
11:01:41 EDT ---
Alright, lets pick this old merge review up, because I think we can beat it
into shape.
The biggest item that I see here is that there is an embedded update script.
That would make a lot more sense to have it live as a Source file, especially
since it is not using any rpm macros. It would also simplify the rpm spec file
quite a bit.
There is the question as to whether this script (and the %pre copy) are still
necessary in Fedora. If you think so, please keep them, if not, please remove
them both from the package.
Please add an empty %build section.
Also, %dir %{_bindir}/xorg-x11-filesystem-upgrade is just wrong. That's a
script, not a directory.
The last issue is that there seems to be fair bit of directory ownership
duplication in the xorg stack.
/usr/lib/X11: filesystem, xorg-x11-filesystem
/usr/include/X11/: xorg-x11-filesystem, libfontenc-devel, libxkbfile-devel,
libXdmcp-devel, libXfixes-devel, libICE-devel, libSM-devel, libXau-devel,
libXt-devel, libXpm-devel, libXmu-devel, libXft-devel, libXv-devel,
libXcursor-devel, libXvMC-devel, libXaw-devel, libXevie-devel, libXres-devel,
libXfont-devel, libXcomposite-devel, libXrender-devel, libXdamage-devel,
xorg-x11-xtrans-devel, libX11-devel, libXrandr-devel, xorg-x11-proto-devel
/usr/share/X11: xorg-x11-filesystem, xorg-x11-server-utils,
xorg-x11-font-utils, xorg-x11-utils, imake, libX11, xkeyboard-config
If we don't need the upgrade script anymore, do we need this package anymore?
Could we let filesystem own /usr/lib/X11 and /usr/share/X11,
xorg-x11-proto-devel own /usr/include/X11 (and all those other dupes should
Require: xorg-x11-proto-devel)
--
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 473835] Review Request: autoarchive - Simple backup 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=473835
Gratien D'haese gratien.dha...@it3.be changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gratien.dha...@it3.be
--- Comment #1 from Gratien D'haese gratien.dha...@it3.be 2009-01-16
11:08:36 EDT ---
Home page of project: http://autoarchive.sourceforge.net/
File Section on SourceForge:
http://sourceforge.net/project/platformdownload.php?group_id=239510
Analysis Report
** OK ** - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
$ rpmlint -i -v SPECS/autoarchive.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint -i -v ~/Download/autoarchive-0.1.1-1.fc9.src.rpm
autoarchive.src: I: checking
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
** OK ** - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. Package name
autoarchive is acceptable and does not yet exist in the list of registered
packages.
** OK ** - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec.
** OK ** - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license
(GPLv3+) and
meets the Licensing Guidelines.
** FIX ** - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license.
** OK ** The file COPYING matches the spec License line.
!! Warning !! The file PKG-INFO mentions as license GNU GPL which does not
match GPLv3+
!! Warning !! The source files do not match the license:
# archiver.py
#
# Project: AutoArchive
# License: GNU GPL
** 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 package is legible.
** OK ** - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream
source by
e5d447c99c056027778ea7abf4d4c91e Download/autoarchive-0.1.1-1.fc9.src.rpm
8cede45be633221fca031b4825ede1ea Download/autoarchive-0.1.1.tar.bz2
extracted tarball (from rpm -ivh ~/Download/autoarchive-0.1.1-1.fc9.src.rpm)
equals:
$ md5sum autoarchive-0.1.1.tar.bz2
8cede45be633221fca031b4825ede1ea autoarchive-0.1.1.tar.bz2
** OK ** - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms
on i386
$ rpmbuild -ba ../SPECS/autoarchive.spec
error: Failed build dependencies:
python-setuptools-devel is needed by autoarchive-0.1.1-1.fc9.noarch
$ grep Requires ../SPECS/autoarchive.spec
BuildRequires: python
BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel
(first installing python-setuptools-devel)
$ rpmbuild -ba ../SPECS/autoarchive.spec
succeeds.
$ rpmlint -v -i RPMS/noarch/autoarchive-0.1.1-1.fc9.noarch.rpm
autoarchive.noarch: I: checking
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
** N/A ** - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work
on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec
in ExcludeArch.
