[Bug 444760] Review Request: obm - Open Business Management
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444760 --- Comment #19 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2009-02-14 03:06:58 EDT --- Notes : Typo error in %preun Satellite obmSatellite - obm-satellite Question Why the mysql subpackage requires obm main package ? Shouldn't we be able to install the database on a different server than the UI ? A solution is to make obm a meta package to install all the component at the same time (including database and SGBD, what most user need), and a subpackage for the UI (for expert users who want to split installation). It could be a good idea to have a separate package for Artichow lib to avoid multiple installation. License for Artichow is Public Domain /etc/obm : owned by obm and obm-config /etc/obm-satellite : not owned -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480279] Package Review for gnome-globalmenu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480279
François Kooman fkoo...@tuxed.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fkoo...@tuxed.net
--- Comment #2 from François Kooman fkoo...@tuxed.net 2009-02-14 06:36:12
EDT ---
- build it in Mock to find all the missing build requirements, there are quite
some I found out when trying to rebuild the SRPM without having all the
required build requirements installed {libwnck-devel, libnotify-devel???,
gnome-menus-devel, xfce4-panel-devel}
- run rpmlint on the spec, the srpm and the generated RPMs to find more
problems.
- The BuildRoot doesn't follow Guidelines.
- The description lines are too long, wrap them
Cool there is a package for 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 485418] Review Request: vgabios - vga option rom for bochs/qemu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485418 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lemen...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-02-14 06:39:52 EDT --- I'll review it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485417] Review Request: bochs-bios - bios implementation from the bochs project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485417 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lemen...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-02-14 06:40:21 EDT --- I'll review it -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485542] Review Request: breip-font - The Breip handwriting-style cursive 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=485542
--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-02-14
06:38:13 EDT ---
1. If you have access to the fonts sources, please start by removing the
pre-built *.ttf and *.otf and only ship the result of your build in the noarch
package
2. Do not try to package both ttf and otf formats
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Choosing_the_right_font_format_to_package
3. The otf file in the archive looks suspiciously bigger thant the ttf file,
and it has a newer timestamp. Please check with upstream it was actually build
from the packaged sfds and not from a more recent version they forgot to
publish
4. You need to add fontforge to buildrequires if you want you package to build
in mock/koji. If you want to maintain packages in Fedora it's a good idea to
install mock on your system
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects/Mock
5. you can drop
%dir %{_fontdir}
for fedora-devel (will probably change the behaviour of the macros in F9 and
F10 too soonish)
6. your fontconfig file is not finished
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485420] Review Request: openbios - Open Source implementation of IEEE 1275-1994
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485420 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lemen...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-02-14 06:39:32 EDT --- I'll review it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485420] Review Request: openbios - Open Source implementation of IEEE 1275-1994
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485420 --- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-02-14 06:43:17 EDT --- Blocker - missing fcode utils as BuildReqires. You should consider packaging them also. http://www.openfirmware.info/FCODE_suite -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 --- Comment #6 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-02-14 07:42:06 EDT --- My mistake. I was in a rpm -qp over all the rpm files in the folder and did not notice that the src.rpm was involved. We are fine as we are, sorry. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 482757] Review Request: objcryst-fox - Viewing and solving crystal structures from powder diffraction 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=482757 --- Comment #2 from Pascal pascal...@parois.net 2009-02-14 08:29:39 EDT --- Update to match new upstream release. srpm: http://fedora.debroglie.net/SRPMS/10/objcryst-fox-1.8.0.3-1.fc10.debroglie.src.rpm spec: http://svn.debroglie.net/specs/trunk/objcryst-fox.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 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 Blocks|182235 | --- Comment #4 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-02-14 08:56:44 EDT --- Yeah, this is sufficient for Fedora Legal. 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 485563] New: Review Request: fsarchiver - Safe and flexible file-system backup/deployment tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: fsarchiver - Safe and flexible file-system backup/deployment tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485563 Summary: Review Request: fsarchiver - Safe and flexible file-system backup/deployment tool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: adel.gadl...