[Bug 487637] Review Request: rtaudio - Real-time Audio I/O 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=487637 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #22 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-28 03:04:58 EDT --- Now closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487847] New: Review Request: perl-Algorithm-Merge - Three-way merge and diff
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Algorithm-Merge - Three-way merge and diff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487847 Summary: Review Request: perl-Algorithm-Merge - Three-way merge and diff Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: iarn...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://iarnell.fedorapeople.org/rpms/perl-Algorithm-Merge.spec SRPM URL: http://iarnell.fedorapeople.org/rpms/perl-Algorithm-Merge-0.08-1.fc11.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1208124 Description: This module complements Algorithm::Diff by providing three-way merge and diff functions. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487114] Review Request: gvrpcd - A program for announcing VLANs using GVRP.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487114
--- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-02-28
04:14:52 EDT ---
* Patches have been merged upstream into gvrpcd-1.2, which does not
exist as tarball release yet, though.
Quite a lot of issues with this package:
* %{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/gvrpcd
- must not be executable
- is a configuration file that ought to be marked %config(noreplace)
- defaults to eth0 (why?)
- the default is also a bit strange considering that the
initscript defaults to eth0 already
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files
* rpmlint /home/qa/tmp/rpm/RPMS/gvrpcd-1.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm
gvrpcd.i386: E: script-without-shebang /etc/sysconfig/gvrpcd
gvrpcd.i386: E: init-script-without-chkconfig-postin /etc/rc.d/init.d/gvrpcd
gvrpcd.i386: E: init-script-without-chkconfig-preun /etc/rc.d/init.d/gvrpcd
gvrpcd.i386: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/gvrpcd
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings.
Run rpmlint -i ... on the built rpms for helpful explanations.
* Documentation for initscripts can be found here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript
There even is a template you ought to use.
* Upstream is advised to include a proper GPLv2 header as suggested in the
GPL itself. The way it is done currently in gvrpcd.c is doubtful, because it is
a source file and the header refers to this license document. It doesn't
even mention a link to the GPL.
* The README points to http://wiki.ethereal.com/GVRP which gives
404 Not Found.
* With defaults, but no /proc/net/vlan/config because of disabled VLAN
interfaces, the daemon logs fopen: /proc/net/vlan/config: No such file or
directory, says it started successfully, but actually has terminated
(gvrpcd dead but subsys locked). Shutting down prints FAILED, but logs
shutdown succeeded and runs into the 8 seconds sleep.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487349] Review Request: bashdb - BASH debugger, the BASH symbolic debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487349 Paulo Roma Cavalcanti pro...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Paulo Roma Cavalcanti pro...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 04:25:41 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: bashdb Short Description: BASH debugger, the BASH symbolic debugger Owners: roma Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11(devel) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484560] Review Request: pydb - An expanded version of the Python debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484560 Paulo Roma Cavalcanti pro...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Paulo Roma Cavalcanti pro...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 04:28:44 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: pydb Short Description: Extended Python Debugger Owners: roma Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11(devel) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487851] New: Review Request: perl-HTML-LinkList - Create a 'smart' list of HTML links
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-HTML-LinkList - Create a 'smart' list of HTML links https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487851 Summary: Review Request: perl-HTML-LinkList - Create a 'smart' list of HTML links Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: iarn...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://iarnell.fedorapeople.org/rpms/perl-HTML-LinkList.spec SRPM URL: http://iarnell.fedorapeople.org/rpms/perl-HTML-LinkList-0.1503-1.fc11.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1208236 Description: This module contains a number of functions for taking sets of URLs and labels and creating suitably formatted HTML. These links are smart because, if given the url of the current page, if any of the links in the list equal it, that item in the list will be formatted as a special label, not as a link; this is a Good Thing, since the user would be confused by clicking on a link back to the current page. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487852] New: Review Request: perl-HTML-SimpleParse - Bare-bones HTML parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-HTML-SimpleParse - Bare-bones HTML parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487852 Summary: Review Request: perl-HTML-SimpleParse - Bare-bones HTML parser Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: iarn...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://iarnell.fedorapeople.org/rpms/perl-HTML-SimpleParse.spec SRPM URL: http://iarnell.fedorapeople.org/rpms/perl-HTML-SimpleParse-0.12-1.fc11.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1208237 Description: This module is a simple HTML parser. It is similar in concept to HTML::Parser, but it differs from HTML::TreeBuilder in a couple of important ways. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487809] Review Request: perl-HTML-LinkList - Create a 'smart' list of HTML links
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487809 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||iarn...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 04:42:54 EDT --- *** Bug 487851 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487851] Review Request: perl-HTML-LinkList - Create a 'smart' list of HTML links
