[Bug 486698] New: Review Request: fedora-setup-keyboard - Hal keyboard layout callout
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: fedora-setup-keyboard - Hal keyboard layout callout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486698 Summary: Review Request: fedora-setup-keyboard - Hal keyboard layout callout Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: adel.gadl...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://193.200.113.196/apache2-default/rpm/fedora-setup-keyboard.spec SRPM URL: http://193.200.113.196/apache2-default/rpm/fedora-setup-keyboard-0.2-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: fedora-setup-keyboard gets invoked by hal to apply the keyboard layout defined in /etc/sysconfig/keyboard. rpmlint output: fedora-setup-keyboard.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. (There are no docs) koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1144341 NOTE: The files in this packages conflict with the ones shipped in xorg-x11-server-Xorg. This is intentional, it is going to replace them (X will than depend on this package). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486698] Review Request: fedora-setup-keyboard - Hal keyboard layout callout
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486698 Adel Gadllah adel.gadl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||483817 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457160] Review Request: Zorba - General purpose XQuery processor implemented in C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457160 --- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-02-21 03:27:43 EDT --- Now missing BuildRequires: libicu-devel instead of libicu. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1144346 Failed to build because of missing build requirements: BuildRequires: tex(latex) BuildRequires: tex(dvips) # redundant through latex # BuildRequires: tex(tex) After adding those, it fails on i386 (dist-f11-gcc44) with a strange CMake Error occuring multiple times: CMake Error at cmake_modules/AddSrcSubfolder.cmake:42 (FILE): file RelativePath must be passed a full path to the file: ÅE ÐÅE ÐÅE °C ̱C http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1144362 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1144362name=build.log Pending F10 scratch-build attempt is here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1144376 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485638] Review Request: dmenu - Dynamic X menu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485638
--- Comment #2 from Jan Blazek appoli...@gmail.com 2009-02-21 03:29:17 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #1)
This is an un-official pre-review.
- May I suggest append %{dist} at the end of release string.
Thank you. It's repaired now.
New SPEC: http://www.stud.fit.vutbr.cz/~xblaze17/packages/dmenu/dmenu.spec
New SRPM:
http://www.stud.fit.vutbr.cz/~xblaze17/packages/dmenu/dmenu-3.9-2.fc10.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cw...@alumni.drew.edu Alias||parrot -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 #3 from David Nielsen gnomeu...@gmail.com 2009-02-21 04:05:38 EDT --- Where are you finding this README file? I cannot seem to find it in my mono.nat tarball. Aside that I believe make install takes care of the gacutils thing. This makes the text update the only update I can make currently and I don't feel that is worth a version bump, I will roll it in with any coming review fixes or if no changes are needed for review I will change it by check in time -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485954] Review Request: Marlin, A Sound Sample Editor for GNOME.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485954 --- Comment #9 from Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com 2009-02-21 04:21:53 EDT --- --- Comment #8 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-02-20 19:57:28 EDT --- [...] So, unfortunately, this is a blocker. They either go in -devel or they don't get packaged. My point was to *not* package them. I was not pushing for having the *.so in the library. The reasons I was giving were to explain why I didn't want to ship a -devel package. Not to ship *.so in the package. And as far as can tell from the spec file I pointed to at http://people.redhat.com/dseketel/rpms/marlin/marlin-3.spec, there are no unversioned library in the package. If I am missing something, please let me know. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457160] Review Request: Zorba - General purpose XQuery processor implemented in C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457160 --- Comment #14 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-02-21 05:09:58 EDT --- Fedora 10 x86_64: RPM build errors: File not found by glob: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/zorba-0.9.5-3.fc10.x86_64/usr/lib64/libzorba_simplestore.