[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 #16 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-02-20 03:41:20 EDT --- Well, Tom only advised against including the EXCEPTIONS file because it is of little value to anyone (quote). That's not enough reason to exclude it. If we did include it, though, we would offer the same dual-/multi-licensing options as the upstream tarball (and our License: GPLv3+ tag may not be explicit enough to signal our intent). And with that, somebody could choose to accept the dual-licensing and would be bound to term 1.b.ii, which I think is a problem, as for example, we don't do that for Fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454980] Review Request: axel - Download accelerator, wget replacement
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454980 --- Comment #31 from Pavel Alexeev pa...@hubbitus.spb.su 2009-02-20 03:42:04 EDT --- New version 2.3 released. http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora9/axel/axel-2.3-1.fc9.src.rpm http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora9/axel/axel.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 486528] Review Request: perl-HTML-Lint - Perl HTML parser and checker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486528 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de 2009-02-20 04:01:41 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-HTML-Lint Short Description: Perl HTML parser and checker Owners: corsepiu Branches: F-10 F-9 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 431368] Review Request: inconsoleata-fonts - A monospace font, designed for code listings and the like, in print
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431368 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||486269 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486269] Review Request: levien-inconsolata-fonts - Inconsolata 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=486269 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-fonts-bugs-l...@redh ||at.com Blocks||477401 Depends on||431368 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-02-20 04:46:06 EDT --- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29#What_if_the_new_naming_guidelines_require_me_to_rename_my_source_package.3F -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486302] Review Request: parrot - Parrot is a virtual machine.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486302 Gerd Pokorra g...@zimt.uni-siegen.de changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://www.parrot.org --- Comment #2 from Gerd Pokorra g...@zimt.uni-siegen.de 2009-02-20 04:53:35 EDT --- An email to Steven Pritchard is written. I get no answer until now. Should I additional put the email-text as a comment to the id=246348? I produced parrot-0.9.1 rpms (32bit) for Fedora 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11alpha. On a 64bit computer I produced parrot-0.9.1 rpms for Fedora 9. The packages are all stored under the URL ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/parrot.rpms/fedora/fedora-release-number/... I would be nice if the packages would be tested. I am not sure if the parrot-0.9.1 packages are installable without problems on other computers. I think the package for Fedora 10 will make trouble. It is a subpackage parrot-docs integrated. I think this subpackage do not need an architectur. But I am not successful to make it as a noarch 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 486558] New: Review Request: mono-nat - .NET library for automatic port forwarding
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mono-nat - .NET library for automatic port forwarding https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486558 Summary: Review Request: mono-nat - .NET library for automatic port forwarding Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: gnomeu...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://dnielsen.fedorapeople.org/mono-nat.spec SRPM URL: http://dnielsen.fedorapeople.org/mono-nat-1.0-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Mono.Nat is a .NET library used for automatic port forwarding, using either uPnP or nat-pmp. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486558] Review Request: mono-nat - .NET library for automatic port forwarding
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486558 David Nielsen gnomeu...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||486561 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486561] Review Request: main package name here - short summary here
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486561 David Nielsen gnomeu...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||486557, 486558 --- Comment #1 from David Nielsen gnomeu...@gmail.com 2009-02-20 05:10:20 EDT --- Depends on Mono.Nat (review request #486557) and a MonoTorrent update to 0.70 (request #48558) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486561] New: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486561 Summary: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: gnomeu...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://dnielsen.fedorapeople.org/monsoon.spec SRPM URL: http://dnielsen.fedorapeople.org/monsoon-0.20-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Monsoon is a Bittorrent client written in Mono and GTK# -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486561] Review Request: monsoon - Monsoon is a Bittorrent client written in Mono and GTK#
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486561 David Nielsen gnomeu...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: main |Review Request: monsoon - |package name here - short |Monsoon is a Bittorrent |summary here |client written in Mono and ||GTK# -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486302] Review Request: parrot - Parrot is a virtual machine.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486302 --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-02-20 05:12:00 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) An email to Steven Pritchard is written. I get no answer until now. Should I additional put the email-text as a comment to the id=246348? Let's wait for a while - maybe he is at the vacations, maybe he got a lot of work to do. In any case, feel free to add a comments to a previus review request. I would be nice if the packages would be tested. I am not sure if the parrot-0.9.1 packages are installable without problems on other computers. I think the package for Fedora 10 will make trouble. In order to check successful builds of packages, we may use koji (for example, to check whether yourapp.srpm can be built on F-10): koji build --scratch dist-f10 /path/to/yourapp.src.rpm It is a subpackage parrot-docs integrated. I think this subpackage do not need an architectur. But I am not successful to make it as a noarch subpackage. Noarch subpackages is the upcoming feature of rpm, so let's wait while necessary functionality will be fully implement and tested. BTW if nobody volunteers, I'll review your package (after we establish communications with Steven to resolve the issue 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 486493] Review Request: perl-Net-DBus-GLib - Perl extension for the DBus GLib bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486493 Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com 2009-02-20 05:29:48 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Net-DBus-GLib Short Description: Perl extension for the DBus GLib bindings 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 486489] Review Request: perl-Object-Event - Class that provides an event callback interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486489 Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com 2009-02-20 05:30:35 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Object-Event Short Description: Class that provides an event callback interface 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 486269] Review Request: levien-inconsolata-fonts - Inconsolata 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=486269 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ke...@tummy.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-02-20 05:29:02 EDT --- 1. a fontconfig ruleset would be nice http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29#The_fontconfig_stuff_the_font_guidelines_suggest_seems_complex._Can_I_skip_it.3F 2. FPC will want you to use %global not %define soonish http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/global_preferred_over_define 3. Are you sure you want to provide the old name? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29#Do_I_need_to_Provide_my_old_package_names.3F Anyway, nothing here is blocking ☎☎☎ APPROVED ☎☎☎ Please do not forget the other steps in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29#What_if_the_new_naming_guidelines_require_me_to_rename_my_source_package.3F -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476404] Review Request: bullet - 3D Collision Detection and Rigid Body Dynamics 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=476404
--- Comment #23 from Bruno Mahe br...@gnoll.org 2009-02-20 06:04:31 EDT ---
Thank you very much for this thorough review.