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487851 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 04:42:54 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 487809 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 273701] Review Request: gnome-main-menu - Gnome Main 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=273701 Jeffrey Goh fed...@linux.com.sg changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@linux.com.sg --- Comment #62 from Jeffrey Goh fed...@linux.com.sg 2009-02-28 05:21:32 EDT --- SLAB is nice. This was the most up to date I could find for fedora 10, but since I'm on fc10 and not rawhide, this didn't exactly work straight out of the box for me. I ended up amending Karl's patch file before I found the official 0.9.12 release. Here is my replacement patch. You'll want it in your rpmbuild/SOURCES directory after you install Karl's src.rpm http://www.linux.com.sg/fedora10/gnome-main-menu/0.9.12-2/fedora-main-menu.patch I'll get the official 0.9.12 release into the RPM in due course. The network button doesn't work for me still, so I'll have to figure that out ... Hope this helps. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 David Nielsen dniel...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX --- Comment #11 from David Nielsen dniel...@fedoraproject.org 2009-02-28 05:56:13 EDT --- Due to inactivity since 2008-10-20 I am closing 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 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 David Nielsen dniel...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX --- Comment #8 from David Nielsen dniel...@fedoraproject.org 2009-02-28 05:56:15 EDT --- Due to inactivity since 2008-10-20 I am closing 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 David Nielsen dniel...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX --- Comment #5 from David Nielsen dniel...@fedoraproject.org 2009-02-28 05:56:11 EDT --- Due to inactivity since 2008-10-20 I am closing 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 David Nielsen dniel...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX --- Comment #5 from David Nielsen dniel...@fedoraproject.org 2009-02-28 05:57:11 EDT --- Due to inactivity since 2008-11-18 I am closing 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 487114] Review Request: gvrpcd - A program for announcing VLANs using GVRP.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487114 --- Comment #3 from Jasper Capel ca...@stone-it.com 2009-02-28 06:06:04 EDT --- Thanks. I'll have another go at it. Still in the process of learning. :) Upstream modified the init-script I used a bit, so it works on other distributions as well, and asked me to test it. I'll do so, and ask him to release after I did. It deviates more from the Fedora SysV guidelines, so I'll make a new, proper one, and include that by patching the sources. Your last remark, about when /proc/net/vlan/config does not exist, is that something that I should test for in the init-script, or should this be fixed another way? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487856] New: Review Request: perl-Data-FormValidator - Validates user input (usually from an HTML form) based on input profile
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Data-FormValidator - Validates user input (usually from an HTML form) based on input profile https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487856 Summary: Review Request: perl-Data-FormValidator - Validates user input (usually from an HTML form) based on input profile Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: iarn...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://iarnell.fedorapeople.org/rpms/perl-Data-FormValidator.spec SRPM URL: http://iarnell.fedorapeople.org/rpms/perl-Data-FormValidator-4.63-1.fc11.src.rpm Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1208361 Description: Data::FormValidator's main aim is to make input validation expressible in a simple format. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225612] Merge Review: beagle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225612
--- Comment #3 from Adel Gadllah adel.gadl...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 06:51:19
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Okay, here comes rpmlint on the latest in rawhide:
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/beagle/crawl-rules/crawl-windows
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/beagle/config-files/BeagleSearch.xml
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/beagle/query-mapping.xml
OK, done.
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/xdg/autostart/beagled-autostart.desktop
Not sure if this should be threated like a config file...
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/beagle/crawl-rules/crawl-applications
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/beagle/config-files/Networking.xml
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/beagle/blocate.conf
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/beagle/crawl-rules/crawl-monodoc
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/beagle/external-filters.xml.sample
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/beagle/config-files/Daemon.xml
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/beagle/crawl-rules/crawl-documentation
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/beagle/crawl-rules/crawl-executables
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/beagle/config-files/FilesQueryable.xml
beagle.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/beagle/crawl-rules/crawl-manpages
Please mark all of these as %config(noreplace).
OK, done.
beagle.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/beagle/keygrabber.py 0644
Please fix permissions on that script.
OK, done
beagle.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/cache/beagle beaglidx
beagle.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/cache/beagle beaglidx
beagle.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/cache/beagle/indexes beaglidx
beagle.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/cache/beagle/indexes beaglidx
Safe to ignore.
beagle.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/beagle-config
beagle.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/beagle/libbeagleglue.so
beagle.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libbeagle
Safe to ignore. Odd that it doesn't end up building against libbeagle though.
Is linked at runtime (dlopen)
beagle-epiphany.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib64/epiphany/2.24/extensions/beagle.py 0644
Please fix permissions on that script.
Fixed.
beagle-firefox.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib64/mozilla/extensions/{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}/{fda00e13-8c62-4f63-9d19-d168115b11ca}/chrome/locale/zh-CN/contents.rdf
beagle-firefox.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib64/mozilla/extensions/{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}/{fda00e13-8c62-4f63-9d19-d168115b11ca}/chrome/content/beagleAddFilter.xul
beagle-firefox.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib64/mozilla/extensions/{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}/{fda00e13-8c62-4f63-9d19-d168115b11ca}/chrome/content/indexLink.xul
beagle-firefox.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib64/mozilla/extensions/{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}/{fda00e13-8c62-4f63-9d19-d168115b11ca}/chrome/skin/classic/overlay.css
beagle-firefox.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib64/mozilla/extensions/{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}/{fda00e13-8c62-4f63-9d19-d168115b11ca}/chrome/content/utils.js
beagle-firefox.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib64/mozilla/extensions/{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}/{fda00e13-8c62-4f63-9d19-d168115b11ca}/chrome/locale/zh-CN/beagle.dtd
beagle-firefox.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib64/mozilla/extensions/{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}/{fda00e13-8c62-4f63-9d19-d168115b11ca}/chrome/content/beagleAddFilter.js
Are these really executable scripts? Do they need to be chmod +x?