* These are installed into /usr/lib instead of /usr/lib64 (%_libdir). Same applies to other files. -- Installing: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/zorba-0.9.5-3.fc10.x86_64/usr/lib/libzorba_simplestore.so.0.9.5 -- Installing: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/zorba-0.9.5-3.fc10.x86_64/usr/lib/libzorba_simplestore.so -- Up-to-date: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/zorba-0.9.5-3.fc10.x86_64/usr/lib/libzorba_simplestore.so.0.9.5 -- Up-to-date: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/zorba-0.9.5-3.fc10.x86_64/usr/lib/libzorba_simplestore.so -- Installing: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/zorba-0.9.5-3.fc10.x86_64/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/zorba_api.py -- Installing: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/zorba-0.9.5-3.fc10.x86_64/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/_zorba_api.so -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 #13 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-02-21 05:42:18 EDT --- libXpm-devel was also missing as BR and the date of the last changelog entry was wrong (Fridat was Feb 20, not 21) new koji scratch build at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1144478. I'll do the review later today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459989] Review Request: gnurobots - A robot programming game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459989 Bug 459989 depends on bug 473814, which changed state. Bug 473814 Summary: rpm's pkgconfig auto provides is broken (fix included) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473814 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485853] Review Request: calendar - Reminder utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485853 Juha Tuomala t...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://www.openbsd.org:80/c ||gi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/c ||alendar/ CC||t...@iki.fi -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486519] Review Request: thunar-shares-plugin - Thunar file manager extension to share files using Samba
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486519 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-02-21 07:22:01 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: thunar-shares-plugin Short Description: Thunar file manager extension to share files using Samba Owners: cwickert Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC: kevin -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486723] New: Review Request: webkit-sharp - .NET bindings for WebKit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: webkit-sharp - .NET bindings for WebKit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486723 Summary: Review Request: webkit-sharp - .NET bindings for WebKit 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/webkit-sharp.spec SRPM URL: http://dnielsen.fedorapeople.org/webkit-sharp-0.2-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: .NET bindings for WebKit -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462297] Review Request: perl-o2sms - A perl module to send SMS messages using .ie websites
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462297
--- Comment #2 from Niall Sheridan nsheri...@gmail.com 2009-02-21 08:10:52
EDT ---
Hi
Thanks for taking the time to review this.
I've fixed Source0 in the specfile to
Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/M/MA/MACKERS/o2sms-%{version}.tar.gz
I'll update to the latest version.
I have one question about Package doesn't own any directories other packages
own. - can you elaborate on this failure? I assume it refers to owning
%{vendor_perl}/WWW/ - should I change this?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486721] New: Review Request: beagle-xesam - Xesam adaptor for Beagle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: beagle-xesam - Xesam adaptor for Beagle https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486721 Summary: Review Request: beagle-xesam - Xesam adaptor for Beagle 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/beagle-xesam.spec SRPM URL: http://dnielsen.fedorapeople.org/beagle-xesam-0.2-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Xesam adaptor for Beagle -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 443577] Review Request: monodevelop-java - java plugin for monodevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443577 --- Comment #10 from David Nielsen gnomeu...@gmail.com 2009-02-21 08:34:32 EDT --- With MD2 beta 1 out and Fedora now containing a new succesful build of MD are you still interested in this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469969] Review Request: Tao Framework - C# bindings for many different 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=469969 --- Comment #4 from David Nielsen gnomeu...@gmail.com 2009-02-21 08:36:27 EDT --- While I have dropped the ball on this, I see you still have not completed the suggested changes. Are you still interested in this package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 443576] Review Request: monodevelop-boo - boo plugin for monodevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443576 --- Comment #7 from David Nielsen gnomeu...@gmail.com 2009-02-21 08:34:35 EDT --- With MD2 beta 1 out and Fedora now containing a new succesful build of MD are you still interested in this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 443578] Review Request: monodevelop-database - database plugin for monodevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443578 --- Comment #4 from David Nielsen gnomeu...@gmail.com 2009-02-21 08:34:29 EDT --- With MD2 beta 1 out and Fedora now containing a new succesful build of MD are you still interested in this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485954] Review Request: Marlin, A Sound Sample Editor for GNOME.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485954 --- Comment #10 from Joseph Smidt josephsm...@gmail.com 2009-02-21 09:13:56 EDT --- Okay, sorry for the misunderstanding about the unversioned libraries situation. I will continue the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484598] Review Request: grin - Grep-like tool for source 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=484598 --- Comment #2 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2009-02-21 10:55:14 EDT --- - add docs - rpmlint clean - add %%check section spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/grin/grin.