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://193.200.113.196/apache2-default/rpm/fsarchiver.spec SRPM URL: http://193.200.113.196/apache2-default/rpm/fsarchiver-0.4.1-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: fsarchiver can backup filesystems and restore the result on a different filesystem (even if the type and the size of the new differs) while preserving attributes like permissions, timestamps, symbolic-links,hard-links, extended-attributes, ... Koji scartch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1126566 rpmlint: 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454164] Review Request: tweet - A simple Twitter desktop client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454164 --- Comment #3 from Brian Pepple bdpep...@gmail.com 2009-02-14 09:35:20 EDT --- It looks like Emmanuele stopped developing Tweet, but he did remove twitter-glib from the project and he just did a release (0.9.2) of that 2 days ago that would probably be worthwhile to add to Fedora if your interested. http://github.com/ebassi/twitter-glib/downloads -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 426751] Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426751 Michel Alexandre Salim michel.syl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485496] Review request of geglmm - the C++ Binding to the GEGL 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=485496
Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-14
12:33:40 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #0)
It's spitting an only-non-binary-in-usr-lib error, and I think it's because of
the things that are being install in %{_libdir}, like the m4 files, the
pkgconfig files and the configuration header files.
+ rpmlint won't complain for pkgconfig file as only-non-binary-in-usr-lib,
however for m4 files and header file rpmlint currently complains.
For this package this rpmlint can be ignored.
Then:
Some random notes:
- Please consider to use %{?dist} macro:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag
- Source0 must be given with full URL:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
- gegl-devel Requires babl-devel, so BuildRequires: babl-devel
is redundant.
- Usually the dependencies between binary rpms rebuilt from
a srpm must be EVR (not just version) specific.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
- This srpm won't build on dist-f11:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1126647
- We recommend %defattr(-,root,root,-)
- Please consider to add the following files
AUTHORS
COPYING
COPYING.LESSER
to main package and
ChangeLog
to -devel package.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480538] Review Request: iptux -- a tool for sharing and transporting files and directories in Lan
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480538 --- Comment #22 from Liang Suilong liangsuil...@gmail.com 2009-02-14 13:22:44 EDT --- Thank you Mamoru Tasaka I have corrected the errors. Could you review again? Also, I have upgraded iptux to 0.4.5-rc1. But this version is not an official release. Maybe there are some bugs. But Building it is quite OK. Here is URL: SPEC (I have upgraded to 0.4.5-rc1) http://liangsuilong.fedorapeople.org/iptux/iptux.spec SPRM (0.4.5-rc1) http://liangsuilong.fedorapeople.org/iptux/iptux-0.4.5-0.1.rc1.fc11.src.rpm SPRM (0.4.4-2, the package has been updated, not that old package.) http://liangsuilong.fedorapeople.org/iptux/iptux-0.4.4-2.fc11.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 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 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #7 from Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2009-02-14 13:45:11 EDT --- Thanks for the review! :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #4 from Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2009-02-14 13:45:08 EDT --- Thanks for the review! :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480859] Review Request: diffuse - graphical diff 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=480859 Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-02-14 13:52:57 EDT --- Yes, lots of package spec files out there seem to work, but there are many packaging pitfalls, and suddenly the packages break in unexpected ways. ;-) [...] The packaging is fine now. diffuse-0.2.15-4.fc10.src.rpm : APPROVED [...] I see you don't have any other review requests currently, and the NEEDSPONSOR keyword is set. What are your plans with regard to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 --- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-02-14 14:02:32 EDT --- Preserving source tarball timestamps is not mandatory. And it is of only limited use (i.e. one can recognise the age of tarballs where timestamps are accurate, without listing its contents). Upon loading source archives into the lookaside cache, timestamps are lost 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 485418] Review Request: vgabios - vga option rom for bochs/qemu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485418
--- Comment #9 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-02-14 14:09:33
EDT ---
Blocker - it's a bad, bad idea, to use %{release} in source's naming scheme:
[pe...@sulaco SPECS]$ LANG=C rpmbuild -ba vgabios.spec
Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.6Ptmxi
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/petro/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ cd /home/petro/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ rm -rf vgabios-0.6
+ /usr/bin/gzip -dc /home/petro/rpmbuild/SOURCES/vgabios-0.6.tgz
+ /bin/tar -xf -
+ STATUS=0
+ '[' 0 -ne 0 ']'
+ cd vgabios-0.6
+ /bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w .