** OK ** - MUST: Not all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires:
$ rpm -qp --requires RPMS/noarch/autoarchive-0.1.1-1.fc9.noarch.rpm
/usr/bin/python
python(abi) = 2.5
!! Warning !! Not all Requirements are listed - lzma seems to be used and is
not part
of the Packaging/FullExceptionList (it is up to you to decide).
** OK ** - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang
macro.
** N/A ** - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
** N/A ** - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager
must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
** OK ** - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates.
$ rpm -qpl RPMS/noarch/autoarchive-0.1.1-1.fc9.noarch.rpm
/usr/bin/aa
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/__init__.py
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/__init__.pyc
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/__init__.pyo
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/aautils.py
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/aautils.pyc
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/aautils.pyo
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/archive_spec.py
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/archive_spec.pyc
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/archive_spec.pyo
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/archiver.py
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/archiver.pyc
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/archiver.pyo
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/meta.py
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/meta.pyc
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/AutoArchive/meta.pyo
[Bug 475018] Review Request: xtvd - A client java library for easy access to the tv data from schedulesdirect.org
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475018 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+ --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-16 11:43:57 EDT --- Well, - Divide a bit long %changelog line into two or so. - This package (xtvd) 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 480356] New: Review Request: mythes-mi - Maori thesaurus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mythes-mi - Maori thesaurus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480356 Summary: Review Request: mythes-mi - Maori thesaurus 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 Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/mythes-mi.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/mythes-mi-0.20080630-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Maori thesaurus as used by openoffice.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480355] New: Review Request: mythes-it - Italian thesaurus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mythes-it - Italian thesaurus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480355 Summary: Review Request: mythes-it - Italian thesaurus 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 Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/mythes-it.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/mythes-it-2.0.9l-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Italian thesaurus as used by openoffice.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479546] Review Request: jailkit - Jailkit limits user accounts to specific files and/or commands
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479546 --- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-16 12:04:01 EDT --- (As I said in my comment 1, anyway I will postpone approving this package until Jan 21 to see if someone knowing security issues well may post some comments on this bug) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476360] Review Request: rubygem-tlsmail - This library enables pop or smtp via ssl/tls
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476360
Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-16
12:01:33 EDT ---
It seems you reversed the following?
(In reply to comment #2)
For 0.0.1-1:
* Documents
- README.txt should be marked as %doc.
What I mean is that %files should be
%dir %{geminstdir}
%doc %{geminstdir}/[A-Z]*
%{geminstdir}/*/
or so.
Other things are okay.
-
This package (rubygem-tlsmail) 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 467388] Review Request: mingw32-pdcurses - Curses library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467388 Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com 2009-01-16 12:04:18 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) (In reply to comment #4) $ md5sum PDCurses-3.4.tar.gz 65c9b1d4c5ef3e031039da620d6199ee PDCurses-3.4.tar.gz (upstream) 4e04e4412d1b1392a7f9a489b95b331a rpmbuild/SOURCES/PDCurses-3.4.tar.gz (SRPM) X Source checksum don't match upstream Are you sure about this one? I just downloaded it again and I get the same (4e04...) md5sum: Ok, the must have been some download error :) 4e04e4412d1b1392a7f9a489b95b331a PDCurses-3.4.tar.gz 4e04e4412d1b1392a7f9a489b95b331a /home/tim/rpmbuild/SOURCES/PDCurses-3.4.tar.gz * Source match upstream 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 467396] Review Request: mingw32-freetype - MinGW Windows Freetype 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=467396 Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@googlemail.com 2009-01-16 12:10:18 EDT --- Sources matches upstream: 6cf31a08826715a0d16ae366da9c7d3b freetype-2.3.8.tar.bz2 6cf31a08826715a0d16ae366da9c7d3b /home/tim/rpmbuild/SOURCES/freetype-2.3.8.tar.bz2 de1cc7cf098e11fba5898efdab1bc23d freetype-doc-2.3.8.tar.bz2 de1cc7cf098e11fba5898efdab1bc23d /home/tim/rpmbuild/SOURCES/freetype-doc-2.3.8.tar.bz2 The rest of the new spec looks fine. 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 468797] Review Request: JRosetta - A common base to build a graphical console
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468797 --- Comment #8 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com 2009-01-16 12:15:55 EDT --- Spec URL: http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/jrosetta.spec SRPM URL: http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/jrosetta-1.0.1-1.fc8.kwizart.src.rpm Description: A common base to build a graphical console I'm reverting back to jrosetta as package named as the .jar files are named jrosetta*.jar anyway. Im' not bumping the release since they were not a package named jrosetta 1.0.2 previously. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428568] Review Request: synfig - Synfig is a vector based 2D animation package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428568 --- Comment #21 from Lorenzo Villani lvill...@binaryhelix.net 2009-01-16 13:04:35 EDT --- I suggest to add Require: libxml++-devel to synfig-devel subpackage, otherwise synfigstudio won't build (pkg-config fails in mockroot due to missing libxml++-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 476360] Review Request: rubygem-tlsmail - This library enables pop or smtp via ssl/tls
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476360
--- Comment #11 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com 2009-01-16 13:04:12
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #10)
It seems you reversed the following?