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/grin/grin-1.1.1-2.fc10.src.rpm koji: n/a (koji server down this weekend) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #52 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2009-02-21 12:33:42 EDT --- It's looking like Samba4 is again not going to make the cut. I'm waiting on Simo Sorce to deliver a interim subset package containing the Samba4 libraries needed for OpenChange. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226198] Merge Review: nfs-utils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226198 Jeff Layton jlay...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||jlay...@redhat.com Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE --- Comment #9 from Jeff Layton jlay...@redhat.com 2009-02-21 13:14:32 EDT --- Looks like this hasn't been updated in a long time and since nfs-utils is part of fedora and has been for a long time. I'll go ahead and close this. Please reopen if anything more needs to be done with it... -- 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 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #53 from Simo Sorce sso...@redhat.com 2009-02-21 13:19:23 EDT --- Release of separate libraries is also slipping :-( Matt I think it would be safe for now to just grab your own copy of samba4 frozen in a status the openchange people is ok with, and just build the few libraries you need yourself and store them into a private path as part of the openchange package. While not ideal, I think this will make it easier to release openchange in F11, once there, we will try to gradually split out dependencies as pieces stabilize upstream and become available as official releases. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 482757] Review Request: objcryst-fox - Viewing and solving crystal structures from powder diffraction data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482757
--- Comment #6 from Pascal pascal...@parois.net 2009-02-21 13:22:57 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
* You can use the macro %{name} instead of Fox in a number of places in the
The name of the package is not the name of the archive.
I used the same name as debian used for their deb:
http://packages.debian.org/fr/sid/objcryst-fox
* Please add an extra \n between two change in the changelog (some tool used
Done in the spec but new srpm/rpm not updated
It might be nice also to give to the reviewer an input file and an output file
so that the software could actually be tested :)
There are example files in /usr/share/doc/objcryst-fox...
A tutorial is here:
http://vincefn.net/Fox/Tutorials
You might also be interested to join the SciTech SIG:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:SciTech_SIG
Yes, good idea, I'll see when this get pushed in 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 485954] Review Request: Marlin, A Sound Sample Editor for GNOME.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485954 --- Comment #11 from Joseph Smidt josephsm...@gmail.com 2009-02-21 13:57:39 EDT --- At first glance the packaging looks good. However, when I install and run marlin there is no icon in the menu, yet there is one called for in the .desktop file. (As there should be). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485897] Review Request: perl-Variable-Magic - Associate user-defined magic to variables from 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=485897 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cw...@alumni.drew.edu Alias||perl-Variable-Magic -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 224245] Merge Review: squirrelmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224245 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #21 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-02-21 14:14:44 EDT --- This package looks quite a bit better now. Regarding the stuff in the demo directory, I think any of those possibilities would work, although a subpackage is probably overkill. Regarding the patches, it would be nice to document them somehow (at least adding comments to the spec referring to the above bugzilla tickets) but I'm not really sure it's within the scope of this review to insist that those remaining three patches be reconciled with upstream. It would certainly be a good idea to work with upstream to somehow make them unnecessary, and of course Fedora is steadfastly against letting more of this kind of thing creep in (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment, and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WhyUpstream) but I recognize that there is some historical cruft that may not be simple to get rid of. So really I'd say that if those patches were documented in the spec with links to the above bugzilla tickets, and something is done with the demo directory then I would consider the package OK. I would still urge further work with upstream and perhaps the previous maintainers of this package to understand the patches and either get them sent upstream or dropped from the package. -- 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 226198] Merge Review: nfs-utils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226198 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE | --- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-02-21 14:40:27 EDT --- Please do not close merge review tickets unless you're doing the reviews. This package is still under review and has yet to be approved. It doesn't matter that it has been in Fedora for a long time; all of the packages which came in from core need to be reviewed. -- 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 225612] Merge Review: beagle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225612 --- Comment #2 from Adel Gadllah adel.gadl...@gmail.com 2009-02-21 14:50:05 EDT --- Thanks for the initial review, I have missed them because I was not CCed on this bug. I will address the issues noted next week. -- 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 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #54 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2009-02-21 14:58:53 EDT --- Too much indecision here... Matt, lets just go with the initial packaging approach. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225998] Merge Review: libdmx
