[Bug 484547] Review Request: pyfacebook - Python wrapper for Facebook's API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484547 --- Comment #1 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2009-02-12 02:58:49 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=331664) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=331664) Review Initial 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 483301] Review Request: muse - Midi/Audio Music Sequencer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483301 --- Comment #16 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de 2009-02-12 03:00:55 EDT --- I won't go into that more. You know my points and for the rest I mostly agree with Hans until now (especially when looking to bug #484591). From the technical point, Ralf pointed same things out as Hans did (ignoring epoch difference). Hans used a few more words, but nothing else. Finally, no need for me and you to tell things twice, my thinking is very closed to Hans' ones until now. Possibilities to filter out unwanted dependencies by not using AutoReqProv: are on the Fedora wiki for a long time now. Ever consumed that Guideline before this bug report? Seemingly not and yes, you were not pointed to it in this bug report. But a thing which could get improved on both sides... Ralf is maybe not liked that much by multiple/several persons or whatelse, but I'm pretty sure, if you would asked him nicely, would have provided you a patch solving the 64 bit things (even if i's just debug stuff) which you could send to 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 250804] Review Request: perl-Encode-Detect - Detects the encoding of data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250804 --- Comment #25 from Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2009-02-12 03:05:04 EDT --- Erm, can we close this? :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485186] Review Request: perl-MouseX-Types - Organize your Mouse types in libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485186 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-02-12 03:30:29 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i386). koji Build = http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1120998 - rpmlint is NOT silent for RPM. perl-MouseX-Types.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.01-1 ['0.01-0.fc11', '0.01-0'] == easy to fix at cvs import. + source files match upstream url 8c375c45aa73397c40ac58054d3ca734 MouseX-Types-0.01.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test gave All tests successful. Files=4, Tests=48, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.01 usr 0.02 sys + 0.23 cusr 0.03 csys = 0.29 CPU) + Package perl-MouseX-Types-0.01-0.fc11 = Provides: perl(MouseX::Types) = 0.01 perl(MouseX::Types::Base) perl(MouseX::Types::Mouse) perl(MouseX::Types::TypeDecorator) Requires: perl(Data::Dumper) perl(Mouse::Util::TypeConstraints) perl(MouseX::Types) perl(MouseX::Types::TypeDecorator) perl(Scalar::Util) perl(strict) perl(warnings) Suggestions: 1) Fix Release tag in spec 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 485186] Review Request: perl-MouseX-Types - Organize your Mouse types in libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485186 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485186] Review Request: perl-MouseX-Types - Organize your Mouse types in libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485186 --- Comment #2 from Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2009-02-12 03:36:41 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-MouseX-Types Short Description: Organize your Mouse types in libraries Owners: cweyl Branches: F-9 F-10 devel InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483016] Package Review: perl-NOCpulse-Debug - Perl debug output 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=483016 Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com 2009-02-12 03:34:00 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-NOCpulse-Debug Short Description: Perl debug output package Owners: msuchy Branches: devel F-10 EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485154] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Role-Cmd - Wrap system command binaries the Moose way
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485154 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-02-12 03:37:34 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i386). koji Build = http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1120997 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 9bcd44e502c16e0cab226d26510bba6d MooseX-Role-Cmd-0.04.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test gave All tests successful. Files=4, Tests=21, 2 wallclock secs ( 0.03 usr 0.01 sys + 2.07 cusr 0.14 csys = 2.25 CPU) + Package perl-MooseX-Role-Cmd-0.04-1.fc11 = Provides: perl(MooseX::Role::Cmd) = 0.04 perl(MooseX::Role::Cmd::Meta::Attribute::Trait) Requires: perl(IPC::Cmd) perl(Moose::Role) perl(Moose::Util::TypeConstraints) perl(strict) perl(warnings) 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 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 Bug 472144 depends on bug 474985, which changed state. Bug 474985 Summary: Review Request: jakarta-commons-compress - API for working with tar, zip and bzip2 files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474985 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Bug 472144 depends on bug 475019, which changed state. Bug 475019 Summary: Review Request: opencsv - A very simple csv (comma-separated values) parser library for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475019 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED --- Comment #15 from Sandro Mathys s...@sandro-mathys.ch 2009-02-12 04:08:41 EDT --- Fred says he updated the files in their CVS but is having problems getting the maven build to work. He'll maybe drop back to the old ant script. We're currently using ant in the skinlf pkg and neither of both in l2fprod-common anyway. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484704] Review Request: libapogee - Library for Apogee CCD Cameras
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484704
--- Comment #2 from Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com 2009-02-12 04:43:10
EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: f11 / i386, x86_64
Build failure on: ppc, ppc64, see summary
[!] Rpmlint output: not clean
- libapogee.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libapogeee.so.2.2
e...@glibc_2.2.5
- libapogee.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libapogeeu.so.2.2
e...@glibc_2.2.5
[-] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPLv2+
- SPEC file contains GPL+
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[x] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[x] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in koji.
- koji dist-f11
[!] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
- package does not build on PPC, PPC64
Building CXX object CMakeFiles/apogeeu.dir/ApnCamera_Linux.o
error:
sys/io.h: No such file or directory
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
=== SUMMARY ===
- Ask upstream to fix rpmlint output
- Fix license
- Package should compile and build on PPC, PPC64!
* If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture,
then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each
architecture
listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the
reason that the
package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number
MUST be placed
in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line.