I believe I have fixed most of the issues you pointed out.
But I don't understand one of them.
From your previous message :
* ldconfig symlinks
]# ls -al /usr/lib/libBulletCollision*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 26 2009-02-18 00:56 /usr/lib/libBulletCollision.so
- libBulletCollision.so.2.73
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 706252 2009-02-17 00:34
/usr/lib/libBulletCollision.so.2.73
- Usually in this case the (soft) symlink named libBulletCollision.so.2
which points to libBulletCollision.so.2.73 should also be provided
and the symlink (libBulletCollision.so.2) should be included in
bullet package
(see libjpeg and libjpeg-devel rpms for example)
CMake doesn't generate any libBullet*.so.2.
Here is the content of my buildroot if I don't clean it up :
lrwxrwxrwx 1 makerpm makerpm 26 2009-02-20 01:56 libBulletCollision.so -
libBulletCollision.so.2.73
-rwxr-xr-x 1 makerpm makerpm 684996 2009-02-20 01:56 libBulletCollision.so.2.73
lrwxrwxrwx 1 makerpm makerpm 25 2009-02-20 01:56 libBulletDynamics.so -
libBulletDynamics.so.2.73
-rwxr-xr-x 1 makerpm makerpm 235368 2009-02-20 01:56 libBulletDynamics.so.2.73
lrwxrwxrwx 1 makerpm makerpm 25 2009-02-20 01:56 libBulletSoftBody.so -
libBulletSoftBody.so.2.73
-rwxr-xr-x 1 makerpm makerpm 225420 2009-02-20 01:56 libBulletSoftBody.so.2.73
lrwxrwxrwx 1 makerpm makerpm 21 2009-02-20 01:56 libLinearMath.so -
libLinearMath.so.2.73
-rwxr-xr-x 1 makerpm makerpm 41196 2009-02-20 01:56 libLinearMath.so.2.73
And my spec file I include %{_libdir}/*.so.* files for the bullet package and
%{_libdir}/*.so for bullet-devel.
libjpeg spec file is doing similar things.
Does that mean I should dig around CMake and make sure files like
libBullet*.so.2 are also generated ?
I updated the spec file and the SRPM.
Spec file : http://www.gnoll.org/download/bullet.spec
SRPM : http://www.gnoll.org/download/bullet-2.73-4.fc10.src.rpm
Thanks again!
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486489] Review Request: perl-Object-Event - Class that provides an event callback interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486489 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de 2009-02-20 06:33:06 EDT --- Please add 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 486493] Review Request: perl-Net-DBus-GLib - Perl extension for the DBus GLib bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486493 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de 2009-02-20 06:32:26 EDT --- Please add 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 483846] Review Request: gsim85 - An 8085 microprocessor simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483846 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #9 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:38:15 EDT --- https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-1537 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1513 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479595] Review Request: raddump - RADIUS packets interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479595 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #7 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:40:08 EDT --- Was pushed to stable https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-0951 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-0982 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479535] Review Request: gipfel - A tool to find the names of mountains or POI on a picture
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479535 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #14 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:41:14 EDT --- Was pushed to stable https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-1535 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1510 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486248] Review Request: terminus-fonts - Clean fixed width 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=486248
--- Comment #5 from Hans Ulrich Niedermann rhb...@n-dimensional.de
2009-02-20 06:41:38 EDT ---
Let me comment about the rpmlint output (available at
http://ndim.fedorapeople.org/packages/terminus-fonts/4.28-4.fc10/rpmlint.txt):
terminus-fonts.spec:9: E: hardcoded-library-path in /lib/kbd/consolefonts
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
terminus-fonts.src:9: E: hardcoded-library-path in /lib/kbd/consolefonts
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
The /lib/kbd/consolefonts directory belongs to the kbd package, and the kbd
package itself hardcodes it as /lib/..., not /%{_lib} or %{_libdir} or anything
with macros. Following rpmlint's suggestions would likely break things.
terminus-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/etc/fonts/conf.d/63-terminus.conf
/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/63-terminus.conf
Absolute symlinks are problematic eg. when working with chroot environments.
terminus-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/etc/X11/fontpath.d/terminus:unscaled /usr/share/fonts/terminus
Absolute symlinks are problematic eg. when working with chroot environments.