(In reply to comment #2)
For 0.0.1-1:
* Documents
- README.txt should be marked as %doc.
What I mean is that %files should be
%dir %{geminstdir}
%doc %{geminstdir}/[A-Z]*
%{geminstdir}/*/
or so.
Other things are okay.
-
This package (rubygem-tlsmail) is APPROVED by mtasaka
-
Thanks. I've changed the RPM per your final suggestions. Thank you, and I'll
begin your review tomorro.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476360] Review Request: rubygem-tlsmail - This library enables pop or smtp via ssl/tls
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476360 Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com 2009-01-16 13:07:33 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: rubygem-tlsmail Short Description: This library enables pop or smtp via ssl/tls Owners: mcpierce Branches: F-9 F-10 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 467388] Review Request: mingw32-pdcurses - Curses library for MinGW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467388 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-16 13:16:12 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mingw32-pdcurses Short Description: Curses library for MinGW Owners: rjones berrange lfarkas Branches: EL-5 F-10 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 467396] Review Request: mingw32-freetype - Free and portable font rendering 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=467396 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |mingw32-freetype - MinGW|mingw32-freetype - Free and |Windows Freetype library|portable font rendering ||engine Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-01-16 13:16:16 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mingw32-freetype Short Description: Free and portable font rendering engine Owners: rjones berrange lfarkas Branches: EL-5 F-10 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 480373] New: Review Request: cilk - Language for multithreaded parallel programming.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: cilk - Language for multithreaded parallel programming. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480373 Summary: Review Request: cilk - Language for multithreaded parallel programming. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: maxamill...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/cilk.spec SRPM URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/cilk-5.4.6-1.src.rpm Description: Cilk (pronounced 'silk') is a language for multithreaded parallel programming based on ANSI C. Cilk is designed for general-purpose parallel programming, but it is especially effective for exploiting dynamic, highly asynchronous parallelism, which can be difficult to write in data-parallel or message-passing style. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472144] Review Request: tvbrowser - Free EPG for over 500 stations.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472144 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235 --- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-16 13:45:02 EDT --- Well, currenly I make this package blocked by FE-Legal This package itself is under GPLv2+, however - This package also depends (BRs) on skinlf and l2fprod-common - skinlf (bug 469471, already imported into Fedora) is under ASL 2.0 and zlib and ASL 1.1 - I checked l2fprod-common (bug 475017) and actually this is under ASL 2.0 and ASL 1.1 - And ASL 1.1 is not compatible with GPLv2+: see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing So: - Would you ask l2fprod-common upstream to relicense all files under ASL 1.1 to ASL 2.0? - And also would you ask skinlf upstream to do so? By the way ASL 1.1 is this: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-1.1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475017] Review Request: l2fprod-common - In JavaSE missing Swing components, inspired from modern user interfaces