*
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Build_Failures
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474044] Review Request: libzdb - A small, fast, and easy to use database API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474044 --- Comment #10 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-02-12 05:21:52 EDT --- Well, I don't understand Tom's comment about an old version of the EXCEPTIONS file. None of the tarballs in this review contained that old version of the file. That comment is only of limited historical value. Further, where do the EXCEPTIONS forbid linking with a modified libzdb? Section 1.a requires the licensee to ''obey the GPL in all respects for the Program (= libzdb)''. Originally, I only reviewed the EXCEPTIONS file to see whether it adds anything that doesn't leave us a choice, but it's only a multi-licensing model with multiple options to choose from. We can pick the GPLv3+ as the only license for the Fedora package. We cannot use the EXCEPTIONS, because IMO they violate the GPLv3. Confirmation for that would have been helpful. Hence keeping the EXCEPTIONS file would be misleading, since we would offer dual/multi-licensing like the tarball. Deleting the file would require patching the README (and any other files that mention the EXCEPTIONS 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 485154] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Role-Cmd - Wrap system command binaries the Moose way
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485154 Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com 2009-02-12 05:36:21 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-MooseX-Role-Cmd Short Description: Wrap system command binaries the Moose way Owners: allisson Branches: F-9 F-10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483615] Review Request: CodeAnalyst - Performance Analysis Suite for AMD-based System (based on Oprofile)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483615
--- Comment #5 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-02-12 05:52:04
EDT ---
1)Avoid use of hash in spec file it looks complicated to me.
2)desktop file should be installed using desktop-file-install command
remove desktop-file-validate command lines in SPEC
3) .so files must go to separate -devel subpackage. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Devel_Packages
4) buildroot value not as per given at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot_tag
5) any reason to change tarball name from CodeAnalyst to
CodeAnalyst-gui?
6)You need to use any value from $RPM_OPT_FLAGS %{optflags} not both see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
7) When I fix above problems locally on my machine and built rpm, I used
rpmlint on binary package where I see some messages related to init script
reported as
rpmlint -iv /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/CodeAnalyst-gui-2.8.38-0.fc10.i386.rpm
CodeAnalyst-gui.i386: W: service-default-enabled
/etc/rc.d/init.d/codeanalyst_init
===The service is enabled by default after chkconfig --add; for security
reasons, most services should not be. Use - as the default runlevel in the
init script's chkconfig: line and/or remove the Default-Start: LSB keyword
to fix this if appropriate for this service.
CodeAnalyst-gui.i386: E: subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/codeanalyst_init
===While your daemon is running, you have to put a lock file in
/var/lock/subsys/. To see an example, look at this directory on your machine
and examine the corresponding init scripts.
CodeAnalyst-gui.i386: W: incoherent-init-script-name codeanalyst_init
==The init script name should be the same as the package name in lower case,
or
one with 'd' appended if it invokes a process by that name.
8)Every time you change in SPEC update Release to next number e.g. now you
should change it to 1. Add changelog what you changed in SPEC for this -1
release
Then submit this new package for further 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 485206] New: Review Request: perl-Hash-Util-FieldHash-Compat - Use Hash::Util::FieldHash or ties, depending on availability
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Hash-Util-FieldHash-Compat - Use Hash::Util::FieldHash or ties, depending on availability https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485206 Summary: Review Request: perl-Hash-Util-FieldHash-Compat - Use Hash::Util::FieldHash or ties, depending on availability Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: allis...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Hash-Util-FieldHash-Compat/perl-Hash-Util-FieldHash-Compat.spec SRPM URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Hash-Util-FieldHash-Compat/perl-Hash-Util-FieldHash-Compat-0.03-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Under older perls this module provides a drop in compatible api to Hash::Util::FieldHash using perltie. When Hash::Util::FieldHash is available it will use that instead. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485207] New: Review Request: perl-Test-Assert - Assertion methods for those who like JUnit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Assert - Assertion methods for those who like JUnit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485207 Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Assert - Assertion methods for those who like JUnit Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: allis...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Test-Assert/perl-Test-Assert.spec SRPM URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Test-Assert/perl-Test-Assert-0.0501-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: This class provides a set of assertion methods useful for writing tests. The API is based on JUnit4 and Test::Unit and the methods die on failure. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485000] Review Request: libbsr - Barrier Synchronization Register access 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=485000
Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugs.mich...@gmx.net
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bugs.mich...@gmx.net
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-02-12
07:22:23 EDT ---
The new guideline about comments on patches is a SHOULD item and not a MUST.
Even the SourceForge URLs are not mandatory. No reason to insist on getting
them fixed prior to approval. It's not as if the url pointed to the interactive
web page. Direct links to a mirror are just fine, since the various wget/curl
compatible mirror-selection or round-robin dns urls don't always work for
everyone either (and a reviewer ought to visit the upstream site anyway).
Additionally, some SF.net projects publish their tarballs with different urls.
The guidelines don't cover all cases, as they are more of a hint/recommendation
than a strict rule.
The redundant %dir didn't cause any files to be mispackaged and didn't cause a
build failure either.
[...]
The packaging is fine: APPROVED
[...]
Hints and minor issues that can be changed in pkg cvs:
* For %setup the -n %name-%version parameter is the default.
* You mix %_libdir and %_prefix/%_lib in %install section.
* Instead of
| %dir %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/
| %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/LGPL-2.1
| %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/README
you could also use:
| %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/
| %exclude %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/examples/
Doesn't change much for this package, but could be helpful with other packages
where more than two doc files shall be included.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485207] Review Request: perl-Test-Assert - Assertion methods for those who like JUnit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485207 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225811] Merge Review: gnome-applet-vm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225811 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-02-12 07:41:09 EDT --- OK I've applied the patch in comment 7. -- This package is APPROVED by rjones -- -- 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 226055] Merge Review: libvirt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226055 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-02-12 07:37:37 EDT --- I have agreed changes with upstream and added the patch to Rawhide. -- This package is APPROVED by rjones -- -- 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 485206] Review Request: perl-Hash-Util-FieldHash-Compat - Use Hash::Util::FieldHash or ties, depending on availability
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485206 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485000] Review Request: libbsr - Barrier Synchronization Register access 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=485000 --- Comment #8 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-02-12 07:43:47 EDT --- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles: A Fedora package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484933] Review Request: libwps - Library for reading and converting Microsoft Works word processor documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484933
Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugs.mich...@gmx.net
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bugs.mich...@gmx.net
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-02-12
07:45:29 EDT ---
Blockers:
mv %{buildroot}/%{_includedir}/%{name}-0.1/%{name}/*
%{buildroot}/%{_includedir}/%{name}/
rm -rf %{buildroot}/%{_includedir}/%{name}-0.1/
Not only should something like this be explained with a comment in the spec
file. Why is the default install location changed? Did you notice that this
breaks the pkgconfig files?
make install -p DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
This is not what you want. This is make --print-data-base ...!