+ mkdir prebuilt
+ cd prebuilt
+ tar -zxf
/home/petro/rpmbuild/SOURCES/vgabios-binaries-0.6-0.2beta.fc10.tar.gz
tar: /home/petro/rpmbuild/SOURCES/vgabios-binaries-0.6-0.2beta.fc10.tar.gz:
Cannot open: No such file or directory
tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now
tar: Child returned status 2
tar: Error exit delayed from previous errors
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.6Ptmxi (%prep)
RPM build errors:
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.6Ptmxi (%prep)
[pe...@sulaco SPECS]$
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485418] Review Request: vgabios - vga option rom for bochs/qemu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485418 --- Comment #10 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-02-14 14:28:13 EDT --- I don't like the idea with shipping pre-built blobs. Please, explain, why we can't compile dev86 for non-x86 arches? http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/dev86/ I just commented out string with ExclusiveArch and it at least builds on my PowerPC. Will try to assembly this firmware with it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480279] Package Review for gnome-globalmenu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480279 Armin feng.sh...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||feng.sh...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Armin feng.sh...@gmail.com 2009-02-14 14:35:32 EDT --- ok, my turn to be picky: SPEC: - in line 2: put 2 % in the comment (#%%define) - yea, all descriptions are just too long. Cut them to about 80 characters per line - There should be a free line between %files. (xfce-panel and gnome-panel are squished together. I will try to build it now and see what I get. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485418] Review Request: vgabios - vga option rom for bochs/qemu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485418 --- Comment #11 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-02-14 14:37:53 EDT --- Ok, I successed in building it on my Mac Mini G4. However, I don't know how to test these blobs :). Anyway, here are my suggestions: * Provide dev86 for all arches (not only for x86/x86_64) * Mark this package as noarch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480249] Review Request: unalz - Decompression 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=480249 Lucian Langa co...@gnome.eu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Lucian Langa co...@gnome.eu.org 2009-02-14 14:37:49 EDT --- This is a simple package; it builds fine and rpmlint is silent. Review: OK source files match upstream: 974ff01225273f1ef70c5f1a2d27d25b219bc43719f90ea80e550feaab46876f unalz-0.64.tgz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK summary a short and concise description. OK description is OK. Ok dist tag is present. OK build root is sane. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. OK license text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). OK package installs properly. OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires are sane: unalz = 0.64-1.fc11 unalz(x86-64) = 0.64-1.fc11 = libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) OK %check is not present; no test suite upstream OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. 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 479903] Review Request: gdesklet-slideshow - Cycle through a collection of pictures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479903 MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479903] Review Request: gdesklet-slideshow - Cycle through a collection of pictures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479903 --- Comment #31 from MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2009-02-14 14:44:50 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: gdesklet-SlideShow Short Description: A slideshow of collection for gdesklets Owners: bioinfornat...@gmail.com Branches: F9 F10 InitialCC: bioinfornatics -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479594] Review Request: email - A command line SMTP client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479594 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@christoph-wickert.de --- Comment #3 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-02-14 14:47:31 EDT --- You should at least ask them and show them https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackagingTricks#Use_of_common_namespace -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485418] Review Request: vgabios - vga option rom for bochs/qemu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485418
--- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-02-14 14:53:29
EDT ---
Few more notes:
* No need to install %docs. It's enough to include them in %files, e.g.
instead of
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/vgabios
install -m 0644 README COPYING $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/vgabios
...