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475017 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Blocks||182235 --- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-16 13:47:25 EDT --- Blocking FE-Legal. This package itself is okay (ASL 1.1 and ASL 2.0), however ASL 1.1 conflicts with GPLv2+ (i.e. tvbrowser, bug 472144) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480380] New: Review Request: python-epdb - extended python debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-epdb - extended python debugger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480380 Summary: Review Request: python-epdb - extended python debugger Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jmfor...@linuxtx.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.linuxtx.org/rpms/python-epdb/python-epdb.spec SRPM URL: http://www.linuxtx.org/rpms/python-epdb/python-epdb-0.11-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: python-epdb is an extended python debugger with support for things such as showmethods and showdata. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480050] Review Request: libchamplain - Map view for Clutter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480050 Debarshi Ray debarshi@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||480056 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480056] Review Request: libchamplain-gtk - Gtk+ widget wrapper for libchamplain
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480056 Debarshi Ray debarshi@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||480050 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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-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 #31 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2009-01-16 15:00:47 EDT --- Okay, I'm getting excited now. Thanks to the new version of publican I now have an SRPM and a SPEC file that look good (I think) and the rpmbuild passes the rpmlint test. SPEC URL: http://sparks.fedorapeople.org/fedora-security-guide-11-en-US.spec SRPM URL: http://sparks.fedorapeople.org/fedora-security-guide-11-en-US-1.0-6.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 480050] Review Request: libchamplain - Map view for Clutter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480050
--- Comment #3 from Debarshi Ray debarshi@gmail.com 2009-01-16 14:58:40
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
- Local build fails with:
gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -o .libs/libchamplain-scan
.libs/libchamplain-scan.o
-pthread -Wl,--export-dynamic -lgdk-x11-2.0 -lclutter-cairo-0.8
-lclutter-glx-0.8 -lpangocairo-1.0 -lgthread-2.0 -lrt -lgdk_pixbuf_xlib-2.0
-lpango-1.0 -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0 -lcairo
-lsoup-2.4 -lgio-2.0 -lgobject-2.0 -lgmodule-2.0 -lglib-2.0
../../champlain/.libs/libchamplain-0.2.so -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/lib64
creating libchamplain-scan
gtk-doc: Running scanner libchamplain-scan
Scan failed:
make[2]: *** [scan-build.stamp] Error 255
make[2]: Leaving directory
`/home/s4504kr/rpmbuild/BUILD/libchamplain-0.2.8/docs/reference'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/s4504kr/rpmbuild/BUILD/libchamplain-0.2.8'
make: *** [all] Error 2
It is strange, but I tried this on an updated Fedora 10 x86_64 system and on
Koji against the dist-f11 tag and both passed. Here is the relevant portion
from a rpmbuild on my Fedora 10 x86_64 system:
[...]
gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -o .libs/libchamplain-scan
.libs/libchamplain-scan.o -pthread -Wl,--export-dynamic -lgdk-x11-2.0
-lclutter-cairo-0.8 -lclutter-glx-0.8 -lpangocairo-1.0 -lgthread-2.0 -lrt
-lgdk_pixbuf_xlib-2.0 -lpango-1.0 -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0 -lcairo -lsoup-2.4 -lgio-2.0
-lgobject-2.0 -lgmodule-2.0 -lglib-2.0
../../champlain/.libs/libchamplain-0.2.so -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/lib64
creating libchamplain-scan
gtk-doc: Running scanner libchamplain-scan
touch scan-build.stamp
gtk-doc: Rebuilding template files
[...]
Which version of Fedora did you try?
ToDO.
you can wrote
%{_includedir}/%{name}-0.2/
[...]