Most likely you wanted: make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL=install -p
Have you looked into adding a %check section for make check?
$ rpmls -p /home/qa/tmp/rpm/RPMS/libwps-doc-0.1.2-1.fc10.i386.rpm
drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/libwps-0.1.2
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/libwps-0.1.2/CHANGES
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/libwps-0.1.2/COPYING
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/libwps-0.1.2/CREDITS
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/libwps-0.1.2/HACKING
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/libwps-0.1.2/README
These are only files, and they are also found in the main package.
I see you want to install doxygen docs, but here it didn't work out.
The %files section for the -doc subpackage is wrong, too, because
%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/
is the default location for all files in %doc lines.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484726] Review Request: impressive - The stylish way of giving presentations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484726 --- Comment #2 from Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com 2009-02-12 07:52:50 EDT --- Update package: Spec URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/impressive/impressive.spec SRPM URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/impressive/impressive-0.10.2-2.fc10.src.rpm Notes: - Pdftk is optional. See: http://impressive.sourceforge.net/manual.php#req -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485206] Review Request: perl-Hash-Util-FieldHash-Compat - Use Hash::Util::FieldHash or ties, depending on availability
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485206 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-02-12 08:05:46 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i386). koji build =http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1121479 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 7f5c4a37f1e3d9eb9530597fca299825 Hash-Util-FieldHash-Compat-0.03.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is NOT present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test outputs All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=27, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.01 usr 0.00 sys + 0.03 cusr 0.00 csys = 0.04 CPU) + Package perl-Hash-Util-FieldHash-Compat-0.03-1.fc11 - Provides: perl(Hash::Util::FieldHash::Compat) perl(Hash::Util::FieldHash::Compat::Destroyer) perl(Hash::Util::FieldHash::Compat::Tie::FieldHash) perl(Hash::Util::FieldHash::Compat::Tie::IdHash) Requires: perl(Scalar::Util) perl(Tie::Hash) perl(Tie::RefHash::Weak) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(vars) perl(warnings) 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 485207] Review Request: perl-Test-Assert - Assertion methods for those who like JUnit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485207 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-02-12 08:02:38 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i386). koji build =http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1121482 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url f14e7aafc0940cc6d02ead992d92d823 Test-Assert-0.0501.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test outputs All tests successful. Files=4, Tests=41, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.04 usr 0.01 sys + 0.50 cusr 0.05 csys = 0.60 CPU) + Package perl-Test-Assert-0.0501-1.fc11 - Provides: perl(Exception::Assertion) = 0.05 perl(Test::Assert) = 0.05 Requires: perl = 0:5.006 perl(Exception::Base) perl(Exception::Base) = 0.21 perl(Exporter) perl(constant) perl(constant::boolean) perl(strict) perl(warnings) Suggestions: 1)Make sure to filter one of the following Requires: perl(Exception::Base) perl(Exception::Base) = 0.21 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 485207] Review Request: perl-Test-Assert - Assertion methods for those who like JUnit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485207 Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com 2009-02-12 08:10:30 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Test-Assert Short Description: Assertion methods for those who like JUnit Owners: allisson Branches: F-9 F-10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485000] Review Request: libbsr - Barrier Synchronization Register access 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=485000 --- Comment #9 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-02-12 08:07:29 EDT --- And that really refers only to the rpmbuild warning: File listed twice ...? I have doubts about that (and I've done packaging guidelines stuff long enough). Let me explain: 1.) That guideline would only be somewhat important for actual files (and not directories). The rationale is simple: By mistake one can include a file more than once in the same %files section (which does not do any harm!) and not notice this when moving the file to the %files section of another subpackage. Then you end up with the same file in multiple packages. That's bad, as it can cause side-effects. 2.) That guideline would be more important if it referred to files listed in multiple subpackages. Because that is something rpmbuild does NOT detect. So, once again, consider it a hint/documentation on what packagers might want to know about when creating packages. Still no reason to require a package submitter to spend extra time on building fresh rpms just for this. Here it was a simple redundant %dir entry. It can be pointed out and fixed in cvs. It's not a blocker-criterion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485206] Review Request: perl-Hash-Util-FieldHash-Compat - Use Hash::Util::FieldHash or ties, depending on availability
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485206 Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com 2009-02-12 08:09:29 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Hash-Util-FieldHash-Compat Short Description: Use Hash::Util::FieldHash or ties, depending on availability Owners: allisson Branches: F-9 F-10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483045] Review Request: perl-Test-Unit-Lite - Unit testing without external 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=483045 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #6 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de 2009-02-12 08:13:59 EDT --- This package suffers from a larger number of clashes with perl-Test-Unit: (In reply to comment #2) + Package perl-Test-Unit-Lite-0.1101-1.fc11 = Provides: perl(Test::Unit::Debug) perl(Test::Unit::HarnessUnit) perl(Test::Unit::Lite) = 0.11 perl(Test::Unit::Lite::AllTests) perl(Test::Unit::Result) perl(Test::Unit::TestCase) perl(Test::Unit::TestRunner) perl(Test::Unit::TestSuite) # rpm -ql --provides perl-Test-Unit .. perl(Test::Unit::Result) .. perl(Test::Unit::Runner) perl(Test::Unit::TestCase) .. perl(Test::Unit::TestRunner) perl(Test::Unit::TestSuite) I'd suggest to filter these out of perl-Test-Unit-Lite -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 451744] Review Request: root - The CERN analyzer for high to medium energy physics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451744 --- Comment #10 from Kostas Georgiou k.georg...@imperial.ac.uk 2009-02-12 08:12:24 EDT --- I have a spec file that I use locally (we are an HEP group) but it's by no means ready to be included in fedora. From what I remember some of the problems are: * The M$ fonts have to go, we need to find suitable replacements and patch the code * Licesing could be an issue with other parts of root beyond the fonts, getting some advice from the legal team is probably a good idea * Some libraries are unversioned (xrootd, proofd. If I remember correctly) * Most of the servers use no authentication in their default setup so the configs need to be changed to default to some strong authentication, people shouldn't end up exporting their homes without authentication just because they started a service. * I've been packaging cint (the c++ interpreter) on it's own subpackage since it can be usefull outside of root, the latest version of root doesn't build the binary anymore though and it looks like upstream is starting to use cint on it's own (http://root.cern.ch/drupal/content/cint). It might be worthwhile to check if root can use the external cint to avoid code duplication. * find a solution for libafterimage -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226348] Merge Review: python-virtinst