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225998 --- Comment #2 from Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com 2009-02-21 15:06:10 EDT --- Most of this is fixed in 1.0.2-7. Haven't touched %description yet, not really sure what's a good template. Most of the X libs have a similar description, so it'd be nice to keep them consistent. -- 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 226027] Merge Review: libICE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226027 --- Comment #3 from Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com 2009-02-21 15:11:23 EDT --- Fixed in 1.0.4-5. -- 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 226045] Merge Review: libSM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226045 --- Comment #2 from Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com 2009-02-21 15:15:11 EDT --- Fixed in 1.1.0-3. -- 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 478300] Review Request: python-wifi - Python binding for the wireless extensions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478300 Debarshi Ray debarshi@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Debarshi Ray debarshi@gmail.com 2009-02-21 15:26:25 EDT --- +-+ | This package is APPROVED by me. | +-+ Just remember to inform upstream about the licensing mix-up to avoid any future misunderstanding. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486757] New: Review Request: divine-mc - Multi-core model checking system for proving specifications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: divine-mc - Multi-core model checking system for proving specifications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486757 Summary: Review Request: divine-mc - Multi-core model checking system for proving specifications Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dwhee...@dwheeler.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.dwheeler.com/divine-mc.spec SRPM URL: http://www.dwheeler.com/divine-mc-1.3-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: DiVinE Multi-Core (MC) is a parallel shared-memory enumerative model-checking tool for verification of concurrent systems. The tool can employ the full power of modern 64-bit multi-core architectures. It can be used to prove correctness of verification models as well as to detect early design errors. Any model-checking tool, such as DiViNe MC, accepts system requirements or design (called models) and a property (called specification) that the final system is expected to satisfy. The tool then outputs yes if the given model satisfies given specifications, and generates a counterexample otherwise. The counterexample details why the model doesn't satisfy the specification. DiViNe MC is based on automata-theoretic approach to linear temporal logics (LTL) model checking. The input language allows for specification of processes in terms of extended finite automata and the verified system is then obtained as an asynchronous parallel composition of these processes. In the current DiVinE Multi-Core release, input is provided in DVE format -- an industry-strength specification language, as used in original DiVinE, with plenty of diverse example models, ranging from simple toys to complex real-world models. An extensive model database is available at BEEM database. Moreover, DiVinE can read models specified in ProMeLa (as used in the SPIN tool), in addition to its native DVE format. However, the capabilities of the tool on ProMeLa models is currently limited by inability to produce counterexamples: you can only obtain a yes/no answer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480056] Review Request: libchamplain-gtk - Gtk+ widget wrapper for libchamplain
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480056
--- Comment #2 from Debarshi Ray debarshi@gmail.com 2009-02-21 15:42:53
EDT ---
Sorry for the delayed response.
Till now libchamplain and libchamplain-gtk had two separate source trees, which
has recently been merged into one. This happened earlier than I had predicted.
However it will take some time for the first release from this merged tree.
Therefore I am not sure whether we should go ahead with this review, because
libchamplain-gtk will be very short-lived as a separate source package. Once
the 0.4.x (or 0.3.x) releases come out from the unified tree, libchamplain-gtk
will become a sub-package of libchamplain.
What do you think?
(In reply to comment #1)
Couple of things :
- you should not put %{version} macro in the patch0 source filename, since
this will force you to rename it everytime you update the package. Although
not
officially in the guidelines, most people hardcode the version that the patch
was derived from, and keep that version in the filename until the patch no
longer applies and has to be recreated...
Yes, you are right. The reason I do it is to force myself to rebase the patches
on every new upstream release to avoid any silly build failures due to the new
RPM's zero fuzz tolerance, or have any ancient patches lying around.