All the other packages putting symlinks into the /etc/X11/fontpath.d directory
also use absolute symlinks, so I am following a common practise 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 486249] Review Request: perl-Tie-RefHash-Weak - Tie::RefHash subclass with weakened references in the keys
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486249
--- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-02-20
06:40:28 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
[!] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: perl-Tie-RefHash-Weak.src: W: invalid-license Artistic)
binary RPM:perl-Tie-RefHash-Weak.noarch: W: invalid-license Artistic)
== MUSTFIX: There is a typo in the license tag ( a trailing char)
[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: 01b07d1e3d43a14160b1b0234f31bcd8a985b559
Tie-RefHash-Weak-0.09.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 *** (I'll trust you to correct the license tag before commit)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478660] Review Request: dateshift - A date/time test 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=478660 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #7 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:42:10 EDT --- Was pushed to stable https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-1024 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-0996 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478447] Review Request: qtgpsc - A client for the gpsd GPS server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478447 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #8 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:44:43 EDT --- Was pushed to stable https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-1274 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1283 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478452] Review Request: libxnm - A library for parsing the XNM format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478452 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #10 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:44:01 EDT --- Was pushed to stable https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-1415 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1392 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478603] Review Request: pysnmp - SNMP engine written in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478603 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #9 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:43:01 EDT --- Was pushed to stable https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1338 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-1202 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 439627] Review Request: gluegen - Java/JNI glue code generator to call out to ANSI 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=439627 Levente Farkas lfar...@lfarkas.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lfar...@lfarkas.org --- Comment #9 from Levente Farkas lfar...@lfarkas.org 2009-02-20 06:45:34 EDT --- why? it seems FE-Legal block was released. wouldn't like to reopen? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478398] Review Request: httping - Ping alike tool for http requests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478398 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #12 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:45:29 EDT --- Was pushed to stable https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-1008 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-0970 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480860] Review Request: timespan - A tool that performs date-based time calculations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480860 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #11 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:51:31 EDT --- Was pushed to stable https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-1328 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1251 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483499] Review Request: python-ferari - Optimizer for finite element code
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483499 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #8 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:48:20 EDT --- Was pushed to stable https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-1332 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1221 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483392] Review Request: whohas - Command line tool for query package lists
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483392 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #7 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:48:38 EDT --- Was pushed to stable https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1209 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-1236 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483162] Review Request: sugar-xomail - Xomail for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483162 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:52:00 EDT --- Was pushed to stable https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1512 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483501] Review Request: python-fiat - Generation of arbitrary order instances of the Lagrange elements
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483501 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #8 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:49:37 EDT --- Was pushed to stable https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-1210 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1352 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483496] Review Request: python-instant - Python module for instant inlining of C and C++ code
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483496 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #8 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:47:27 EDT --- Was pushed to stable https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-1384 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1386 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478393] Review Request: sugar-imageviewer - Simple image viewer for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478393 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #6 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:54:30 EDT --- Was pushed to stable https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1084 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481513] Review Request: sugar-pippy - Pippy for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481513 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #6 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:53:02 EDT --- Was pushed to stable https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1511 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481819] Review Request: sugar-finance - Financial planning for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481819 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:53:34 EDT --- Was pushed to stable https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1516 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483159] Review Request: sugar-xoirc - IRC client for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483159 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:52:18 EDT --- Was pushed to stable https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1497 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 482951] Review Request: sugar-playgo - Go for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482951 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:52:37 EDT --- Was pushed to stable https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1514 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481524] Review Request: sugar-help - Help and Dokumentation for Sugar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481524 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:53:15 EDT --- Was pushed to stable https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1515 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480222] Review Request: nullmodem - A utility to loopback pseudo-terminals
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480222 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #11 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:56:37 EDT --- Was pushed to stable https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-1371 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1355 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479603] Review Request: shcov - A gcov and lcov coverage test tool for bourne shell / bash scripts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479603 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #9 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:55:56 EDT --- Was pushed to stable https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-1089 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1157 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486249] Review Request: perl-Tie-RefHash-Weak - Tie::RefHash subclass with weakened references in the keys
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486249 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485401] Review Request: KyaPanel - Servers Manager The easy way to admin Postfix and Samba Servers.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485401 Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||486570 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486570] Review Request: courier-authlib - The Courier authentication library provides authentication services for other Courier applications.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486570 Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||485401 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480254] Review Request: deletemail - A non-interactive tool for deleting mails
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480254 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 07:01:19 EDT --- Pushed to testing https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-1549 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1578 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481416] Review Request: viking - GPS data editor and analyzer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481416 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #8 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:59:10 EDT --- Was pushed to stable https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-0956 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-1050 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480646] Review Request: urlwatch - A tool for monitoring webpages for updates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480646 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #11 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-20 06:57:57 EDT --- Was pushed to stable https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-0729 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-0731 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486570] New: Review Request: courier-authlib - The Courier authentication library provides authentication services for other Courier applications.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: courier-authlib - The Courier authentication library provides authentication services for other Courier applications. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486570 Summary: Review Request: courier-authlib - The Courier authentication library provides authentication services for other Courier applications. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ita...@ispbrasil.com.br QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://ispbrasil.com.br/courier/courier-authlib.spec SRPM URL: http://ispbrasil.com.br/courier/courier-authlib-0.62.2-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: The Courier authentication library provides authentication services for other Courier applications. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486248] Review Request: terminus-fonts - Clean fixed width 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=486248
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|nicolas.mail...@laposte.net |
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nicolas.mail...@laposte.net
Flag||fedora-review?,
||needinfo?(rhb...@n-dimensio
||nal.de)