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226348 Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED CC||mar...@redhat.com Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE --- Comment #5 from Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com 2009-02-12 09:20:06 EDT --- closing -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480887] Review Request: kguitar - Guitar Tabulature Music Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480887 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-12 10:15:49 EDT --- Okay, good. --- This package (kguitar) 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 474044] Review Request: libzdb - A small, fast, and easy to use database API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474044 --- Comment #11 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-02-12 10:18:12 EDT --- Well, the EXCEPTIONS does not violate the GPLv3. It grants additional rights, not restrictions. It is clearly derived from the MySQL linking exception, but, it is not identical. The MySQL exception says: A FOSS application developer (you or your) may distribute a Derivative Work provided that you and the Derivative Work meet all of the following conditions: The libzdb EXCEPTIONS says: You are free to distribute the Program and link the Program with Work licensed under one or more of the Open Source licenses listed below in section 2, as long as: The wording here is precise, the GPLv3 defines the term the Program as: “The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License. Each licensee is addressed as “you”. This is different from a derived, or modified work, which is given a separate definition in the GPLv3: To “modify” a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a “modified version” of the earlier work or a work “based on” the earlier work. So, since EXCEPTIONS explicitly grants linking exceptions to The Program, but not to modified versions, it only applies to an unmodified libzdb. Since we are making modifications (and even if we were not, because we would want the right to do so), we cannot leverage the EXCEPTIONS. However, we are not required to do so (which is why it doesn't violate the GPLv3), so we choose not to. The historical reference is made to show that the upstream's intent in with EXCEPTIONS shows a reasonably malicious history. Accordingly, where we might assume ignorance in the choice of wording in the EXCEPTIONS text in a similar scenario, we can not in this specific case. I would advise that we not package the EXCEPTIONS file, as it is of little value to anyone. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484379] Review Request: hartke-aurulent-sans-fonts - A sans-serif font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484379 Paul Lange pala...@gmx.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Paul Lange pala...@gmx.de 2009-02-12 10:18:15 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: hartke-aurulent-fonts Short Description: A sans-serif font for use as primary interface font Owners: palango Branches: devel only InitialCC: fonts-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483045] Review Request: perl-Test-Unit-Lite - Unit testing without external 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=483045 --- Comment #7 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-02-12 10:32:55 EDT --- Ralf, Please help me to understand how to avoid such clashes in future perl package reviews? I think I just looked into code and see what META.yml said as provides. Also, I successfully installed this package using rpm command where I have already installed perl-Test-Unit. Did I miss anything in this review for such clash? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474044] Review Request: libzdb - A small, fast, and easy to use database API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474044 --- Comment #12 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-02-12 11:08:21 EDT --- Quote: the GNU General Public Licensed Zild Database Library (the `Program') This is how the file EXCEPTIONS uses the term the Program. The GPL allows modifying the Program. That's a non-issue even when applying the exceptions. Quote: You obey the GPL in all respects for the Program and the Work Well, the EXCEPTIONS does not violate the GPLv3. It grants additional rights, not restrictions. 1 b.ii is an added restriction. It takes away freedom. It overrules the licence used for the Work when linking with the Program. Even copyright holders of libzdb cannot do that. For example: Assume I link (L)GPLv2 licensed Work with libzdb + EXCEPTIONS, then 1 b.ii requires me to do more than what would be necessary with just the (L)GPLv2. I stick to my earlier POV, choosing GPLv3+ only is okay as one of the multiple licencing options. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474044] Review Request: libzdb - A small, fast, and easy to use database API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474044 --- Comment #13 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-02-12 11:13:57 EDT --- Well, then while we disagree on our interpretations, we draw the same conclusion, so I see no real problem here. ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483615] Review Request: CodeAnalyst - Performance Analysis Suite for AMD-based System (based on Oprofile)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483615 --- Comment #6 from Suravee Suthikulpanit suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com 2009-02-12 11:20:28 EDT --- Responding to Comment #5: 1) ### which were used to partition b/w different group of macro is now removed. 2) desktop-file-validate command has been removed 3) CodeAnalyst needs these .so files for running. However, I will add the version for these shared library and clean up the installation. 4) The buildroot value is now fixed. 5) Generally, CodeAnalyst package (upstream) distributes not only the GUI, but also the modified-oprofile commandline tools and oprofile daemon. Since the package here distributes only the GUI, the name is changed to communicate the difference. 6) We will be using only $RPM_OPT_FLAGS. 7) I will get back with the fix detail. 8) Bump the version due to changes in the CodeAnalyst and not just the packaging related changes. From now on, I will keep the version number fixed until next version changes. Thank you for your time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483045] Review Request: perl-Test-Unit-Lite - Unit testing without external 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=483045 --- Comment #8 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de 2009-02-12 11:33:04 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) Please help me to understand how to avoid such clashes in future perl package reviews? These are hard to catch. The only semi-systematic approach I am aware about is to iterate through repoquery --whatprovides 'perl(..)' on all provides a perl package provides. I only caught these in this particular case, because another package BR'ed: perl(Test::Unit::TestCase), which resulted into this: # repoquery --whatprovides 'perl(Test::Unit::TestCase)' perl-Test-Unit-0:0.25-4.fc9.noarch perl-Test-Unit-0:0.25-4.fc9.noarch perl-Test-Unit-Lite-0:0.1101-1.fc10.noarch I think I just looked into code and see what META.yml said as provides. Also, I successfully installed this package using rpm command where I have already installed perl-Test-Unit. Right, I am also observing this, but ... what is BR: perl(Test::Unit::TestCase) supposed to do? IMO, to pull-in the actual perl(Test::Unit::TestCase) module, i.e. the version from perl-Test-Unit, not the lite version from perl-Test-Unit-Lite. I fear, we are facing the tip of an iceberg of hidden issues. Did I miss anything in this review for such clash? Strictly speaking, yes - but we all are humans :-) I likely also would not have caught this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484931] Renaming Review Request: hosts3d - 3D real-time network visualiser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484931
--- Comment #5 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-02-12
11:38:17 EDT ---
Good:
+ Base name of the SPEC file metches with package name.