and
%{_datadir}/champlain/
Actually, I do not do that with directories created by the package to avoid
being suprised by the addition or removal of an important sub-directory in a
new upstream release. In a way this is merely a personal preference which I
follow in almost all my packages. I hope that it goes well with the guidelines.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226659] Merge Review: xsri
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226659 --- Comment #2 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-01-16 15:05:27 EDT --- ping? -- 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 226314] Merge Review: prctl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226314 --- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-01-16 15:06:23 EDT --- ping? -- 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 447738] Review Request: libzypp - ZYpp is a Linux software management 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=447738 Debarshi Ray debarshi@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(lvill...@binaryhe ||lix.net) --- Comment #18 from Debarshi Ray debarshi@gmail.com 2009-01-16 15:13:52 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17) SPEC URL: http://fedorapeople.org/gitweb?p=arbiter/public_git/rpm.git;a=blob;f=libs/libzypp/libzypp.spec;hb=HEAD SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~arbiter/srpm/libzypp-4.28.24.1-1.fc10.src.rpm These URLs are not working. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 442714] Review Request: sat-solver - Satisfyability Solver library which can be used to compute inter-package dependencies.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442714 Debarshi Ray debarshi@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(lvill...@binaryhe ||lix.net) --- Comment #40 from Debarshi Ray debarshi@gmail.com 2009-01-16 15:12:56 EDT --- (In reply to comment #39) SPEC URL: http://fedorapeople.org/gitweb?p=arbiter/public_git/rpm.git;a=blob;f=libs/sat-solver/sat-solver.spec;hb=HEAD SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~arbiter/srpm/sat-solver-0.9.6-1.fc10.src.rpm These URLs are not working. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476440] Review Request: latexdiff - Determine and mark up significant differences between latex 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=476440 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-16 15:20:33 EDT --- latexdiff-0.5-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/latexdiff-0.5-2.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 475018] Review Request: xtvd - A client java library for easy access to the tv data from schedulesdirect.org
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475018 Sandro Mathys s...@sandro-mathys.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Sandro Mathys s...@sandro-mathys.ch 2009-01-16 15:31:37 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: xtvd Short Description: A client java library for easy access to the tv data from schedulesdirect.org Owners: red Branches: F-9 F-10 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Comment #41 from MartinG grons...@gmail.com 2009-01-16 15:48:32 EDT --- Thanks - the test repo seems to work just fine. I'm able to install: Installing: mindi x86_64 2.0.5-1.fc9 mondorescue 218 k mondo x86_64 2.2.8-1.fc9 mondorescue 900 k Installing for dependencies: afiox86_64 2.5-1.fc9 mondorescue75 k buffer x86_64 1.19-4.fc9 mondorescue22 k mindi-busybox i386 1.7.3-1.fc9 mondorescue 244 k mtools x86_64 3.9.11-4.fc9 fedora212 k syslinuxx86_64 3.61-2.fc9 fedora770 k -- 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 468797] Review Request: JRosetta - A common base to build a graphical console
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468797 --- Comment #9 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski r...@greysector.net 2009-01-16 16:05:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) Spec URL: http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/jrosetta.spec Specfile says 1.0.2, but... SRPM URL: http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/jrosetta-1.0.1-1.fc8.kwizart.src.rpm this is 1.0.1. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225612] Merge Review: beagle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225612 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||adel.gadl...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|adel.gadl...@gmail.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 480380] Review Request: python-epdb - extended python debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480380 Justin M. Forbes jmfor...@linuxtx.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460959] Review Request: libkml - A KML library written in C++ with bindings to other languagues
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460959 --- Comment #17 from Rakesh Pandit rakesh.pan...@gmail.com 2009-01-16 16:23:49 EDT --- Updated to 0.6.1: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/libkml-0.6.1-1.fc10.src.rpm http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/libkml.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 225612] Merge Review: beagle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225612
Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tcall...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-01-16
16:21:57 EDT ---
Okay, here comes rpmlint on the latest in rawhide:
beagle.src: W: strange-permission beagle-thunderbird-update.sh 0775
Probably safe to ignore.
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/beagle/crawl-rules/crawl-windows
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/beagle/config-files/BeagleSearch.xml
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/beagle/query-mapping.xml
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/xdg/autostart/beagled-autostart.desktop
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/beagle/crawl-rules/crawl-applications
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/beagle/config-files/Networking.xml
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/beagle/blocate.conf
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/beagle/crawl-rules/crawl-monodoc
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/beagle/external-filters.xml.sample
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/beagle/config-files/Daemon.xml
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/beagle/crawl-rules/crawl-documentation
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/beagle/crawl-rules/crawl-executables
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/beagle/config-files/FilesQueryable.xml
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/beagle/crawl-rules/crawl-manpages
Please mark all of these as %config(noreplace).
beagle.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/beagle/keygrabber.py 0644
Please fix permissions on that script.
beagle.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/cache/beagle beaglidx
beagle.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/cache/beagle beaglidx
beagle.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/cache/beagle/indexes beaglidx
beagle.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/cache/beagle/indexes beaglidx
Safe to ignore.
beagle.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/beagle-config
beagle.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/beagle/libbeagleglue.so
beagle.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libbeagle
Safe to ignore. Odd that it doesn't end up building against libbeagle though.