No, fixed.
beagle-firefox.x86_64: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/lib64/mozilla/extensions/{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}/{fda00e13-8c62-4f63-9d19-d168115b11ca}/chrome/locale/zh-CN/contents.rdf
Please fix the end of line encoding here. sed -i 's/\r//' foo
beagle-firefox.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
beagle-gnome.x86_64: W: no-documentation
Safe to ignore.
beagle-gnome.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/beagle/libbeagleuiglue.so
You should have a beagle-gnome-devel package for this one.
No this file gets dlopened its not something that is linked against at build
time.
beagle-thunderbird.x86_64: W: no-documentation
beagle-thunderbird.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
Safe to ignore.
*
Please make the changes that I illustrated from rpmlint, and I'll finish the
review.
Thanks, fixed in 0.3.9-4
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
[Bug 426751] Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426751 --- Comment #54 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-02-28 06:53:30 EDT --- http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/spin-kickstarts.git Looking at the license again the missing clause is just: Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. so I don't think there is a problem, but I just sent a mail to fedora-legal anyway to confirm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 426751] Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426751 --- Comment #55 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-02-28 06:54:59 EDT --- (In reply to comment #54) http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/spin-kickstarts.git Oops, that should have been: http://darcs.haskell.org/packages/X11/LICENSE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487840] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Singleton - Singleton to context
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487840
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 2009-02-28
07:05:24 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic (same as perl)
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: b6cac4fc29d73504aaccba40449e2ff32afac7e9
Catalyst-Plugin-Singleton-0.02.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] 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 487841] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Unicode - Unicode aware Catalyst
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487841
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-02-28
07:10:32 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as define
d 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: 7bfe56992fe6849d554152fac4c619da5183e7ab
Catalyst-Plugin-Unicode-0.8.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 se
ction 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] 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 487730] Review Request: perl-AnyEvent-XMPP - Implementation of the XMPP Protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487730 Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 07:12:12 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-AnyEvent-XMPP Short Description: Implementation of the XMPP Protocol 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 487847] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-Merge - Three-way merge and diff
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487847
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-02-28
07:18:54 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic (same as perl)
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: 89d2c606c27cbed4a7a1cad0737e437a1d27cf00
Algorithm-Merge-0.08.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] 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 487852] Review Request: perl-HTML-SimpleParse - Bare-bones HTML parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487852
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-02-28
07:24:19 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic (same as perl)
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: 46823e4344ab6ca91078a21e16434a26aafe5f9d
HTML-SimpleParse-0.12.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] 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-Engli
sh 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 487667] Review Request: perl-Net-XMPP2 - Implementation of the XMPP Protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487667 Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX --- Comment #2 from Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 07:30:59 EDT --- Thanks for advice, this package is deprecated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487856] Review Request: perl-Data-FormValidator - Validates user input (usually from an HTML form) based on input profile
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487856
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-02-28
07:35:13 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic (same as perl)
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of source file: d401db7573da545a67368772589fc11cd9aa6002
Data-FormValidator-4.63.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] 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'd say you can ditch the BuildRequires: perl = 0:5.008. It's satisfied by
all distributions built this century. Even Fedora Core 1 was using perl 5.8.1
*** 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 485563] Review Request: fsarchiver - Safe and flexible file-system backup/deployment tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485563 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-02-28 08:42:48 EDT --- fsarchiver-0.4.3-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fsarchiver-0.4.3-1.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485417] Review Request: bochs-bios - bios implementation from the bochs project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485417 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|lemen...@gmail.com |rjo...@redhat.com --- Comment #11 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-02-28 08:45:43 EDT --- Taking for 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 485417] Review Request: bochs-bios - bios implementation from the bochs project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485417
--- Comment #12 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-02-28
09:35:28 EDT ---
I patched the spec file (see comment 13), so this review
refers to the patched package.
Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1208731
+ rpmlint output
bochs-bios.x86_64: E: no-binary
We can ignore this error - rpmlint doesn't recognise the binary.
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license
LGPLv2+
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
Verified by checking out Bochs sources from upstream git.
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun
n/a does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
n/a packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8
Optional:
n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock
+ the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
+ review should test the package functions as described
n/a scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485417] Review Request: bochs-bios - bios implementation from the bochs project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485417 --- Comment #13 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-02-28 09:37:27 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=333604) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=333604) Updated bochs-bios.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 485417] Review Request: bochs-bios - bios implementation from the bochs project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485417 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-02-28 09:39:47 EDT --- --- This package (release 0.6) is APPROVED by rjones --- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485417] Review Request: bochs-bios - bios implementation from the bochs project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485417
--- Comment #14 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-02-28
09:39:00 EDT ---
Created an attachment (id=333605)
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=333605)
Patch to bochs-bios.spec from release 0.3 to release 0.6.
This patch shows the differences between release 0.3
and release 0.6.