+ Package name fullfill the naming guidelines
+ Package contains current release of the application
+ Could download sources from upstream
+ Packaged souces metches with upstream one.
(md5sum: 260c55fe010520cbe894c97b224f996b)
+ Package contains valid license tag
+ License tag contains GPLv2+ as an valid OSS license
+ License on the license tag fit with copyright note of
the included source files
+ Package contains verbatin copy of the license text
+ Proper use of the %{?dist] tag
+ Proper defintion of the Buildroot
+ Buildroot will been cleaned on the beginning of %clean and %install
+ Consistently rpm macro usage
+ Package use parallel build
+ Local build works fine.
+ Koji build works fine.
+ Rpmlint is quite on source rpm
+ Rpmlint is quite on binary rpm
+ Rpmlint is quite on debuginfo package
+ Files hat proper files permissions
+ %files stanza has no duplicated entries
+ All packaged files are owned by the package
+ %doc stanza is small, so we need no deparate subpackage
+ package contains desktop entry file.
+ Proper %changelog
Bad:
- Please change Provides of the main package and the subpackage as
discussed in comment #3
- Package doesn't honor $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
- Please remove the -p switch on make install
- Debuginfo package contains no sources
Question:
* Does the sampler subpackage not requires the main subpackage?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484547] Review Request: pyfacebook - Python wrapper for Facebook's API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484547 --- Comment #2 from Ian Weller ianwel...@gmail.com 2009-02-12 11:48:28 EDT --- - [ BAD ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. http://wiki.developers.facebook.com/index.php/Python says there has not yet been a release. The Version should be 0 and Release should follow the pre-release guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages However, a version is given with the package, and this version is used in the Python egg distributed with the package. http://code.google.com/p/pyfacebook/source/browse/trunk/setup.py#6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483045] Review Request: perl-Test-Unit-Lite - Unit testing without external 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=483045 --- Comment #9 from Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com 2009-02-12 11:59:48 EDT --- Hi, Please take a look in this scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1122217 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 463767] Review Request: cloog - The Chunky Loop Generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463767 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484726] Review Request: impressive - The stylish way of giving presentations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484726 --- Comment #3 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-02-12 12:03:30 EDT --- Good: + License tag contains the correct entry GPLv2 + Package contains empty %build stanza with comment Bad. - You should a deja-sans-fonts as a Req.(Please koop in mind, that the packagename was change from F-10 to F-11) - I see no effort to create a wrapper script using the opengl-wrapper script.Please us something like this: #!/bin/bash . /usr/share/opengl-games-utils/opengl-game-functions.sh GAME=`basename $0 | sed 's/-wrapper.*//'` checkDriOK $GAME exec $GAME $@ as an template for your own efforts -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483205] Review Request: eclipse-systemtapgui - GUI interface for SystemTap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483205 Anithra anit...@linux.vnet.ibm.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #28 from Anithra anit...@linux.vnet.ibm.com 2009-02-12 13:14:35 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: eclipse-systemtapgui Short Description: GUI interface for SystemTap Owners: anithra 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 483663] Review Request: tetgen - A tetrahedral mesh generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483663 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||tcall...@redhat.com Resolution||CANTFIX --- Comment #2 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-02-12 13:21:38 EDT --- Indeed. This not MIT but a poorly worded custom license with a clear commercial use restriction. Closing this out as CANTFIX. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474356] Review Request: trilead-ssh2 - SSH-2 protocol implementation in pure Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474356 --- Comment #16 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2009-02-12 13:24:02 EDT --- Robert, I hope you have some time for this soon so I can go on with subclipse. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484323] Review Request: perl-KinoSearch - Search engine 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=484323 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com Blocks|182235 | --- Comment #7 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-02-12 13:25:30 EDT --- I'm fine with Lubomir's assessment in Comment #5. Lifting FE-Legal. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483025] Review Request: imms - Adaptive playlist framework tracking and adapting to your listening patterns
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483025 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-02-12 13:26:30 EDT --- Any update on the licensing issue? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481507] Review Request: clanship - Battleship clone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481507 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #6 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-02-12 13:36:32 EDT --- Yeah, this is clearly a problem. IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. covers the use of the trademark Battleship for computer game programs and accessories for use therewith., so we need to step very carefully here. Clanship is a little closer to Battleship than I would like. Given that upstream seems to be dead here, I'm inclined for us to push to rename this in our distribution, because we would be acting as upstream here. Try to avoid using Battle or Ship. Also, the summary borders on trademark infringement with Battleship clone. Try very hard to describe the game without using the Battleship trademark in both the Summary and Description. If you can't do that, let me know, and we'll try to figure out a way to use the mark in the bounds of Fair Use. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480724] Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com Blocks|182235 | --- Comment #6 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-02-12 13:38:59 EDT --- This code is in the Public Domain, should not be a legal issue as long as it is marked properly in the spec file (which it is). Lifting FE-Legal. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484931] Renaming Review Request: hosts3d - 3D real-time network visualiser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484931 --- Comment #7 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-02-12 13:51:01 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=331729) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=331729) Suggested SPEC file with include proposal Patch This SPEC file use a patch attached to this review request to patch the configure script. this is required, because the configure script overwrites the CXXFLAGS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484931] Renaming Review Request: hosts3d - 3D real-time network visualiser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484931
--- Comment #6 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-02-12
13:48:14 EDT ---
Created an attachment (id=331728)
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=331728)