- why the pkgconfig patch ? I can see the development headers indeed only need
libchamplain and gtk2 but this most likely will not stay true in the future.
Seems a bit over the top...
In case they actually add any new dependencies then we will have to add it in
the Spec (only on F10 since F11 auto-detects pkgconfig stuff) and modify/remove
the patch accordingly. I have notified the upstream author and he seems to
agree that the pkgconfig file might be faulty.
It somehow does not feel right to knowingly distribute a faulty file. :-)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226062] Merge Review: libX11
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226062 --- Comment #3 from Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com 2009-02-21 15:53:57 EDT --- Mostly fixed in 1.2-2. The zero-lenth compose files are that way upstream as well. -- 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 226063] Merge Review: libXau
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226063 --- Comment #1 from Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com 2009-02-21 15:56:33 EDT --- Cleaned up most of the usual problems in 1.0.4-2. rpmlint comes back silent. -- 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 226068] Merge Review: libXdmcp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226068 --- Comment #2 from Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com 2009-02-21 15:59:33 EDT --- Fixed in 1.0.2-7, along with the other usual suspects. -- 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 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #55 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2009-02-21 16:00:42 EDT --- Agreed. I'll continue addressing your review comments. I don't want to be supporting a quick and dirty hack in RHEL 6. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226075] Merge Review: libXinerama
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226075 --- Comment #2 from Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com 2009-02-21 16:03:13 EDT --- Mostly fixed in 1.0.3-3, except for the %description bit Note that xorg-x11-proto-devel pulls in pkgconfig for free. -- 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 486758] New: Review Request: yofrankie-bge - 3D Game with characters from Big Buck Bunny movie
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: yofrankie-bge - 3D Game with characters from Big Buck Bunny movie https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486758 Summary: Review Request: yofrankie-bge - 3D Game with characters from Big Buck Bunny movie Product: Fedora Version: 7 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: lkund...@v3.sk QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/yofrankie-bge.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/yofrankie-bge-1-0.1.20081221svn.src.rpm Description: Yo Frankie! is an open source computer game by the Blender Institute. It is based on the universe and characters of the open source film Big Buck Bunny. In the game, players assume the role of Frank, the sugar glider who was the antagonist of the film Big Buck Bunny. The game has been made using free software, partly as a showcase of what can be achieved with free software. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486758] Review Request: yofrankie-bge - 3D Game with characters from Big Buck Bunny movie
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486758 --- Comment #1 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-02-21 16:30:34 EDT --- Note: There are two issues known to me: 1.) Version number is made up 2.) Licensing is not clear enough Don't let that discourage you from reviewing, both were communicated upstream and I'm currently waiting for a reply. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480859] Review Request: diffuse - graphical diff tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480859 --- Comment #12 from Jon Levell fed...@coralbark.net 2009-02-21 16:28:11 EDT --- Re: Comment #11 I've been giving some thought to my sponsorship request. I would like to be sponsored but I don't (at least initially) want to maintain many packages. On the other hand, this package isn't very good evidence that I'm competent. Would a number of informal package reviews be enough? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480859] Review Request: diffuse - graphical diff tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480859 --- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-02-21 16:55:51 EDT --- Yes, good idea. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486760] Review Request: mscore - Music Composition Notation Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486760 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||483376 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483376] Review Request: fluid-soundfont - Pro-quality GM/GS soundfont