--- Comment #6 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-02-20
06:58:11 EDT ---
1. You can safely drop this comment
# Do not trust font metadata versionning unless you've checked upstream does
# update versions on file changes. When in doubt use the timestamp of the most
# recent file as version.
2. Are you sure you want to keep this Provide?
Provides: terminus-font-x11 = 4.28-2
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29#Do_I_need_to_Provide_my_old_package_names.3F
3. You can probably use the common_desc trick found in
/etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec
to simplify your spec
4. Group: User Interface/X is a bit ironic for the console package
5. If you only push your package to rawhide (as you should do), I think you can
assume filesystem is at the right version
Requires: filesystem = 2.4.11-1
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29#Do_I_need_to_change_my_package_in_stable_releases_in_addition_to_Rawhide.2Fdevel.3F
6. FPC will ask you to use globals instead of defines soonish
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/global_preferred_over_define
7. Do you really need to hardcode /etc in the catalog path?
8. It's a bit saner to put Provides/Obsoletes next to other rpm dependency
rules (requires/buildrequires)
9. you do not need %dir %{_fontdir} anymore
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fontpackages-1.20-1.fc10
10. really adding a fontconfig file which is effectively a noop helps no one.
Please take a look at the templates in /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/ they're
not hard a all to fill
11. the symlinks warning of rpmlint is totally bogus and FRPC already decided
to have it nuked
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Symlinks
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486292] Review Request: perl-NOCpulse-CLAC - NOCpulse Command Line Application framework for Perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486292
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-02-20
07:01:25 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: 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: 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 matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: 7964c4b86f30114ebfd0dd8ace4d173e70376083
perl-NOCpulse-CLAC-1.9.8.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] 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 486229] Review Request: indi-apogee - The INDI driver for Apogee Alta (U E) line of CCDs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486229 --- Comment #7 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com 2009-02-20 07:13:30 EDT --- I promise this one is correct! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: indi-apogee Short Description: The INDI driver for Apogee Alta (U E) line of CCDs. Owners: sergiopr Branches: F-10 F-9 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486249] Review Request: perl-Tie-RefHash-Weak - Tie::RefHash subclass with weakened references in the keys
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486249 Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com 2009-02-20 07:24:48 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Tie-RefHash-Weak Short Description: Tie::RefHash subclass with weakened references in the keys Owners: allisson Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486489] Review Request: perl-Object-Event - Class that provides an event callback interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486489 --- Comment #4 from Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com 2009-02-20 07:26:31 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Object-Event Short Description: Class that provides an event callback interface Owners: allisson Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486493] Review Request: perl-Net-DBus-GLib - Perl extension for the DBus GLib bindings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486493 --- Comment #4 from Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com 2009-02-20 07:25:40 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Net-DBus-GLib Short Description: Perl extension for the DBus GLib bindings Owners: allisson Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486292] Review Request: perl-NOCpulse-CLAC - NOCpulse Command Line Application framework for Perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486292 Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com 2009-02-20 07:23:05 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-NOCpulse-CLAC Short Description: NOCpulse Command Line Application framework for Perl Owners: msuchy Branches: F-10, EL-4, EL-5 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 438982] Review Request: pyfits - Python interface to FITS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438982 Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com 2009-02-20 07:35:12 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: pyfits New Branches: EL-5 Owners: sergiopr -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486482] Review Request: perl-Gnome2 - Perl interface to the 2.x series of the GNOME 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=486482
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-02-20
07:51:12 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
[!] Rpmlint output:
source rpm: empty
binary rpm: perl-Gnome2.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/Gnome2/Install/gnome2perl.h
perl-Gnome2.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/Gnome2/Install/gnome2perl-autogen.h
perl-Gnome2.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/Gnome2/Install/gnome2perl-versions.h
= see note 1
[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.
[!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type as specified by sources: LGPLv2+ (see Gnome2.pm)
License type as specified by spec file: LGPLv2
= please fix before import
[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 source file: 8f232afac6ca2e8f6770550e754c857142872a68
Gnome2-1.042.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
==Notes==
I am not sure here. Do we need
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/Gnome2/Install in
the binary rpm ? If needed, shouldn't it go to a separate 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.
___
[Bug 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485007 Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msu...@redhat.com --- Comment #7 from Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com 2009-02-20 08:03:52 EDT --- Michael if you do not mind (and I know you will not :) ) I will take ownership of this package. I really want to thanx you for all the job you are doing. I applied your changes to our git repo. I packed latest version. And make sure the tar.gz landed in fedorahosted.org/releases/ *Test - the test are long time abandoned and definitelly do not work. We keep it there if anybody want to fix it as it is better then just deleting it forever. UPDATED SPEC: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rhnpush/rhnpush.spec SRPM: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rhnpush/rhnpush-0.4.3-1.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 486482] Review Request: perl-Gnome2 - Perl interface to the 2.x series of the GNOME 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=486482 --- Comment #3 from Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com 2009-02-20 08:12:57 EDT --- Hi, I found similar packages and the .h files is not in -devel: perl-Gnome2-Canvas: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=473861 perl-Gnome2-Print: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=474966 perl-Gnome2-GConf: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=660415 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485007
--- Comment #8 from Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 2009-02-20
08:22:59 EDT ---
OK source files match upstream 3b53e8a569b7e486634482216410669d
OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
OK dist tag is present.
OK build root is correct.
OK license field (GPLv2) matches the actual license.
OK license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream.
OK latest version is being packaged.
OK BuildRequires are proper.
OK %clean is present.
OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64).
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1142201
OK debuginfo package isn't need.