Patch to get honor %{optflags}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC 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 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com Blocks|182235 | --- Comment #7 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-02-12 13:49:45 EDT --- There is no legal problem here, I see the notes in 472144 about the relicensing. Please be sure you update the spec appropriately as upstream cleans up (and simplifies) their licensing. Lifting FE-Legal here, leaving it on tvbrowser for now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483663] Review Request: tetgen - A tetrahedral mesh generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483663 --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-02-12 14:08:47 EDT --- Someone should let berlios know that this software should not be hosted there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 449037] Review Request: afio - cpio compatible archiver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449037 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX --- Comment #24 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-02-12 14:15:05 EDT --- I'm going to close this as CANTFIX, after consult with Simon Phipps at Sun. There is a possibility that Sun holds the copyright here, but that information is deep deep deep in storage, and Sun would have to spend a significant amount of $$$ to have that information pulled out of its off-site archives. Short of a lawsuit, this isn't going to happen. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472792] Review Request: jempbox - A Java library that implements Adobe's XMP specification
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472792 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com Blocks|182235 | --- Comment #5 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-02-12 14:19:12 EDT --- Everything checks out here. Lifting FE-Legal. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483320] Review Request: CodeAnalyst - Performance Analysis Suite for AMD-based System (based on Oprofile)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483320 William Cohen wco...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wco...@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 483615] Review Request: CodeAnalyst - Performance Analysis Suite for AMD-based System (based on Oprofile)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483615 --- Comment #7 from Suravee Suthikulpanit suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com 2009-02-12 15:24:02 EDT --- Responding to Comment #5 7) I have added the /var/lock/subsys/codeanalyst which is created after the service is started, and removed when stopped. I also change the name of the service to /etc/init.d/codeanalyst. Regarding the warning service-default-enabled, codeanalyst service requires root to start/stop. Without the default runlevel information, non-root users cannot run the profile after the system is rebooted. However, we do not attempt to start after the package installation or upgrade as stated in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript#Why_don.27t_we Please let me know if this post a problem. Suravee -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468189] Review Request: rear - Relax and Recovery (disaster recovery framework)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468189
Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.d
||e
--- Comment #23 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de 2009-02-12
15:25:57 EDT ---
I don't know rear, but when looking to the package, I've got a few points:
- /usr/share/rear/CHANGES, /usr/share/rear/COPYING, /usr/share/rear/README,
you're shipping twice. Kill the files in /usr/share/rear, because one time
using %doc is enough.
- Why is /etc/rear/templates/EFI_readme.txt marked as configuration file? Is
it a configuration file? Either it's a readme or it is a configuration file;
but if it's readme, it should go into %doc from my point of view.
- What's /etc/rear/templates/RESULT_*? Looks like readmes as well, yes/no?
- /usr/share/doc/rear-1.7.15/rear.8 is shipped already in %{_mandir}, so please
not also in %doc, twice is too much.
- /usr/share/rear/doc contains stuff, which is already covered by %doc and/or
%{_mandir}, so please do not ship the directory at the RPM package.
- Is /usr/share/rear meant to be readonly? /usr/share/rear/skel looks to me as
it would be used read-writeable as well.
- I'm not sure, whether /var/rear is correct, what will this directory contain
when it is in regular use?
- You maybe want to use BuildArch rather BuildArchitectures, but that is
just cosmetic.
- Do you really need binutils as during runtime? Just wondering...
I don't expect you to change all my stuff mentioned above, various has maybe
to get discussed first. Can somebody summarize how /usr/share/rear is used and
which meaning it has? No changing content during rear usage?
Maybe more will come up, that's what I discovered with the first run...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225797] Review Request: gimp-data-extras
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225797 --- Comment #16 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-02-12 15:51:30 EDT --- I thought I had commented on this already, but it seems not. Drat. I've added this workaround. And the package indeed builds fine. Uh, that's because I'm a stickler for eye-pleasing and I wanted to reserve the -1 release for the version to import into Fedora CVS. I admit to not really understanding why anyone would care, but as long as what gets checked in is correct then I don't see a problem. I've checked with upstream and they told me I should consider it as GPLv2+. [...] I can attach an IRC log snippet if necessary. Can you include that in the package? I checked with spot and he indicated that this is OK as long as you're reasonably certain that the person you were communicating with is the copyright holder. Obviously it will be academic once a version is out, but until then we have to clarify the license. -- 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 483865] Review Request: bpg-fonts - Georgian Unicode fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483865 --- Comment #6 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-02-12 16:08:45 EDT --- New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/bpg-fonts-20090205-2.fc11.src.rpm New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/bpg-fonts.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 468631] Review Request: libgarmin - C library to parse and use Garmin image 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=468631 --- Comment #10 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-12 16:07:54 EDT --- Updated files SPEC: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/libgarmin.spec SRPM: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/garmintools-0.09-2.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468631] Review Request: libgarmin - C library to parse and use Garmin image 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=468631 --- Comment #11 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-02-12 16:13:10 EDT --- Fabian, please keep the spec file name the same as the SRPM name. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481428] Review Request: rednotebook - A desktop diary