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483376 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||486760 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486760] New: Review Request: mscore - Music Composition Notation Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mscore - Music Composition Notation Software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486760 Summary: Review Request: mscore - Music Composition Notation Software Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: oget.fed...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/mscore.spec SRPM URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/mscore-0.9.4-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: MuseScore is a free cross platform WYSIWYG music notation program. Some highlights: * WYSIWYG, notes are entered on a virtual note sheet * Unlimited number of staves * Up to four voices per staff * Easy and fast note entry with mouse, keyboard or MIDI * Integrated sequencer and FluidSynth software synthesizer * Import and export of MusicXML and Standard MIDI Files (SMF) * Available in 12 languages Rpmlint: mscore-mscore-fonts.x86_64: W: no-documentation mscore-mscore-fonts.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions There's not much I can do for the first one. The second one is false alarm, because GPL+ with exceptions is listed in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses This is a very nice piece of software. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226136] Merge Review: mesa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226136 --- Comment #3 from Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com 2009-02-21 16:59:54 EDT --- Fixed most of the obvious stuff in 7.3-3. There's still unversioned provides for a bunch of stuff, in principle so you can depend on libGL without caring whose libGL you get. I'm not sure it's worth keeping, but it's harmless enough. -- 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 226349] Merge Review: pyxf86config
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226349 --- Comment #1 from Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com 2009-02-21 17:02:15 EDT --- Fixed an explicit Requires: glib2 in 0.3.37-3. Everything else looks sane. -- 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 226612] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-nv
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226612 --- Comment #2 from Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com 2009-02-21 17:07:16 EDT --- Fixed smp_mflags in 2.1.12-9. nouveau is a separate package now, so I think this is done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226644] Merge Review: xorg-x11-server-utils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226644 --- Comment #1 from Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com 2009-02-21 17:17:31 EDT --- Fixed some minor stuff in 7.4-6. The unversioned provides are intentional. -- 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 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
AssignedTo|pala...@gmx.de |gnomeu...@gmail.com
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Paul Lange pala...@gmx.de 2009-02-21 17:17:32 EDT ---
Don't know where I found this Readme file. Most probably it only exists in my
brain or in mono-torrent. forget about it ;)
Further (more formal) review:
- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.
mono-nat.i386: W: no-documentation
We can't change this, maybe we could ask upstream.
mono-nat.i386: E: no-binary
mono-nat.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
Can be ignored.
mono-nat-devel.i386: W: no-documentation
We can't change this.
- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK
- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec
OK
- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
OK
- MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
OK
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
OK
- MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
License file not included.
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK
- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK
- MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK
- MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
Currently handled with ExclusiveArch:. Maybe change this to
ExcludeArch:ppc64?
- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK
- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
OK
- MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK
- MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK
- MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK
- MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK
- MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
OK
- MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
OK
- MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
OK
- MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time.
OK
- MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK
- MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
OK
So the only thing I can find is the ExclusiveArch vs. ExcludeArch problem. I
think booth works, maybe we should create a default for Mono Packages.
The text update could be done later. I also assigned the bug to you.
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
[Bug 225998] Merge Review: libdmx
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225998 --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-02-21 17:50:12 EDT --- I went ahead and used Summary: X.Org X11 DMX runtime library %description The X.Org X11 DMX (Distributed Multihead X) runtime library. which seem to satisfy the usual goals for these tags (summary doesn't include package name, both are basically useful as an explanation and bizarre acronyms are expanded in the description. They also don't stray overly from what other X packages are using. I guess the descriptions aren't grammatically sentences, but adding This package contains to them seems to be beyond pointless. At this point I would approve this package were it my review, but that's Orcan's call. I'm only sticking my head in here because ajax asked me to take a look. -- 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 478300] Review Request: python-wifi - Python binding for the wireless extensions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478300 --- Comment #6 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-21 18:15:01 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: python-wifi Short Description: Python binding for the wireless extensions Owners: fab Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478300] Review Request: python-wifi - Python binding for the wireless extensions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478300 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-21 18:14:13 EDT --- https://developer.berlios.de/bugs/?func=detailbugbug_id=15290group_id=7134 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from David Nielsen gnomeu...