beagle.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
beagle.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
Safe to ignore.
beagle-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
Please mark /usr/lib64/monodoc/sources/beagle-docs.* as %doc.
beagle-devel.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
Safe to ignore.
beagle-epiphany.x86_64: W: no-documentation
beagle-epiphany.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
Safe to ignore.
beagle-epiphany.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib64/epiphany/2.24/extensions/beagle.py 0644
Please fix permissions on that script.
beagle-evolution.x86_64: W: no-documentation
beagle-evolution.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
beagle-firefox.x86_64: W: no-documentation
Safe to ignore.
beagle-firefox.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib64/mozilla/extensions/{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}/{fda00e13-8c62-4f63-9d19-d168115b11ca}/chrome/locale/zh-CN/contents.rdf
beagle-firefox.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib64/mozilla/extensions/{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}/{fda00e13-8c62-4f63-9d19-d168115b11ca}/chrome/content/beagleAddFilter.xul
beagle-firefox.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib64/mozilla/extensions/{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}/{fda00e13-8c62-4f63-9d19-d168115b11ca}/chrome/content/indexLink.xul
beagle-firefox.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib64/mozilla/extensions/{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}/{fda00e13-8c62-4f63-9d19-d168115b11ca}/chrome/skin/classic/overlay.css
beagle-firefox.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib64/mozilla/extensions/{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}/{fda00e13-8c62-4f63-9d19-d168115b11ca}/chrome/content/utils.js
beagle-firefox.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib64/mozilla/extensions/{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}/{fda00e13-8c62-4f63-9d19-d168115b11ca}/chrome/locale/zh-CN/beagle.dtd
beagle-firefox.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib64/mozilla/extensions/{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}/{fda00e13-8c62-4f63-9d19-d168115b11ca}/chrome/content/beagleAddFilter.js
Are these really executable scripts? Do they need to be chmod +x?
beagle-firefox.x86_64: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/lib64/mozilla/extensions/{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}/{fda00e13-8c62-4f63-9d19-d168115b11ca}/chrome/locale/zh-CN/contents.rdf
Please fix the end of line encoding here. sed -i 's/\r//' foo
beagle-firefox.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
beagle-gnome.x86_64: W: no-documentation
Safe
[Bug 479976] Review Request: xwxapt - An application for decoding and saving weather images.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479976 --- Comment #5 from Randall Berry randyn3...@gmail.com 2009-01-16 16:44:04 EDT --- Pushed to updates-testing -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479982] Review Request: wxapt - A command line tool for decoding weather images transmitted by satellites.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479982 --- Comment #7 from Randall Berry randyn3...@gmail.com 2009-01-16 16:44:46 EDT --- Pushed to updates-testing -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479056] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Authorization-ACL - ACL Support for Catalyst Applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479056 Gabriel Somlo so...@cmu.edu 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Comment #42 from MartinG grons...@gmail.com 2009-01-16 17:02:49 EDT --- ...and then I tried it, and it failed: ---FATALERROR--- Failed to generate boot+data disks Seems to be because of this: Unable to find mindi-busybox, please install it Hm, read bug #187317 and understand there are some problems regarding (mindi-)buybox. This is what I've got on my system: mindi-busybox-1.7.3-1.fc9.i386 Hope this will be sorted out, good luck Bruno! In the meantime, is there a workaround anyone can suggest...? -- 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 475661] Review Request: google-droid-fonts - General-purpose fonts released by Google as part of Android
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475661 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #4 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-01-16 17:09:32 EDT --- Will let it steam in rawhide a bit before importing in stable releases as it includes CJK fonts and we always seem to get them wrong at first somehow -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468797] Review Request: jrosetta - A common base to build a graphical console
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468797 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: JRosetta - |Review Request: jrosetta - |A common base to build a|A common base to build a |graphical console |graphical console --- Comment #10 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com 2009-01-16 18:02:10 EDT --- SRPM URL: http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/jrosetta-1.0.2-1.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 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Comment #43 from Bruno Cornec bruno.cor...@hp.com 2009-01-16 18:16:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #42) ...and then I tried it, and it failed: ---FATALERROR--- Failed to generate boot+data disks Seems to be because of this: Unable to find mindi-busybox, please install it Hm, read bug #187317 and understand there are some problems regarding (mindi-)buybox. This is what I've got on my system: mindi-busybox-1.7.3-1.fc9.i386 Which is not compatible with mondo x86_64 and mindi x86_64 You should exclude the i386 arch when using yum to get the right one I think. Maybe there is a better way to indicate that in the repo file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475897] Review Request: ncmpcpp - Clone of ncmpc with new features and written in C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475897 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-16 18:40:32 EDT --- ncmpcpp-0.2.5-4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ncmpcpp-0.2.5-4.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 479603] Review Request: shcov - A gcov and lcov coverage test tool for bourne shell / bash scripts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479603 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-16 18:41:26 EDT --- shcov-3-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update shcov'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-0592 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468462
--- Comment #8 from Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-16
18:41:12 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
- Please remove SystemSettings from the desktop files again, it's better for
comptatibility. Sorry for the noise, apart from that the desktop files are ok
now.