%files
...
%docdir %{_docdir}/vgabios/
%doc %{_docdir}/vgabios/README
%doc %{_docdir}/vgabios/COPYING
you should write only
%files
...
%doc README COPYING
* Source0 file doesn't match one, shipped within srpm:
[pe...@sulaco SOURCES]$ md5sum vgabios-0.6.tgz ~/Desktop/vgabios-0.6b.tgz
35ddf3eaf16abe546797ae9cc18cbd6e vgabios-0.6.tgz
36399621c4d6753e83a3cec3009c7183 /home/petro/Desktop/vgabios-0.6b.tgz
[pe...@sulaco SOURCES]$
Generally, it's not a problem if you need to ship different (from upstream)
source, but in case then you *really* need to modify upstream sources (or even
create tarball from VCS), you *must* provide instructions on how to create
exact the same source file in comments to your spec-file. See this spec-file as
an example:
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/flashrom/devel/flashrom.spec?view=markup
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480279] Package Review for gnome-globalmenu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480279 --- Comment #4 from Armin feng.sh...@gmail.com 2009-02-14 14:58:30 EDT --- add %defattr to the three %files sections following %files common. deps I got here: - intltool - libwnck-devel - many more... build it with mock: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects/Mock and you have to add a version to your last changelog. (non of your changelogs have versions =S ) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485420] Review Request: openbios - Open Source implementation of IEEE 1275-1994
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485420 --- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-02-14 15:23:00 EDT --- Ok, let's assume that you (or something else) already packaged fcode and you added proper BuildRequires into spec-file. Notes: * %prep section contains leftover (ls command) * This package must be marked as noarch * The same issue with %docs as in bz#485418 * I still think that shipping pre-build firmware is a bad idea. What prevents us to build them all from source on every arch? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485580] New: Review Request: netactview - Graphical network connections viewer for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: netactview - Graphical network connections viewer for Linux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485580 Summary: Review Request: netactview - Graphical network connections viewer for Linux Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: leigh123li...@googlemail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://dnmouse.org/fedora/netactview_review/netactview.spec SRPM URL: http://dnmouse.org/fedora/netactview_review/netactview-0.4.1-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Netactview is a graphical network connections viewer for Linux, similar in functionality with Netstat. It includes features like process information, host name retrieval, automatic refresh and sorting. It has a fully featured GTK 2 graphical interface. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 --- Comment #4 from Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org 2009-02-14 16:03:03 EDT --- Okay, I will drop the doc package and corerct my install argument and use the original pkgconfig location, but 1) why %check? 2) Timestamps [cassmod...@schafwiese Desktop]$ LC_ALL=C wget -N http://downloads.sourceforge.net/libwps/libwps-0.1.2.tar.gz --2009-02-13 18:21:12-- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/libwps/libwps-0.1.2.tar.gz Resolving downloads.sourceforge.net... 216.34.181.60 Connecting to downloads.sourceforge.net|216.34.181.60|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found Location: http://mesh.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/libwps/libwps-0.1.2.tar.gz [following] --2009-02-13 18:21:13-- http://mesh.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/libwps/libwps-0.1.2.tar.gz Resolving mesh.dl.sourceforge.net... 213.203.218.122 Connecting to mesh.dl.sourceforge.net|213.203.218.122|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found Location: http://213.203.218.125/l/li/libwps/libwps-0.1.2.tar.gz [following] --2009-02-13 18:21:13-- http://213.203.218.125/l/li/libwps/libwps-0.1.2.tar.gz Connecting to 213.203.218.125:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 413360 (404K) [application/octet-stream] Saving to: `libwps-0.1.2.tar.gz' 100%[==] 413,360 320K/s in 1.3s Last-modified header missing -- time-stamps turned off. 2009-02-13 18:21:14 (320 KB/s) - `libwps-0.1.2.tar.gz' saved [413360/413360] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-02-14 16:51:24 EDT --- I will drop the doc package Why? You don't build --without-docs. It is due to a packaging mistake in your spec file that the html docs are lost. They get installed (see build.log), but you overwrite the installed files with your %doc entries. Examine a -bi --short-circuit install with an empty %files list if you don't believe me. why %check? To run the unittests. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457916] Review Request: lmbench - lmbench benchmark tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457916 Eric Sandeen esand...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | --- Comment #9 from Eric Sandeen esand...@redhat.com 2009-02-14 16:49:26 EDT --- Ok, I'll take this one. Clearing the needsponsor blocker. I'll take a look at the proposed spec srpm this weekend if I can. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484644] Review Request: screenlets - Fully themeable mini-apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484644 --- Comment #2 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com 2009-02-14 16:58:41 EDT --- You will also need to add. BuildRequires:desktop-file-utils -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484644] Review Request: screenlets - Fully themeable mini-apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484644
leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leigh123li...@googlemail.co
||m
--- Comment #1 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com 2009-02-14