Note that you will have to rename %{SOURCE1} in your
SOURCES directory, because I removed the release part
from the name of this 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 438608] Review Request: elisa-plugins-good - Good Plugins for the Elisa Media Center
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438608 Matthias Saou matth...@rpmforge.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #32 from Matthias Saou matth...@rpmforge.net 2009-02-28 09:42:33 EDT --- Thanks a lot Kevin. The package has been imported and built fine. We only have but #438609 to go before elisa is usable again 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 487637] Review Request: rtaudio - Real-time Audio I/O 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=487637 --- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-28 09:57:30 EDT --- One thing: - Does files under tests/ create some binaries useful for developers, or these files exist just to check if these files really compile with librtaudio.a? If latter, I think it is better to remove tests/ from %doc and add %check section to execute some tests. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485417] Review Request: bochs-bios - bios implementation from the bochs project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485417 --- Comment #16 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 10:10:46 EDT --- Unfortunately, the package in its current state doesn't change much in the current situation with prebuilt files in qemu rpm.. It just drops blobs into the main repository as qemu did before. I tried to rebuild this package with different compilers (pcc, tinycc), but with no success so far. I still think that we should add i386-gcc on every non-x86 arch before submitting this title. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467420] Review Request: mingw32-gtk2 - MinGW Windows Gtk2 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=467420 Bug 467420 depends on bug 467409, which changed state. Bug 467409 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-atk - MinGW Windows Atk library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467409 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||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 467409] Review Request: mingw32-atk - MinGW Windows Atk 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=467409 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #15 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-02-28 10:13:15 EDT --- I think I forgot to close this. It's been in Rawhide for a while. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 446097] Review Request: pytraffc - Computer version of the board game Rush Hou
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446097
Alexey Torkhov atork...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||atork...@gmail.com
Flag||needinfo?(sindr...@fedorapr
||oject.org)
--- Comment #6 from Alexey Torkhov atork...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 10:40:11
EDT ---
- rpmlint is saying error on package built for F-11 (rawhide):
pytraffic.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/pytraffic/_hint.so
0775
pytraffic.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/pytraffic/_sdl_mixer.so 0775
- Use Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} for themes subpackage.
- Licensing of music and graphics should be clarified. And, if it is not GPLv2+
correspondent name added to License tag.
- Why change from 19.000 to 19,000 that was previously suggested wasn't made?
- Add proper game category like LogicGame when doing desktop-file-install.
- Remove --vendor fedora as per guidelines.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470066] Review Request: R-qtl - Quantitative trait loci (qtl) functionality for R
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470066 --- Comment #8 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se 2009-02-28 10:53:40 EDT --- After contacting the upstream developers they sent me a new version of the code where they have fixed the inconsistent license information. I have created an updated package based on this version: Spec URL: http://www3.tsl.uu.se/~ellert/R-qtl/R-qtl.spec SRPM URL: http://www3.tsl.uu.se/~ellert/R-qtl/R-qtl-1.10-1.fc9.src.rpm The source (qtl_1.10-28.tar.gz) differs from the version you can download from the website (qtl_1.10-27.tar.gz), but the only difference is the updated license information. Since the license information now is consistent I have reverted the License tag in the spec file to be GPLv2+. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 446097] Review Request: pytraffc - Computer version of the board game Rush Hou
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446097 --- Comment #7 from Alexey Torkhov atork...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 10:56:05 EDT --- - Also, Rush Hour and company name should be removed from description as it is trademarks. Suggested change is to PyTraffic is sliding block puzzle game. ... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485417] Review Request: bochs-bios - bios implementation from the bochs project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485417
--- Comment #17 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-02-28
11:12:13 EDT ---
I don't understand comment 16. This package builds from source
on %{ix86} and x86_64. It doesn't build from source on non-x86
builders, simply because they lack the required cross-compiler.
If Koji did something sensible with:
ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64
BuildArch: noarch
then we could even build properly on Koji and create a noarch
package. The fact that it doesn't is just a bug in Koji.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 438609] Review Request: elisa-plugins-bad - Bad Plugins for the Elisa Media Center
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438609 --- Comment #16 from Matthias Saou matth...@rpmforge.net 2009-02-28 11:19:31 EDT --- elisa and elisa-plugins-good are now up to 0.5.29 in devel, and the package to be reviewed has also been updated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480102] Review Request: weka - Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480102 --- Comment #6 from Milos Jakubicek xja...@fi.muni.cz 2009-02-28 11:18:29 EDT --- * Sat Feb 28 2009 Milos Jakubicek xja...@fi.muni.cz - 3.6.0-3 - Fixed desktop file name - Added optional running junit tests into %%check, added BR:junit - Fixed changelog entry The failing jUnit tests have been files into upstream bugtracker. New SRPM: http://mjakubicek.fedorapeople.org/weka/weka.spec New SPEC: http://mjakubicek.fedorapeople.org/weka/weka-3.6.0-3.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 446097] Review Request: pytraffic - sliding block puzzle board 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=446097 Alexey Torkhov atork...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: pytraffc - |Review Request: pytraffic - |Computer version of the |sliding block puzzle board |board game Rush Hou |game -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487874] New: Review Request: fcode-utils - Utilities for dealing with FCode