Okay! Done in -5
- rpmlint warning regarding usermode can be ignored, but the changelog could
be
a little better, e. g.: Require usermode-gtk instead of usermode for the
password dialog. But this is really trivial.
Okay, you are right.
- on the fly creation of files: Your decision, you are the one to maintain the
package. ;)
Okay thank you
- (How) Do we own the cron files?
mkdir -p
%{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/{cron.d,cron.daily,cron-hourly,cron.monthly,cron.weekly}/
touch
%{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/{cron.d,cron.daily,cron-hourly,cron.monthly,cron.weekly}/%{name}
%ghost %{_sysconfdir}/cron*/%{name}
this should do the trick...
- Can you explain the makefile.patch a little? Why are you preventing
installation of the desktop files and the locales?
i changed this part, completely! I hope you'll like it.
The patch for the makefile is now only for the settings of the directories and
the permission of the configfile. The makefile is damn ugly and almost
unusuable. I made a mix of patching makefile and installation via spec. this
was very ugly, too...
locales:
there are unofficial translations which are not listed in the makefile, but
shipped with sbackup.
why are they unofficial?
These translation were made by the ubuntu-community (this project is an Ubuntu
project) so they are not made by the upstream team and are unofficial.
I added the others to use all available locales. I realized the installation of
the locales with a sed command.
desktop files:
Now the original desktop files will be deleted and the new ones will installed.
Commenting out the desktopfiles in the makefile was a bad idea.
- Provides: gvfs = 1.0 looks bogus to me
yes, you are right. This is a bogus. I removed it in -5
SPEC: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/sbackup-0.10.5/sbackup.spec
SRPM:
http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/sbackup-0.10.5/sbackup-0.10.5-5.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 467397] Review Request: mingw32-libpng - MinGW Windows Libpng 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=467397 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-16 18:43:38 EDT --- mingw32-libpng-1.2.34-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473754] Review Request: nopaste - Command-line interface to rafb.net/paste
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473754 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-16 18:45:26 EDT --- nopaste-2835-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-16 18:44:03 EDT --- ocaml-preludeml-0.1-0.10.20090113.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-16 18:44:28 EDT --- nload-0.7.2-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475897] Review Request: ncmpcpp - Clone of ncmpc with new features and written in C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475897 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-16 18:42:50 EDT --- ncmpcpp-0.2.5-4.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ncmpcpp-0.2.5-4.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 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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|RAWHIDE |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 479056] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Authorization-ACL - ACL Support for Catalyst Applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479056 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-16 18:42:24 EDT --- perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Authorization-ACL-0.10-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467397] Review Request: mingw32-libpng - MinGW Windows Libpng 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=467397 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 479056] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Authorization-ACL - ACL Support for Catalyst Applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479056 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-16 18:42:04 EDT --- perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Authorization-ACL-0.10-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473754] Review Request: nopaste - Command-line interface to rafb.net/paste
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473754 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 467645] Review Request: sugar-distance - Distance measurement 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=467645 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-16 18:42:41 EDT --- sugar-distance-13-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update sugar-distance'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-0623 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473754] Review Request: nopaste - Command-line interface to rafb.net/paste
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473754 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-16 18:46:43 EDT --- nopaste-2835-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