16:57:29 EDT ---
1. You need to validate the desktop file.
i.e
desktop-file-install --vendor --delete-original \
--dir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications \
--add-category X-Fedora \
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}-manager.desktop
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop
2. The summary is very vague and doesn't describe the package.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457916] Review Request: lmbench - lmbench benchmark tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457916 Eric Sandeen esand...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #10 from Eric Sandeen esand...@redhat.com 2009-02-14 17:03:05 EDT --- Hm, COPYING-2 in the tarball says: The set of programs and documentation known as lmbench are distributed under the Free Software Foundation's General Public License with the following additional restrictions (which override any conflicting restrictions in the GPL): 1. You may not distribute results in any public forum, in any publication, or in any other way if you have modified the benchmarks. 2. You may not distribute the results for a fee of any kind. This includes web sites which generate revenue from advertising. If you have modifications or enhancements that you wish included in future versions, please mail those to me, Larry McVoy, at l...@bitmover.com. spot, can we ship this? Thanks, -Eric -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484644] Review Request: screenlets - Fully themeable mini-apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484644 --- Comment #3 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com 2009-02-14 17:51:38 EDT --- Doesn't screenlets need to own the directories . /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/screenlets /usr/share/screenlets and /usr/share/screenlets-manager http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457916] Review Request: lmbench - lmbench benchmark tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457916 Eric Sandeen esand...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(kevinve...@fedora |needinfo?(tcall...@redhat.c |project.org)|om) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485586] New: Review Request: perl-Test-Kwalitee - Test the Kwalitee of a distribution before you release it
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-Kwalitee - Test the Kwalitee of a distribution before you release it https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485586 Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Kwalitee - Test the Kwalitee of a distribution before you release it 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-Kwalitee/perl-Test-Kwalitee.spec SRPM URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Test-Kwalitee/perl-Test-Kwalitee-1.01-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Kwalitee is an automatically-measurable gauge of how good your software is. That's very different from quality, which a computer really can't measure in a general sense. (If you can, you've solved a hard problem in computer science.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 482757] Review Request: objcryst-fox - Viewing and solving crystal structures from powder diffraction 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=482757 MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bioinfornat...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2009-02-14 18:03:16 EDT --- what's the rpmlint issue: rpmlint /home/builder/SPEC/objcryst-fox.spec rpmlint /home/builder/SRPMS/objcryst-fox-1.8.0.3-1.fc10.debroglie.src.rpm rpmlint /home/builder/RPMS/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480279] Package Review for gnome-globalmenu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480279 --- Comment #5 from Feng Yu rainwood...@gmail.com 2009-02-14 18:52:16 EDT --- I don't have sufficient harddisk for doing mock. I'll post the updated srpm + spec files for 0.7.4 once it is released. But would you take a look into this template file? http://code.google.com/p/gnome2-globalmenu/source/browse/trunk/gnome-globalmenu.spec.in -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477106] Review Request: unalz - Decompression 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=477106 Changwoo Ryu cw...@debian.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cw...@debian.org --- Comment #2 from Changwoo Ryu cw...@debian.org 2009-02-14 19:53:04 EDT --- Now that web page does not refer the non-free freeware license (which was actually for win32 exe file distribution) anymore. And new version 0.64 has zlib-license permission notices in the source code, though some files still lack them. IMO that ambigously linked piece of text in the homepage is not a clear sign of non-freeness. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485596] New: Review Request: phoronix-test-suite - A Comprehensive Linux Benchmarking System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: phoronix-test-suite - A Comprehensive Linux Benchmarking System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485596 Summary: Review Request: phoronix-test-suite - A Comprehensive Linux Benchmarking System Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: josephsm...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://josephsmidt.googlepages.com/phoronix-test-suite.spec SRPM URL: http://josephsmidt.googlepages.com/phoronix-test-suite-1.6.0-0.fc10.src.rpm Description: Hello. This is my first attempt at a Fedora package! The Phoronix Test Suite is on the package wishlist: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WishList The Phoronix Test Suite is the most comprehensive testing and benchmarking platform available for Linux and is designed to carry out qualitative and quantitative benchmarks in a clean, reproducible, and easy-to-use manner. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459945] Review Request: pfstmo - PFS tone mapping operators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459945 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477545] Review Request: libnetdude - Management framework for pcap packet traces
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477545 Bug 477545 depends on bug 477544, which changed state. Bug 477544 Summary: Review Request: libpcapnav - Wrapper library for libpcap offering navigation inside of a tracefile https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477544 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477546] Review Request: netdude - Inspection, analysis and manipulation of tcpdump trace files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477546 Bug 477546 depends on bug 477544, which changed state. Bug 477544 Summary: Review Request: libpcapnav - Wrapper library for libpcap offering navigation inside of a tracefile https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477544 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477544] Review Request: libpcapnav - Wrapper library for libpcap offering navigation inside of a tracefile
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477544 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #5 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-02-14 23:38:57 EDT --- seems that the package has been built for quite some time. closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477546] Review Request: netdude - Inspection, analysis and manipulation of tcpdump trace files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477546 Bug 477546 depends on bug 477545, which changed state. Bug 477545 Summary: Review Request: libnetdude - Management framework for pcap packet traces https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477545 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477545] Review Request: libnetdude - Management framework for pcap packet traces
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477545 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #5 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-02-14 23:39:41 EDT --- seems that the package has been built for quite some time. closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484485] Review Request: perl-Fedora-App-ReviewTool - Application classes for reviewtool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484485
--- Comment #5 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-02-15
00:39:32 EDT ---
some deps are still missing:
# reviewtool setup
couldn't load Fedora::App::ReviewTool::Command::status: Could not load class
(Fedora::App::ReviewTool::Bugzilla) because : Could not load class
(Moose::Meta::Attribute::Custom::Trait::MooseX::MultiInitArg::Trait) because :
Can't locate Moose/Meta/Attribute/Custom/Trait/MooseX/MultiInitArg/Trait.pm in
@INC (@INC contains: /usr/bin/../lib
/usr/lib/perl5/5.10.0/i386-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/5.10.0
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.10.0/i386-linux-thread-multi
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.10.0
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/i386-linux-thread-multi
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl .) at
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/i386-linux-thread-multi/Class/MOP.pm line
151.