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: fcode-utils - Utilities for dealing with FCode https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487874 Summary: Review Request: fcode-utils - Utilities for dealing with FCode Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: lemen...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/fcode-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/fcode-utils-1.0.2-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Utilities for dealing with FCode, a Forth programming language dialect compliant with ANS Forth. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487874] Review Request: fcode-utils - Utilities for dealing with FCode
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487874 --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 11:36:37 EDT --- Note: original tarball contains also 'localvalues' directory, which contents liensed under Common Public License v. 1.0. I don't understand, what's the purpose of this content, and therefore didn't decide where should I install it, so I (temporarily, I hope) ignored 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 487874] Review Request: fcode-utils - Utilities for dealing with FCode
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487874 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||485420 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485420] Review Request: openbios - Open Source implementation of IEEE 1275-1994
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485420 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||487874 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485417] Review Request: bochs-bios - bios implementation from the bochs project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485417 --- Comment #18 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 11:43:51 EDT --- If so, then you should open (if still not opened by someone) bug against koji and mark it as blocker for this ticket. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181801] Review Request: zeroinstall-injector
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=181801 Michel Alexandre Salim michel.syl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||michel.syl...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel.syl...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 12:06:13 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: zeroinstall-injector New Branches: EL-5 Owners: salimma I've just tested and zeroinstall-injector work just fine on CentOS 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 480102] Review Request: weka - Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480102 Michel Alexandre Salim michel.syl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel.syl...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 12:25:32 EDT --- Changes look good. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253355] Review Request: twill - A simple scripting language for Web browsing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253355 Matthias Saou matth...@rpmforge.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(lmac...@redhat.co ||m) --- Comment #16 from Matthias Saou matth...@rpmforge.net 2009-02-28 12:31:19 EDT --- Luke, could you give a life sign? It's been over a year since your last comment here :-) And either confirm that you still want to maintain this package, in which case I'll review it, or that you don't, in which case I'll pick it up and need someone to review it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 273701] Review Request: gnome-main-menu - Gnome Main 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=273701 --- Comment #63 from Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com 2009-02-28 13:21:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #62) The network button doesn't work for me still, so I'll have to figure that out ... You need 0.9.12 in order to have the network button work as mentioned in my comment right above yours. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487840] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Singleton - Singleton to context
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487840 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 13:21:59 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Singleton Short Description: Singleton to context Owners: iarnell 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 487874] Review Request: fcode-utils - Utilities for dealing with FCode
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487874 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 13:23:11 EDT --- Ok, I added installation of 'localvalues': http://peter.fedorapeople.org/fcode-utils.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/fcode-utils-1.0.2-2.fc10.src.rpm Here is a koji scratchbuild: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1209116 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487852] Review Request: perl-HTML-SimpleParse - Bare-bones HTML parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487852 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 13:24:10 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-HTML-SimpleParse Short Description: Bare-bones HTML parser Owners: iarnell 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 487847] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-Merge - Three-way merge and diff
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487847 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 13:23:36 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Algorithm-Merge Short Description: Three-way merge and diff Owners: iarnell 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 487841] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Unicode - Unicode aware Catalyst
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487841 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 13:22:57 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Unicode Short Description: Unicode aware Catalyst Owners: iarnell 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 487856] Review Request: perl-Data-FormValidator - Validates user input (usually from an HTML form) based on input profile
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487856 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 13:25:09 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Data-FormValidator Short Description: Validates user input based on input profile Owners: iarnell 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 487639] Review Request: armstrong - Powerful music sequencing library *** RENAMED PACKAGE ***
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487639
--- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-28
13:36:16 EDT ---
PRE-review for 0.2.6-2 (yes, PRE-review...)
* About patch
- Would you explain what the soname libzzub.so.0.3 liblunarstd.so.0
come from?
(anyway the soname libzzub.so.0.3 is wrong, it should be libzzub.so.0
or so)
- Also, non-patched src/plugins/lunar/SConscript seems to be saying
that liblunarstd.so is a plugin module, not a system-wide library.
Are you sure that this file should really be system-wide library?
* License tag
- License tag is inherited to all subpackages unless explicitly
specified (try $ rpm -qi armstrong-devel or so. I think
this should just be GPLv2+)
* internal libraries
--
# Remove the binded libraries. We'll use the internal ones
--
- You mean external ones?
* Document directories
--
%doc installed_docs/*
%{_defaultdocdir}/zzub
--
- With this armstrong will own two directories for documents,
%{_defaultdocdir}/{zzub,%{name}-%{version}}. I think
this is confusing and these directories should be unified.