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481428 --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-12 16:25:00 EDT --- * Thu Feb 12 2009 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net - 0.5.5-1 - Updated to new upstream version 0.5.5 Updated files Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/rednotebook.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/rednotebook-0.5.5-1.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 468189] Review Request: rear - Relax and Recovery (disaster recovery framework)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468189 Schlomo Schapiro red...@schlomo.schapiro.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(gratien.dha...@it ||3.be) --- Comment #24 from Schlomo Schapiro red...@schlomo.schapiro.org 2009-02-12 16:29:58 EDT --- Hi, I can shed some light on these questions. - ReaR comes as a self-contained package without any dedicated source distribution. This means that every ReaR installation contains everything needed to make a new package (e.g. rear mkrpm). This is very important for the ReaR development process which requires the developer to *trash* the development machine for each and every test. So we simply edit the files, do rear mkrpm, copy aside the RPM and try whether ReaR works (e.g. recovers the system). As a result some files exist twice, once in their source location under /usr/share/rear and once in their installed location (%doc, %mandir). Since the locations for these are not the same throughout all Linux distros it would be difficult to always collect them from their (possibly unknown) installed location prior to creating the RPM. - the files under /etc/rear are all files that the end-user should change to suit their environment. The *.conf files are actual configurations and the other files are templates that are used by ReaR to create for example the readme file that resides on the ReaR Rescue CD or the email that is sent. So yes, they look like a readme and they are in fact a readme but not for ReaR as a package but for the result that ReaR creates (the rescue media). - in /var/rear we create the recovery data which is machine-dependant and obviously not part of the shipped RPM package - /usr/share/rear should be 755, must be a copy bug somewhere or in the SPEC file. We will fix this of course, no question. HTH, Schlomo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468631] Review Request: libgarmin - C library to parse and use Garmin image 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=468631 --- Comment #12 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-12 16:55:50 EDT --- Sorry, wrong URL http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/libgarmin-0-0.5.20090212svn.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 453422] Review Request: songbird - Mozilla based multimedia player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422 --- Comment #27 from David Halik auralva...@gmail.com 2009-02-12 17:30:10 EDT --- @Nikolay I looked into the symlinking issue. There was a bug open on this upstream that has now been fixed and allows for proper symlinking to the mozilla wrapper script. http://bugzilla.songbirdnest.com/show_bug.cgi?id=13265 1.1 is due out in the next week or two and this fix will be in it. @kwizart I implemented some more fixes and spun rev 3. It's located here: http://rpm.rutgers.edu/fedora/songbird.spec http://rpm.rutgers.edu/fedora/songbird-1.0.0-3.fc10.src.rpm The mozilla startup script I just discussed sets up the proper LD paths to ensure that songbird only uses the provided internal libraries, but I see what you're getting at with the other package provides. I'm looking at the other mozilla packages to ensure that songbird is filtered and doesn't end up providing libxul.so (and others) to the general package population. I also trimmed the vendor source ball to only the required packages. The src.rpm is a much more managable size now. With the next release coming out soon I'm going to try and work with upstream (stevel) to get a reduced size tarball next time. Right now the two major bugs I see are the symlinking wrapper issue in 13265 (which will be fixed soon) and filtering the internal provides to only the necessary ones. Anything else stand out as an obvious problem? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457160] Review Request: Zorba - General purpose XQuery processor implemented 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=457160
--- Comment #12 from Paul F. Kunz paulfk...@gmail.com 2009-02-12 18:08:58
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #11)
I'd like to see some fixes prior to further reviewing. It's not trivial to
review the current packaging:
Thanks for the detailed review as it was.
BuildRequires: cmake = 2.4 libxml2-devel = 2.2.16 icu = 2.6 libicu-devel
It's highly recommended to put on BuildRequires per line and either sort them
alphabetically or group them appropriately.
Good idea, I've cleaned it up and it does indeed look a lot better.
icu is 2.6 for several years. Even in RHEL 5.
Ok, version number removed for icu
Please reconsider the decision to list the versions. Often packagers forget to
keep them up-to-date.
I took versions required from upstream build documentation.
sh: ruby: command not found
BuildRequires: ruby is missing.
Indeed, fixed.
-- Warning: GNU Bison not available -- the parser will not be regenerated
-- Warning: GNU Flex not available -- the lexer will not be regenerated
I thought these were on every system, guess not.
-- PHP5 binding not generated because library and include file not
installed.
Had to add php-cli as well as php-devel for cmake to find it.
-- Looking for doxygen... - NOT found
Added doxygen, grapviz for doxygen was already there.
-- Can't build Zorba with TIDY support because TIDY is not found.
BuildRequires: libtidy-devel makes it happy. If you don't want that, adding
a
Added it.
-- Found PythonInterp: /usr/bin/python2.5
-- Could NOT find PythonLibs (missing: PYTHON_LIBRARIES
PYTHON_INCLUDE_PATH)
-- Python binding not generated because library and include file not
installed.
BuildRequires: python-devel is missing.
Correct, so I addedit.
%description devel
The %{name}-devel package contains headers for building applications
that use %{zorba}.
%{zorba} is undefined.
Fixed it should have been %{name}
cmake
There are guidelines for proper cmake usage:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Cmake
Thanks for the pointer.
In particular, execute make VERBOSE=1 ... for increased verbosity in the
build log.
Done.
Then you will find that Fedora's global optimisation flags are not used. This
needs another look after the cmake related fixes.
%files
%{_libdir}/*.so.%{version}
This means that any version upgrade will break ABI compatibility with any
programs linked against this library. That's an indication of an unstable API,
ongoing heavy development, or developers who haven't got the versioning scheme
right.
Fixed.
%dir %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}
%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}
The %dir statement here is superfluous, because the second line already
includes the %name-%version directory and all its contents recursively. You're
advised to make them more explicit with a trailing slash. Like this:
%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}/
Fixed.
%files devel
Here several directories are not included.
In particular:
%dir %{_includedir}/%{name}
%dir %{_includedir}/%{name}/%{name}
%dir %{_includedir}/%{name}/%{name}/util
%dir %{_includedir}/%{name}/simplestore
%dir %{_includedir}/%{name}/simplestore/msdom
%dir %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}/python
%dir %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}/python/examples
%dir %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}/python/html
%dir %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}/ruby
%dir %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}/ruby/examples
%dir %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}/ruby/html
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
You could shrink your %files list much by including entire trees recursively
or
by increased usage of '*' wildcards where appropriate. Else the only option is
to add as many of the missing %dir statements as necessary.