triggered from:
Class::MOP::load_first_existing_class('Moose::Meta::Attribute::Custom::Trait::MooseX::MultiInitArg::...',
'MooseX::MultiInitArg::Trait') called at
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Moose/Util.pm line 143
Moose::Util::resolve_metaclass_alias('Attribute',
'MooseX::MultiInitArg::Trait', 'trait', 1) called at
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Moose/Util.pm line 123
Moose::Util::resolve_metatrait_alias('Attribute',
'MooseX::MultiInitArg::Trait') called at
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Moose/Meta/Attribute.pm line 116
Moose::Meta::Attribute::interpolate_class('Moose::Meta::Attribute',
'predicate', 'has_id', 'builder', '_build_id', 'isa', 'Int', 'clear_on',
'data', ...) called at
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Moose/Meta/Attribute.pm line 86
Moose::Meta::Attribute::interpolate_class_and_new('Moose::Meta::Attribute',
'id', 'predicate', 'has_id', 'builder', '_build_id', 'isa', 'Int', 'clear_on',
...) called at /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Moose/Meta/Class.pm line 510
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485586] Review Request: perl-Test-Kwalitee - Test the Kwalitee of a distribution before you release it
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485586
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-02-15
00:54:08 EDT ---
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic (same as perl)
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: 8f99765f3a5e563b50638d082b90e6129d6fee7a
Test-Kwalitee-1.01.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -fR $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: koji scratch build
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: koji scratch build
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check is present and the tests pass.
*** 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 456542] Review Request: hotssh - An interface to Secure Shell, for GNOME and OpenSSH
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456542 --- Comment #13 from Jan ONDREJ ondr...@salstar.sk 2009-02-15 01:16:01 EDT --- This typo is still presnet in stable package and why this bug is still not closed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476460] Review Request: pymilter - Python interface to sendmail milter 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=476460 --- Comment #28 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-15 01:21:18 EDT --- I guess trying pre-review is much easier. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485580] Review Request: netactview - Graphical network connections viewer for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485580 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485580] Review Request: netactview - Graphical network connections viewer for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485580
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-02-15
01:35:51 EDT ---
The desktop files needs a couple of cosmetic fixes, because the Categories tag
should not contain X-Fedora and Application any more. Therefore please drop
--add-category X-Fedora
and add instead
--remove-category=Application
Bonus points for adding
chmod -x src/*{h,c)
thus silencing rpmlint when looking at the debuginfo file:
rpmlint of netactview-debuginfo:
netactview-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/netactview-0.4.1/src/main.c
netactview-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/netactview-0.4.1/src/net.h
netactview-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/netactview-0.4.1/src/net.c
netactview-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/netactview-0.4.1/src/mainwindow.c
netactview-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/netactview-0.4.1/src/process.c
netactview-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/netactview-0.4.1/src/utils.c
netactview-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/netactview-0.4.1/src/process.h
For the moment you have duplicate BuildRequires: pkgconfig (by glib-devel),
gnome-vfs2-devel (by libgnome-devel) and glib-devel (by gtk+-devel). This is
purely cosmetic and I will not complain if you want to keep it as it is.
And last but not last, I have contacted the author in private and asked him to
include license info in all the source files.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type per spec: GPLv2+
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: af60909095f5150e70fdec778cfdcb3edf1438b5
netactview-0.4.1.tar.bz2
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[!] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
=see preamble
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Final provides and requires are sane.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in
[Bug 473037] Review Request: tinycc - Tiny C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473037 Brennan Ashton bash...@brennanashton.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | --- Comment #10 from Brennan Ashton bash...@brennanashton.com 2009-02-15 02:15:22 EDT --- I am wrapping up some other projects early this week, and will get some of my packages reviews such as this one updated. I am removing the NEEDSPONSOR tag, as I have been sponsored for a while now. Thomas, are you wanting to co-maintain or something? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485604] New: Review Request: gigolo - GIO/GVFS management application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gigolo - GIO/GVFS management application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485604 Summary: Review Request: gigolo - GIO/GVFS management application Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ke...@tummy.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/gigolo/gigolo.spec SRPM URL: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/gigolo/gigolo-0.2.0-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: A frontend to easily manage connections to remote filesystems using GIO/GVFS. It allows you to quickly connect/mount a remote filesystem and manage bookmarks of such. NOTE: This is a rename of the 'sion' package. Upstream renamed it. See bug 478655 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