OK rpmlint is silent.
OK final provides and requires look sane.
OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
OK owns the directories it creates.
OK no duplicates in %files.
OK file permissions are appropriate.
OK no scriptlets present.
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.
OK no libtool .la droppings.
What about BR? Is there reason for using %{_bindir}/msgfmt instead of gettext
and %{_bindir}/docbook2man instead of docbook-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 486248] Review Request: terminus-fonts - Clean fixed width 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=486248
Hans Ulrich Niedermann rhb...@n-dimensional.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|needinfo?(rhb...@n-dimensio |
|nal.de) |
--- Comment #7 from Hans Ulrich Niedermann rhb...@n-dimensional.de
2009-02-20 08:24:39 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
1. You can safely drop this comment
# Do not trust font metadata versionning unless you've checked upstream does
# update versions on file changes. When in doubt use the timestamp of the most
# recent file as version.
Dropped.
2. Are you sure you want to keep this Provide?
Provides: terminus-font-x11 = 4.28-2
No. Dropped. (Turned out not to be useful after all, I had misread the rpm
output.)
3. You can probably use the common_desc trick found in
/etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec
to simplify your spec
Done.
4. Group: User Interface/X is a bit ironic for the console package
It is, but I cannot see any fitting rpm group. Application/Text does not work
either, because this is a font, not an application processing text. System
Environment/Base is the group of the kbd package which contains the other
console fonts, but terminus-fonts-console is not a required basic part of the
system environment either.
So, in the absences of a Others group, I don't see a group where this package
would really fit into.
Groups are not really used any more anyway, as far as I understand it, so it
probably has no consequences anyway. If you want the terminus-fonts-console
package in a specific, different group, I'm happy to change it, of course.
5. If you only push your package to rawhide (as you should do), I think you
can
assume filesystem is at the right version
Requires: filesystem = 2.4.11-1
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29#Do_I_need_to_change_my_package_in_stable_releases_in_addition_to_Rawhide.2Fdevel.3F
Dropped. F-10 shipped a newer filesystem package, and that is all I cared
about.
6. FPC will ask you to use globals instead of defines soonish
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/global_preferred_over_define
Changed.
7. Do you really need to hardcode /etc in the catalog path?
No. Changed to %{_sysconfdir}.
8. It's a bit saner to put Provides/Obsoletes next to other rpm dependency
rules (requires/buildrequires)
Done.
9. you do not need %dir %{_fontdir} anymore
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fontpackages-1.20-1.fc10
Changed: Removed the %dir, and versioned the build requirement for
fontpackages-devel.
10. really adding a fontconfig file which is effectively a noop helps no one.
Please take a look at the templates in /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/
they're
not hard a all to fill
Added a simple fontconfig file now.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips read as if anything
going beyond that empty noop fontconfig file was optional, and did not mention
those (really useful) templates.
11. the symlinks warning of rpmlint is totally bogus and FRPC already decided
to have it nuked
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Symlinks
Good. I am ignoring those now.
I have uploaded the a version as terminus-fonts-4.28-5.fc10 with all the above
changes incorporated:
http://ndim.fedorapeople.org/packages/terminus-fonts/4.28-5.fc10/terminus-fonts.spec
http://ndim.fedorapeople.org/packages/terminus-fonts/4.28-5.fc10/terminus-fonts-4.28-5.fc10.src.rpm
http://ndim.fedorapeople.org/packages/terminus-fonts/4.28-5.fc10/terminus-fonts-fontconfig.conf
http://ndim.fedorapeople.org/packages/terminus-fonts/4.28-5.fc10/
http://fedorapeople.org/gitweb?p=ndim/public_git/terminus-fonts-package.git;a=summary
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486248] Review Request: terminus-fonts - Clean fixed width 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=486248 --- Comment #8 from Hans Ulrich Niedermann rhb...@n-dimensional.de 2009-02-20 08:29:44 EDT --- Koji scratch build of terminus-fonts-4.28-5.fc10 for dist-f11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1142218 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486248] Review Request: terminus-fonts - Clean fixed width 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=486248
--- Comment #9 from Hans Ulrich Niedermann rhb...@n-dimensional.de
2009-02-20 08:42:26 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Koji scratch build of terminus-fonts-4.28-5.fc10 for dist-f11:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1142218
This failed due to
No Package Found for fontpackages-devel = 1.20
However, now that I have removed the %dir %{_fontdir}, I need to require this
version, right?
Hmm. The fontpackages-1.20/changelog.txt suggests that requiring 1.18 would be
more appropriate, and koji has dist-f11 builds of 1.18 and 1.19, so that should
solve it.