- Also, anyway as this spec file has:
--
# We want to install docs to the proper location:
mkdir -p installed_docs
mv $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/zzub/* installed_docs/
--
Currently %_defaultdocdir/zzub is just empty.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487879] New: Review Request: python-reinteract - Interactive shell for Python
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-reinteract - Interactive shell for Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487879 Summary: Review Request: python-reinteract - Interactive shell for Python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: michel.syl...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/python/python-reinteract.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/python/python-reinteract-0.4.3-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Reinteract is a system for interactive experimentation with Python. Reinteract worksheets contain Python code combined with the results of that code, formatted as text or graphical plots. Unlike a traditional shell, you can go back and edit previously entered statements, and the results will update. Among other things, Reinteract is suitable for experimentation with the Python language and for data analysis using the NumPy and SciPy packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 273701] Review Request: gnome-main-menu - Gnome Main 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=273701 --- Comment #64 from Jeffrey Goh fed...@linux.com.sg 2009-02-28 13:48:39 EDT --- Thanks, Mike. Was just about to summarise my findings re: network button I already had 0.9.12 final release, but the problem was that NetworkManager wasn't running. [j...@localhost ~]$ gconftool-2 -R /desktop/gnome/applications/main-menu network_config_tool_nm = /usr/share/applications/nm-connection-editor.desktop ... network_config_tool = /usr/share/applications/YaST2/lan.desktop There are two things that can happen when you click the network-status-tile: 1. If NetworkManager is running, it'll run nm-connection-editor 2. If NM is not running, it'll run yast2 -lan (assuming you have some flavor of suse installed). There's two ways to fix this. The problem stays hidden if you run NM, but being the perfectionist that I am, here's my fix: [j...@localhost ~]$ gconftool-2 -t string -s /desktop/gnome/applications/main-menu/network_config_tool /usr/share/applications/redhat-system-config-network.desktop Now to figure out where in the source tree that actually lives so that installing the RPM just works. Neither the final release from gnome, nor any of Karl's patches addresses this niggly (but irritating) issue. 0.9.12-final now compiles just fine, but I need to package the patches for a proper fedora build before posting. Does anyone know if 0.9.13 real? The download page and the SVN don't seem to agree on what the latest version is. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487879] Review Request: python-reinteract - Interactive shell for 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=487879 --- Comment #1 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel.syl...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 13:51:24 EDT --- Koji build for F-10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1209236 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225814] Merge Review: gnome-bluetooth
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225814 Andrey kaaf...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kaaf...@yahoo.com Flag|needinfo?(jmosk...@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #5 from Andrey kaaf...@yahoo.com 2009-02-28 14:25:24 EDT --- It seems the Bastien Nocera did just the opposite. Recently he had moved bluez-gnome to gnome-bluetooth in the upstream. Please see details here: http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/gnome-bluetooth?view=revisionrevision=305 I believe now bluez-gnome has to be removed from Fedora and gnome-bluetooth updated to the latest version. After that this bug can be 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 487637] Review Request: rtaudio - Real-time Audio I/O 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=487637 --- Comment #6 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 14:29:06 EDT --- No, it is the former. But I realized that the empty directory tests/Release is really needed to build these binaries. So I shouldn't remove this directory in the %prep. Spec URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/rtaudio.spec SRPM URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/rtaudio-4.0.5-3.fc10.src.rpm Changelog: 4.0.5-3 - Don't remove the tests/Release directory -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485416] Review Request: msp430-gcc - Cross compiling GNU GCC for the MSP430
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485416 --- Comment #8 from Robert Spanton rspan...@zepler.net 2009-02-28 14:44:10 EDT --- Hi Ralf, Thanks. The CFLAGS issue that you spotted fixes building against rawhide on ppc64. However, it doesn't fix building against F10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1208914 So, I can either lean towards rawhide here or F10. Disabling the ppc64 build will make both work, but there'll be no ppc64 in rawhide. Once it's in CVS, I can enable the ppc64 build for rawhide. Does that sound like a sensible strategy? b) Remove all the hack entirely and live with the warnings brp-strip issues However, you seem to be lucky, this seems possible in this case, because brp-strip etc. (at least on Fedora 10) are broken enough not to try corrupting your target's files. Unfortunately this doesn't work. The brp-strip stuff does touch the libgcc.a file, resulting in an unusable compiler. I had a look at hacking the brp-strip scripts up more, but I can't see the problem with them. The output of: rpm -ql msp430-gcc | while read f; do file $f | grep ELF | grep -v stripped; done All the host binaries are stripped successfully when the brp-strip hacking is in place. I've added your suggestions for the setup macro (I can't believe that one has to read the RPM source to find out what those %setup parameters mean. Terrible!) and moved the man pages. Finally, I guess you know that gcc-3.2.3 is dead and discontinued for ca. 5 years - Not actually something I would want to maintain ;-) Unfortunately, this is the situation with mspgcc. Most of the mspgcc development is focussed on 3.2.3. Yes, this is a pain. However, hopefully packaging it up and making it available in a major distribution will help to breathe life into the project. Once people start using it, I think they'll begin to appreciate why using those non-free compilers is an inferior option. As I'm sure you're aware, it's mighty difficult to get started on GCC hacking. I don't really see how we can get out of this situation until that changes :-/ New files: Spec file: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/rds/rpm/mspgcc/msp430-gcc.spec SRPM: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/rds/rpm/mspgcc/msp430-gcc-3.2.3-2.20090210cvs.fc10.src.rpm Rob -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 273701] Review Request: gnome-main-menu - Gnome Main 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=273701 --- Comment #65 from Jeffrey Goh fed...@linux.com.sg 2009-02-28 14:48:39 EDT --- I'm posting the x86_64 RPMs first. 32 bit RPMs out shortly. Follow instructions in http://www.linux.com.sg/fedora10/gnome-main-menu/0.9.12-3/index.html http://www.linux.com.sg/fedora10/gnome-main-menu/0.9.12-3/gnome-main-menu-0.9.12-3.src.rpm http://www.linux.com.sg/fedora10/gnome-main-menu/0.9.12-3/gnome-main-menu-0.9.12-3.x86_64.rpm http://www.linux.com.sg/fedora10/gnome-main-menu/0.9.12-3/gnome-main-menu-debuginfo-0.9.12-3.x86_64.rpm http://www.linux.com.sg/fedora10/gnome-main-menu/0.9.12-3/gnome-main-menu-devel-0.9.12-3.x86_64.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 487639] Review Request: armstrong - Powerful music sequencing library *** RENAMED PACKAGE ***
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487639
--- Comment #4 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-02-28
15:09:11 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
PRE-review for 0.2.6-2 (yes, PRE-review...)