@gmail.com 2009-02-21 18:14:53 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mono-nat Short Description: .NET library for automatic port forwarding Owners: dnielsen Branches: F-9, F-10 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226612] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-nv
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226612 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-02-21 18:15:25 EDT --- Indeed, this is fine; the nouveau driver is split out and the other bits are cleaned up. Thanks. I would urge some additional documentation of the patches since this package is starting to accumulate quite a few of them that don't seem to be going upstream. I see there there's some reasonable info in the changelog, but it would be good to have consistent links to Red Hat bugzilla or the upstream bug tracker. APPROVED and closed. -- 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 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 #4 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-02-21 18:25:08 EDT --- FYI, Steve indicated in an unrelated mailing list message that he is extremely busy at the moment and requested assistance getting his pacakges through the gcc44 thing, new fonts guidelines and mass rebuild. He also indicated that he doesn't want to orphan them because he intends to come back when able. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225998] Merge Review: libdmx
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225998 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-02-21 18:59:54 EDT --- I gave the excerpt from the manpage just for this purpose, and Most X libs do it this way is really not a good defense. Anyhow, Jason's correction made things a little better. Since there is no real guideline that a packager must obey about the quality of the summary/description, I can't put a blocker. -- This Merge Review (libdmx) is APPROVED by oget -- -- 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 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 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|gnomeu...@gmail.com |pala...@gmx.de --- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-21 19:28:32 EDT --- (Please keep the reviewer as assignee if the reviewer approved the review request) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226075] Merge Review: libXinerama
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226075 --- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-02-21 21:03:08 EDT --- Thanks, there are two more things. ? Could you at least define xinerama in the description as Jason did in libdmx? This is just a request from me. * You forgot this one: BR: libXau-devel is not needed. Afaict it is not used. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484535] Review Request: kde-plasma-networkmanagement - Plasmoid to control Network Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484535
--- Comment #13 from Milos Jakubicek xja...@fi.muni.cz 2009-02-21 21:35:25
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #12)
rpmlint says that the Provides: should be versioned. Not sure if I should, and
if so, what version it should be. %{version}-%{release} I'd guess, if any.
- Yes, it should and those Provides/Obsoletes statements must be placed also by
the subpackages, see this draft for details:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Archive:PackagingDrafts/ProvidesObsoletes
- remove duplicate Requires: openvpn/vpnc, they're again pulled by the
NetworkManager-openvpn/vpnc packages.
- by providing a more appropriate description, I really didn't mean to expand
the macro;) You should briefly describe the functions of the plasmoid, please
try to do so for a few lines.
- regardins licensing it's a big mess:
GPLv2+:
- libs/dbus/*
LGPLv2:
- in libs/ui:
accesspoint.cpp,h
apitemdelegate.cpp,h
apitemmodel.cpp,h
apitemview.cpp,h
ifaceitemmodel.cpp,h
scanwidget.cpp,h
- in libs:
marshalarguments.h
types.h
- in libs/storage/settings:
wephash.cpp,h
- in settings:
ip4config.cpp,h
- in settings/service:
busconnection.cpp,h
networksettings.cpp,h
LGPLv2+:
- in tests:
testconfigxml.cpp,h
testnewstorage.cpp,h
GPLv2 or GPLv3 (Qt Nokia):
tests/qdbusfornm.cpp
MISSING LICENSE:
libs/ui/vpnuiplugin.cpp
all others under libs/ are LGPLv2+
all others are GPLv2+
So...this is a bit problem, please:
- you can (but not must of course) try to persuade upstream to unify the
licenses to GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ if it is possible. Currently it violates the GPL
licenses according to:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#GPL_Compatibility_Matrix
(You cannot copy LGPLv2 code within GPLv2+ project without converting to GPLv2)
So you should at least try that.
- you really should persuade them to:
-- add the license info to libs/ui/vpnuiplugin.cpp if it not autogenerated
-- include the license files for GPLv2 and LGPLv2, LICENSE.GPL and
GPL_EXCEPTIONS.TXT. Suggest naming the GPLv2 license file as LICENSE.GPL to
avoid duplicates.