Added the missing %dir
SRPM: ftp://zorba-xquery.com/zorba-0.9.5-2.fc10.src.rpm
SPEC: ftp://zorba-xquery.com/zorba.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 484726] Review Request: impressive - The stylish way of giving presentations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484726 --- Comment #4 from Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com 2009-02-12 18:50:48 EDT --- Update package: Spec URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/impressive/impressive.spec SRPM URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/impressive/impressive-0.10.2-3.fc10.src.rpm Notes: - Added OpenGL wrapper. - Fix requires for dejavu fonts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485000] Review Request: libbsr - Barrier Synchronization Register access 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=485000 Tony Breeds t...@bakeyournoodle.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Tony Breeds t...@bakeyournoodle.com 2009-02-12 19:22:46 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: libbsr Short Description: Barrier Synchronization Register access library Owners: tbreeds Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5 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 484547] Review Request: pyfacebook - Python wrapper for Facebook's API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484547 --- Comment #3 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2009-02-12 20:00:45 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) However, a version is given with the package, and this version is used in the Python egg distributed with the package. http://code.google.com/p/pyfacebook/source/browse/trunk/setup.py#6 Then the version is ok. You still need to follow the pre-release guidelines and use a 0.X release tag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462521] Review Request: simplyhtml - Application and a java component for rich text processing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462521 --- Comment #10 from John Guthrie guth...@counterexample.org 2009-02-12 23:06:15 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) Good news -- looks like there's a newer version of ElementTreePanel included in the java-1.6.0-openjdk-demo package inside /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/demo/jfc/Notepad/src.zip. According to the fedora-devel-java mailing list (same thread as before), you should just be able to delete the included version and copy this one in instead. The license will have to become something like GPLv2+ and BSD (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios). That is S cool. I was very seriously considering deleting the class and removing the code from the package. Thank you so much for finding this replacement. In any event, I have successfully replaced ExampleFileFilter with FileNameExtensionFilter. The result can be seen here: http://www.guthrie.info/RPMS/f10/simplyhtml-0.12.5-3.fc10.src.rpm. The new spec file has the same URL as given above. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471003] Review Request: cabal-install - Haskell package utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471003 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-02-12 23:11:47 EDT --- Thanks, Bryan, for reviewing. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: cabal-install Short Description: Haskell package (hackage) tool Owners: petersen Branches: F-10 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462521] Review Request: simplyhtml - Application and a java component for rich text processing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462521 --- Comment #11 from John Guthrie guth...@counterexample.org 2009-02-12 23:18:21 EDT --- What would be the proper/preferred way to include this newer ElementTreePanel.java file? Would I want to just extract the file myself and include it in the SRPM as another source file, or would I want to specify a java-1.6.0-openjdk-demo as a BuildRequirement, and then extract the java file from that package during the %prep phase? (The java file would not be included with the SRPM in the latter option, of course.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485000] Review Request: libbsr - Barrier Synchronization Register access 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=485000 --- Comment #11 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-02-12 23:30:02 EDT --- Michael, since you did the review, could you please assign this bug to yourself ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485052] Review Request: mingw32-crossreport - Analysis tool to help cross-compilation to Windows
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485052 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-13 01:34:31 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484379] Review Request: hartke-aurulent-sans-fonts - A sans-serif font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484379 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-13 01:36:03 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485000] Review Request: libbsr - Barrier Synchronization Register access 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=485000 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #12 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-13 01:32:18 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471003] Review Request: cabal-install - Haskell package utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471003 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #12 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-13 01:41:13 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457213] Review Request: html2text - HTML-to-text converter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457213 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #34 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-13 01:39:47 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481192] Review Request: perl-pgsql_perl5 - Pg - Perl5 extension for PostgreSQL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481192 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-13 01:45:39 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471520] Review Request: rubygem-simple-rss - A simple, flexible, extensible, and liberal RSS and Atom reader for Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471520 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #14 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-13 01:44:27 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484323] Review Request: perl-KinoSearch - Search engine 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=484323 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-13 01:42:44 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485206] Review Request: perl-Hash-Util-FieldHash-Compat - Use Hash::Util::FieldHash or ties, depending on availability
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485206 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-13 01:49:52 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485207] Review Request: perl-Test-Assert - Assertion methods for those who like JUnit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485207 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-13 01:51:10 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485154] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Role-Cmd - Wrap system command binaries the Moose way
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485154 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-13 01:48:54 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483016] Package Review: perl-NOCpulse-Debug - Perl debug output 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=483016 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-13 01:52:50 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483730] Review Request: kde-plasma-translatoid - A Google Translation Plasmoid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483730 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #37 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-13 01:54:10 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483205] Review Request: eclipse-systemtapgui - GUI interface for SystemTap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483205 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #29 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-13 01:55:12 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484676] Review Request: eclipse-dtp - Eclipse Data Tools Platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484676 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-13 01:57:48 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485186] Review Request: perl-MouseX-Types - Organize your Mouse types in libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485186 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-13 02:00:36 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484486] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Excel - Convert between DateTime and Excel dates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484486 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-13 01:58:50 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484975] Review Request: perl-Scope-Upper - Act on upper scopes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484975 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-13 02:01:40 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485015] Review Request: perl-Class-C3-Adopt-NEXT - Reduce one's dependency on NEXT
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485015 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-13 01:59:45 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485001] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Emulate-Class-Accessor-Fast - Emulate Class::Accessor::Fast behavior using Moose attributes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485001 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-13 02:03:19 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193210] Review Request: htmldoc - Convert HTML source files into HTML, PostScript, or PDF
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=193210 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #12 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-13 02:04:27 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239883] Review Request: powertop - power usage 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=239883 --- Comment #14 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-13 02:07:06 EDT --- Jeremy: Ajax has no desire to maintain this for epel... would you like to do so? -- 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