I'll be uploading and test building terminus-fonts-4.28-6.fc10 with
fontpackages-devel = 1.18 shortly:
http://ndim.fedorapeople.org/packages/terminus-fonts/4.28-6.fc10/
http://fedorapeople.org/gitweb?p=ndim/public_git/terminus-fonts-package.git;a=summary
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486584] New: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486584 Summary: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-CGI-Application/perl-CGI-Application.spec SRPM URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-CGI-Application/perl-CGI-Application-4.21-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: CGI::Application is an Object-Oriented Perl module which implements an Abstract Class. It is not intended that this package be instantiated directly. Instead, it is intended that your Application Module will be implemented as a Sub-Class of CGI::Application. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486584] Review Request: perl-CGI-Application - Framework for building reusable web-applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486584 Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: main |Review Request: |package name here - short |perl-CGI-Application - |summary here |Framework for building ||reusable web-applications -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486248] Review Request: terminus-fonts - Clean fixed width 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=486248 --- Comment #10 from Hans Ulrich Niedermann rhb...@n-dimensional.de 2009-02-20 08:49:32 EDT --- Successful dist-f11 terminus-fonts-4.28-6.fc10 koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1142253 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485007 --- Comment #9 from Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com 2009-02-20 08:46:57 EDT --- Hmm, actually there is no reason. And yes, package dependence should be prefered rather then file dependence. UPDATED SPEC: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rhnpush/rhnpush.spec SRPM: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rhnpush/rhnpush-0.4.4-1.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 486475] Review Request: ps3-utils - Utilities for Sony PlayStation 3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486475 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485007 Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 2009-02-20 08:56:50 EDT --- ACCEPTED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485007 Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #11 from Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com 2009-02-20 09:14:45 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: rhnpush Short Description: Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server Owners: msuchy Branches: F-10, EL-4, EL-5 InitialCC: stahnma -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225906] Merge Review: iptables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225906 --- Comment #10 from Thomas Woerner twoer...@redhat.com 2009-02-20 09:17:47 EDT --- Please have a look at iptables-1.4.2-1 in rawhide. 1) License is GPL+, now 2) The old libraries are still static, the new ones are shared. Making the old ones static, could break build scripts and the old libraries should be gone in the near future. -- 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 486482] Review Request: perl-Gnome2 - Perl interface to the 2.x series of the GNOME 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=486482 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-02-20 09:18:56 EDT --- package APPROVED. Thanks Marcela for pointing me to the right docs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486482] Review Request: perl-Gnome2 - Perl interface to the 2.x series of the GNOME 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=486482 Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com 2009-02-20 09:23:45 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Gnome2 Short Description: Perl interface to the 2.x series of the GNOME libraries Owners: allisson Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226299] Merge Review: pkgconfig
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226299 Bug 226299 depends on bug 224148, which changed state. Bug 224148 Summary: pkgconfig: Requires.private creates unnecessary depencencies https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224148 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX -- 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 246348] Review Request: parrot - Parrot Virtual Machine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=246348 Gerd Pokorra g...@zimt.uni-siegen.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||g...@zimt.uni-siegen.de --- Comment #13 from Gerd Pokorra g...@zimt.uni-siegen.de 2009-02-20 10:09:44 EDT --- I wanted to initial packaging Parrot under Fedora. Peter Lemenkov wrote me that there was already an initial attempt to package this title. So we have to coordinate our efforts. I have a working spec-file for the current release of Parrot. Would it be okay we take that? I make parrot-rpms from the version 0.6.1 to the current version (0.9.1). The rpms are stored under the URL ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/parrot.rpms/fedora and on the Parrot-Download-Web-Site is a link to that URL. The URL of my request is: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486302 Gerd Pokorra (g...@zimt.uni-siegen.de) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475144] Review Request: metalink - CLI Metalink generation 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=475144 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-20 10:30:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14) Removing the blocker on bug # 177841 because I'm going to sponsor Ant Thank you. Now I re-reviewed this package and it is still okay. -- This package (metalink) 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 458643] Review Request: dansguardian - Content filtering web proxy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458643 --- Comment #17 from Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org 2009-02-20 10:57:28 EDT --- Updated rpm with all the above warnings fixed, plus a few more changes to build cleanly in dist-f10: http://www.codewiz.org/pub/fedora/source/dansguardian-2.10.0.2-3.src.rpm http://www.codewiz.org/pub/fedora/specs/dansguardian.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 486558] Review Request: mono-nat - .NET library for automatic port forwarding
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486558
Paul Lange pala...@gmx.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||pala...@gmx.de
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pala...@gmx.de
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Paul Lange pala...@gmx.de 2009-02-20 11:05:47 EDT ---
This is only an informal review with some things I noticed. Furthermore it's my
first review of a non-font package - so expect that I understand some things
wrong.
* Why do you use ExclusiveArch instead of ExcludeArch: ppc64?
* %description devel: contains development and header files Does Mono
have header files. Maybe something like The %{name}-devel package contains
development files for %{name}. would be more suitable?
* Why don't you register the library with gacutil as written in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Mono#Packaging_Tips ? Is this
obsolete?
* Maybe include the README file as %doc because it includes some hints on how
to use the library and there isn't any other documentation yet.
That's all 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 481257] Review Request: perl-Devel-SmallProf - Per-line Perl profiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481257 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485636] Review Request: cutecom - A GUI application for serial port communications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485636
Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-20
11:42:38 EDT ---
Looks good. Some comments.
- Would you split a long command line into several lines like below
so that we can read it easier line below?
desktop-file-install \
--remove-key=Path --remove-key=Encoding \
--removekey=BinaryPattern --remove-key=TerminalOptions \
--add-category=System \
--dir ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/applications/ \
$(pwd)/cutecom.desktop
(In reply to comment #5)
The only remaining detail is the icon, but I'm
not sure on whether it can be changed via desktop-file-install, or I should
modify it manually (via 'sed', etc...) from the script.