:) Thanks for the PRE-review
* About patch
- Would you explain what the soname libzzub.so.0.3 liblunarstd.so.0
come from?
(anyway the soname libzzub.so.0.3 is wrong, it should be libzzub.so.0
or so)
If we use the original tarball with no patches, these libraries will be built
with no sonames.
The soname libzzub.so.0.3 comes from the old libzzub package. There the
soname was set to libzzub.so.0.2.3 . I changed this to libzzub.so.0 now.
The soname liblunarstd.so.0 is the soname I gave to this library. Otherwise
rpmlint will complain that there is no soname.
- Also, non-patched src/plugins/lunar/SConscript seems to be saying
that liblunarstd.so is a plugin module, not a system-wide library.
Are you sure that this file should really be system-wide library?
From my understanding this is a system-wide library. There are two systemwide
libraries provided by armstrong. One is libzzub, the other is liblunarstd. The
unpatched tarball has these two lines:
In src/libzzub/SConscript :
libzzub = localenv.SharedLibrary('${LIB_BUILD_PATH}/zzub',files)
In src/plugins/lunar/SConscript :
lunarstd = lunarstdenv.SharedLibrary('${LIB_BUILD_PATH}/lunarstd',
lunarstdfiles)[0]
That's why I believe that both are system-wide shared libraries. Note that
there are plugin module .so files in
/usr/lib64/lunar/
/usr/lib64/zzub/
* License tag
- License tag is inherited to all subpackages unless explicitly
specified (try $ rpm -qi armstrong-devel or so. I think
this should just be GPLv2+)
Changed the license tag of -devel and pyzzub packages to GPLv2+
* internal libraries
--
# Remove the binded libraries. We'll use the internal ones
--
- You mean external ones?
I meant internal Fedora libraries. I agree that there is some ambiguity in my
usage. I made this a little more clear on the SPEC file below..
* Document directories
--
%doc installed_docs/*
%{_defaultdocdir}/zzub
--
- With this armstrong will own two directories for documents,
%{_defaultdocdir}/{zzub,%{name}-%{version}}. I think
this is confusing and these directories should be unified.
- Also, anyway as this spec file has:
--
# We want to install docs to the proper location:
mkdir -p installed_docs
mv $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/zzub/* installed_docs/
--
Currently %_defaultdocdir/zzub is just empty.
My bad. I changed the document directory structure when I was preparing the
SPEC file. I forgot to remove the %_defaultdocdir/zzub entry. Now it's gone.
Spec URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/armstrong.spec
SRPM URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/armstrong-0.2.6-3.fc10.src.rpm
Changelog: 0.2.6-3
- License for -devel and pyzzub packages is GPLv2+
- Clarify system-wide library usage
- Fix sonames
- Don't package the empty directory %%_defaultdocdir/zzub
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469686] Review Request: ogre-meshmagick - Command line manipulation tool for Ogre meshes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469686 --- Comment #1 from Alexey Torkhov atork...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 15:21:21 EDT --- Spec URL: http://atorkhov.fedorapeople.org/ogre-meshmagick.spec SRPM URL: http://atorkhov.fedorapeople.org/ogre-meshmagick-0.5.2-1.20090124svn2618.fc10.src.rpm * Sat Feb 28 2009 Alexey Torkhov atork...@gmail.com - 0.5.2-1.20090124svn2618 - Update to post 0.5.2 Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1209402 Rpmlint output: ogre-meshmagick.src:13: W: configure-without-libdir-spec ogre-meshmagick-debuginfo.x86_64: W: filename-too-long-for-joliet ogre-meshmagick-debuginfo-0.5.2-1.20090124svn2618.fc11.x86_64.rpm ogre-meshmagick-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487639] Review Request: armstrong - Powerful music sequencing library *** RENAMED PACKAGE ***
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487639 --- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 15:24:15 EDT --- Some more clarification: The unmodified tarball will install /usr/lib64/libzzub.so.0.3 /usr/lib64/libzzub.so.0 /usr/lib64/libzzub.so /usr/lib64/liblunarstd.so /usr/lib64/zzub/ /usr/lib64/lunar/ No libraries have any sonames. With my modification /usr/lib64/liblunarstd.so.0 will be installed in addition to the files and directories above. Also I put sonames on libraries /usr/lib64/libzzub.so.0 /usr/lib64/liblunarstd.so.0 The plugin module directories /usr/lib64/zzub/ /usr/lib64/lunar/ remain untouched. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453848] Review Request: globus-core - Globus Toolkit - Globus Core
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453848 --- Comment #9 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se 2009-02-28 16:11:04 EDT --- New version available: SRPM: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/repos/globus/fedora/10/src/SRPMS/globus-core-5.15-0.4.fc10.src.rpm SPEC: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/repos/globus/info/globus-core.spec - main merged with devel as requested - added s390x to the list of 64 bit platforms -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 --- Comment #99 from Lee Howard fax...