- please put the information I've gathered above into a LICENSING.INFO file and
package it as a %doc
As it is now, the License tag would be:
(GPLv2 or GPLv3) and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and LGPLv2
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484535] Review Request: kde-plasma-networkmanagement - Plasmoid to control Network Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484535 --- Comment #14 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org 2009-02-21 21:55:54 EDT --- As discussed on IRC, using the LGPLv2 code there is not a violation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472337] Review Request: fabric - A simple pythonic remote deployment 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=472337 Silas Sewell si...@sewell.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NOTABUG | --- Comment #10 from Silas Sewell si...@sewell.ch 2009-02-21 23:42:22 EDT --- I have some more time now, so I'm going to re-open this review and try to get sponsored. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486804] New: Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486804 Summary: Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: monke...@users.sf.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.libferris.com/ferrisloki.spec SRPM URL: http://www.libferris.com/ferrisloki-3.0.2-50021.src.rpm Description: A C++ system library for SmartPtr, Singletons, Functors, Factories and other nice things. This version contains some changes for Linux and other new items in Extensions.hh The end result is to get libferrisloki, libferrisstreams, stldb4, libferris itself and a few other higher level libferris packages into Fedora itself. This is the base package that all the others rely on. this is mer first package, and me are seeking a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486009] Review Request: php-pear-Crypt_Blowfish - quick two-way blowfish encryption
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486009
Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@famillecollet.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2009-02-22 02:17:20
EDT ---
First notes :
- It requires PEAR = 1.7.2 (according to upstream and to xml) : this will
block this package for EPEL.
- rpmlint warning :
W: summary-not-capitalized quick two-way blowfish encryption
- %file must be fixed
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{pear_xmldir}/%{pear_name}.xml
%{pear_testdir}/%{pear_name}
%{pear_phpdir}/Crypt
- I would prefer using %{name}.xml rather than %{pear_name}.xml (see recently
approved PHP Guidelines, this is usefull to avoid conflict between package from
various channel)
- a comment about running the tests (which must be done as root after install)
will be usefull :
= pear run-tests -p Crypt_Blowfish
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486044] Review Request: php-pear-Config -Configuration file manipulation for PHP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486044
Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@famillecollet.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2009-02-22 02:29:54
EDT ---
First Notes :
- As optional deps are available it should be usefull to add it
Requires: php-pear(XML_Parser) php-pear(XML_Util)
- I prefer the use of %{name}.xml rather than %{pear_name}.xml (see recent
change to PHP Guidelines, this will avoid conflict with package from other
channel)
- rpmlint is silent
- A comment about running test-suite will be usefull
# pear run-tests -p Config
Running 16 tests
...
FAIL [ 3/16] test for bug 3051[/usr/share/pear/test/Config/test/bug3051.phpt]
...
FAIL [16/16] regression test for bug
#10185[/usr/share/pear/test/Config/test/bug10185.phpt]
wrote log to /root/run-tests.log
TOTAL TIME: 00:01
14 PASSED TESTS
0 SKIPPED TESTS
2 FAILED TESTS:
/usr/share/pear/test/Config/test/bug3051.phpt
/usr/share/pear/test/Config/test/bug10185.phpt
Have you encounter and investigate this issue ? (at least, reported upstream)
- %file must be fixed, should be
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc %{pear_name}-%{version}/docdir/%{pear_name}/*
%{pear_xmldir}/%{pear_name}.xml
%{pear_testdir}/%{pear_name}
%{pear_phpdir}/Config*
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484507] Review Request: php-channel-ezc - eZ Components
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484507
Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2009-02-22 02:44:34
EDT ---
REVIEW
* no source files
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines (recently approved new PHP
Guidelines).
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license (of the packages provided by the
channel).
* license is open source-compatible (BSD).
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide).
* package installs properly
* rpmlint :
php-channel-ezc.src:21: W: unversioned-explicit-provides php-channel(ezc)
php-channel-ezc.src:22: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
php-channel(%{channel})
* final provides are sane:
php-channel(components.ez.no)
php-channel(ezc)
php-channel-ezc = 1-1.fc8
* %check is not present; no test suite provide.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets are OK (pear channel..)
* no documentation
No version for the .xml file, but I think using 1 is OK.
Providing php-channel(ezc) is not usefull and should be removed.
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 484509] Review Request: php-ezc-Base - eZ Components Base
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484509 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2009-02-22 02:56:53 EDT --- 2 directories not owned : /usr/share/pear/ezc /usr/share/pear/ezc/autoload As this is the first package for ezc channel (required by all others) it must own this dirs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