- You can just use sed (at %prep)
This package (cutecom) 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 461484] Review Request: twin - Textmode window environment 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=461484 --- Comment #11 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-02-20 11:55:18 EDT --- More a pong than a review, I';; be back a bit later: rpmlint of twin: twin.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/twin-0.6.1/setroot.sample twin.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/twin-0.6.1/LICENSING.INFO twin.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/twin-0.6.1/README.twsetroot More serious stuff, I am a bit puzzled by this snipplet from the build log (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1133537name=build.log ): checking for X... libraries , headers checking X11/xpm.h usability... no checking X11/xpm.h presence... no checking for X11/xpm.h... no checking for XpmReadFileToPixmap in -lXpm... no checking for gtk-config... no checking gtk/gtk.h usability... no checking gtk/gtk.h presence... no checking for gtk/gtk.h... no checking for gtk_init in -lgtk... no It seems that BR gtk2-devel is not sufficient ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481751] Review Request: fence-agentes - Fence Agents for Red Hat Cluster
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481751 --- Comment #2 from Jim Meyering meyer...@redhat.com 2009-02-20 11:57:18 EDT --- Hi Fabio, Does mock work for you? This is in just-updated rawhide: # mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 /t/fence-agents-3.0.0-1.alpha4.fc11.src.rpm INFO: mock.py version 0.9.14 starting... State Changed: init plugins State Changed: start INFO: Start(/t/fence-agents-3.0.0-1.alpha4.fc11.src.rpm) Config(fedora-rawhide-x86_64) State Changed: lock buildroot State Changed: clean State Changed: init State Changed: lock buildroot Mock Version: 0.9.14 INFO: Mock Version: 0.9.14 INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled yum cache State Changed: cleaning yum metadata INFO: enabled ccache State Changed: running yum State Changed: creating cache State Changed: setup ERROR: Exception(/t/fence-agents-3.0.0-1.alpha4.fc11.src.rpm) Config(fedora-rawhide-x86_64) 5 minutes 45 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/yum --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ resolvedep ccache 'glibc-devel' 'nss-devel' 'openaislib-devel = 0.91-6' 'python' 'libxml2-devel' 'corosynclib-devel = 0.92-7' 'libvirt-devel' 'nspr-devel' 'clusterlib-devel = 3.0.0' 'xen-libs' 'perl' Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/bin/yum, line 29, in module yummain.user_main(sys.argv[1:], exit_code=True) File /usr/share/yum-cli/yummain.py, line 301, in user_main errcode = main(args) File /usr/share/yum-cli/yummain.py, line 155, in main base.getOptionsConfig(args) File /usr/share/yum-cli/cli.py, line 188, in getOptionsConfig self.conf File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/yum/__init__.py, line 632, in lambda conf = property(fget=lambda self: self._getConfig(), File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/yum/__init__.py, line 227, in _getConfig self._conf = config.readMainConfig(startupconf) File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/yum/config.py, line 772, in readMainConfig yumvars['releasever'] = _getsysver(startupconf.installroot, startupconf.distroverpkg) File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/yum/config.py, line 848, in _getsysver hdr = idx.next() StopIteration -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486248] Review Request: terminus-fonts - Clean fixed width 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=486248 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nicolas.mail...@laposte.net |rhb...@n-dimensional.de Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-02-20 11:59:21 EDT --- Yes, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips should really be revised, but I can't find the time and no one else seems to bother. Anyway your 4.28-6 seems fine. Thank you for taking the time to fix the problems ͳͳͳ APPROVED ͳͳͳ You can now continue from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29#What_if_the_new_naming_guidelines_require_me_to_rename_my_source_package.3F -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 465858] Package Review: afpfs-ng - Apple Filing Protocol 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=465858 --- Comment #2 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-02-20 12:14:26 EDT --- While using this myself for some time I've found experience with this tool quite painful -- feels very Alpha and even experienced a couple of server-triggered crashes, which may be exploitable. Unless I'm only person using this I'm willing to work on this and improve it, otherwise I won't let it enter Fedora and will close this in some time. So please review this only if you're interested in using 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 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 #6 from Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2009-02-20 12:40:58 EDT --- Looks like MooseX::MultiInitArg is a missing dep of Fedora::Bugzilla... I'm really beginning to think the rpm/Perl autoprov/req scripts need an overhaul. I'll get Fedora::Bugzilla rebuilt (after I deal with an expired cert) and post here when it's in rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486620] New: Review Request: python-createrepo - Python module to create common metadata repositorys
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-createrepo - Python module to create common metadata repositorys https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486620 Summary: Review Request: python-createrepo - Python module to create common metadata repositorys Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: den...@ausil.us QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://ausil.us/packages/python-createrepo.spec SRPM URL: http://ausil.us/packages/python-createrepo-0.9.6-1.el5.src.rpm Description: A python module that will generate a common metadata repository from a directory of rpm packages. This is intended for EPEL only. RHEL5's createrepo doesnt have the python module, koji 1.3.0 requires the python module. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486558] Review Request: mono-nat - .NET library for automatic port forwarding
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486558
--- Comment #2 from David Nielsen gnomeu...@gmail.com 2009-02-20 13:09:18
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
This is only an informal review with some things I noticed. Furthermore it's
my
first review of a non-font package - so expect that I understand some things
wrong.
* Why do you use ExclusiveArch instead of ExcludeArch: ppc64?
Standard Mono packaging thing, see the comment
* %description devel: contains development and header files Does Mono
have header files. Maybe something like The %{name}-devel package contains
development files for %{name}. would be more suitable?
It's basically a cut and paste thing, I can change it
* Why don't you register the library with gacutil as written in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Mono#Packaging_Tips ? Is this
obsolete?
The guidelines were written by a guy who no longer to my knowledge does Mono
work, the current Mono SIG has not examined in depth. It is high on my list of
things to understand properly.
* Maybe include the README file as %doc because it includes some hints on how
to use the library and there isn't any other documentation yet.
true
That's all 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 226299] Merge Review: pkgconfig
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226299 Bug 226299 depends on bug 224148, which changed state. Bug 224148 Summary: pkgconfig: Requires.private creates unnecessary depencencies https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224148 What|Old Value |New Value Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|WONTFIX | -- 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 476404] Review Request: bullet - 3D Collision Detection and Rigid Body Dynamics 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=476404
--- Comment #24 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-20
13:49:54 EDT ---
For 2.73-4:
* Description
Free for commercial use, including Playstation 3, open source under the
ZLib License.
- I think this part can be deleted (actually all packages
in Fedora must generally be free, and the correct license
information can be received from License tag)
* Directory ownership issue
- Still some directories are not correctly owned
(%{_includedir}/BulletCollision/, %{_includedir}/BulletDynamics/)
! Note
Writing %files list verbosely like this way is usually
error-prone. Instead I recommend to use the format like:
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc ...
%{_includedir}/*.h
%{_includedir}/BulletCollision/
%{_includedir}/LinearMath/
..
Here the %files entry
%files
foo/
(where foo/ is a directory) contains the directory foo/ itself
and all files/directories/etc under foo/, so writing %files
list in this way is much safer. ref:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UnownedDirectories#Wildcarding_Files_inside_a_Created_Directory
* Missing ldconfig symlinks
(In reply to comment #23)
Does that mean I should dig around CMake and make sure files like
libBullet*.so.2 are also generated ?
- The following is sufficient.
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
pushd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}
for f in lib*.so.*.*
do
ln -sf $f ${f%\.*}
done
popd
-
* Misc rpmlint issue
-
bullet.i586: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/bullet-2.73/ChangeLog
bullet.src: W: strange-permission generate-tarball.sh 0775
-
- Please change the encoding of ChangeLog file to UTF-8.
- All files in srpm must have 0644 permission.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481751] Review Request: fence-agentes - Fence Agents for Red Hat Cluster
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481751 --- Comment #3 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto fdini...@redhat.com 2009-02-20 13:55:47 EDT --- Looks like a bug in mock at this point. I manually checked all BuildRequires and are all available on the mirrors. Dropping all of the BuildRequires still fails with the same traceback (mock still attempts to install ccache but at this point it's not fence-agents triggering it). I understand building in mock is an absolutely required step for accepting the pacakge, so let's just wait next Monday and see if it gets fixed. It will also give me a chance to perform an alpha5 release to address the issues you already reported to me. Jim, thanks again for all your work. Fabio -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486248] Review Request: terminus-fonts - Clean fixed width 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=486248 Hans Ulrich Niedermann rhb...@n-dimensional.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Hans Ulrich Niedermann rhb...@n-dimensional.de 2009-02-20 14:00:07 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: terminus-fonts Short Description: Clean fixed width font Owners: ndim Branches: 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 486248] Review Request: terminus-fonts - Clean fixed width 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=486248 --- Comment #12 from Hans Ulrich Niedermann rhb...@n-dimensional.de 2009-02-20 13:57:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) Yes, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips should really be revised, but I can't find the time and no one else seems to bother. FWIW, I have just added a short paragraph about the template files in /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/. Anyway your 4.28-6 seems fine. Thank you for taking the time to fix the problems ͳͳͳ APPROVED ͳͳͳ Thank you! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486620] Review Request: python-createrepo - Python module to create common metadata repositorys
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486620 Mike Bonnet mi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mi...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Mike Bonnet mi...@redhat.com 2009-02-20 14:05:11 EDT --- $ rpmlint python-createrepo-0.9.6-1.el5.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python-createrepo.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python-createrepo-0.9.6-1.el5.noarch.rpm python-createrepo.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/createrepo/merge.py 0644 python-createrepo.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/createrepo/deltarpms.py 0644 python-createrepo.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/createrepo/yumbased.py 0644 python-createrepo.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/createrepo/readMetadata.py 0644 python-createrepo.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/createrepo/utils.py 0644 python-createrepo.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libxml2-python 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 0 warnings. Those rpmlint errors look bogus, no reason those files should be executable. And the dependency is on a package named libxml2-python. Looks good to me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486620] Review Request: python-createrepo - Python module to create common metadata repositorys
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486620 Mike Bonnet mi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485007 Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||rhnpush -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486620] Review Request: python-createrepo - Python module to create common metadata repositorys
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486620 Mike Bonnet mi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mi...@redhat.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 483434] Review Request: argtable2 - A library for parsing GNU style command line arguments
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483434 --- Comment #4 from Jess Portnoy kerne...@gmail.com 2009-02-20 14:22:39 EDT --- Hello Christian, I've omitted the archive file from the package. Also, all documentation except the mandatory AUTHORS, COPYING, ChangeLog and README files now installs as part of the devel package. New src.rpm is available from: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/argtable/argtable2-10-3.src.rpm Spec file URL is still: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/argtable/argtable2.spec Thanks again, -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486620] Review Request: python-createrepo - Python module to create common metadata repositorys
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486620 Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us 2009-02-20 14:27:10 EDT --- Package Name: python-createrepo Short Description: Python module to create common metadata repositories Owners: ausil skvidal Branches: 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