@howardsilvan.com 2009-02-28 17:25:57 EDT --- SPEC: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/hylafax/hylafax.spec SRPM: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/hylafax/hylafax-5.2.9-1.src.rpm * As the package is already hylafax, You don't need to have Provides: hylafax Removed. * BuildRequires: ... gcc, gcc-c++ - Those aren't needed as they are implicitly added in the BuildDependency and shouldn't be mentioned. (older fedora version will need this indeed). Left as-is to support older Fedora. * Conflicts: mgetty-sendfax - We need to find a solution to avoid conflict. and implement a proper alternative. Since this can probably not hit F-9/F-10 HylaFAX was in RedHat 5.2. mgetty-sendfax chose to develop its own sendfax command-line fax tool using the same sendfax name as HylaFAX (as well as the same /var/spool/fax spool directory - HylaFAX has since changed to /var/spool/hylafax). Because of this conflict RedHat removed HylaFAX beginning at 6.0. The conflict cannot be resolved because it was the mgetty-sendfax developer's intention to create an alternative for HylaFAX. I do not wish to offend Gert Doering, but it is my recommendation to remove mgetty-sendfax from Fedora. (Mostly because the last official release, 1.0, is dated 1998... although betas are available from 2007.) However, as I suspect that my recommendation will not be followed, it is therefore my suggestion to implement a system-switch-fax similar to what has been done for sendmail/Postfix. *IF* doing that work will finally get this package into Fedora - with no more hold-ups, then I will gladly go through the effort to develop system-switch-fax and make the necessary modifications to both the mgetty-sendfax package and this package. *HOWEVER*, I do not desire to go through that effort only to find that we're yet hung up on something else. Please advise. * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1068404name=build.log - JBIG library was not found on x86_64 Checking for JBIG library support ... not found. Disabling JBIG support Can the support for this can be enabled ? (it needs to be added as BuildRequires first) The JBIG-KIT package is currently not in Fedora. Other distributions (i.e. Gentoo) do include it. However, there may be some patent encumbrances with respect to JBIG technology, and you may want to pass this with your legal team before including JBIG-KIT into Fedora. * Various checks are made at build time: WARNING, could not locate sendmail on your system. Beware that the mail notification work done by this software uses sendmail-specific command line options. If you do not have a sendmail-compatible mailer things will break. ... WARNING, no egetty program found, using /bin/egetty. ... Looks like /usr/bin/gs is the PostScript RIP to use. WARNING, /usr/bin/gs does not seem to be an executable program; - Does the necessary Requires: are requested for the runtime ? either using Requires on the package, or the virtual provides or on the program path name. The warnings can be ignored. The Requires: should be sufficient, yes. Those packages are not needed for building this package, but they are needed for runtime. - the cron scripts should probably stay as %config files - the undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libfaxserver.so.5.2.8 HYLAFAX_VERSION_STRING can probably be fixed. Please advise on how it can probably be fixed. * --with-PAGESIZE=A4 - I appreciate that my standard page format to be set as default, but is there a way to have this fixed at runtime while using system wide configuration files for localization ? (I haven't made runtime test, as i don't have the required hardware/phone connection. Yes, the defaults can be changed at runtime. I'm not sure there is an issue here. -- 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 480102] Review Request: weka - Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480102 Milos Jakubicek xja...@fi.muni.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Milos Jakubicek xja...@fi.muni.cz 2009-02-28 17:38:15 EDT --- Michel, thanks for review! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: weka Short Description: Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis Owners: mjakubicek 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 485641] Review Request: pdftk - The PDF Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485641 --- Comment #6 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 17:47:58 EDT --- As noted, in the devel ML: http://osdir.com/ml/fedora-devel-list/2009-02/msg01692.html it is pdftk that has the wrong Requires. 'The dependency should either be: itext-2.1.4.jar.so()(64bit) or then for the actual file: /usr/lib64/gcj/itext/itext-2.1.4.jar.so' Right now the dependency is /usr/lib64/gcj/itext/itext-2.1.4.jar.so()(64bit) which is meaningless. So shall we work around the automatic dependency generation of pdftk? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485641] Review Request: pdftk - The PDF Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485641 --- Comment #7 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 17:51:51 EDT --- Well, since both solutions (1- adding the meaningless Provides on itext and 2- hacking the dependencies of pdftk) are both workarounds and not actual solutions, I'm leaving it to Jochen to decide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478504] Review Request: gget - Download Manager for the GNOME desktop.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478504 --- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-02-28 18:31:48 EDT --- gget-0.0.4-9.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gget-0.0.4-9.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478504] Review Request: gget - Download Manager for the GNOME desktop.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478504 --- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-02-28 18:31:39 EDT --- gget-0.0.4-9.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gget-0.0.4-9.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467365] Review Request: reinteract - interactive Python shell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467365 Michel Alexandre Salim michel.syl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||michel.syl...@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel.syl...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 18:36:28 EDT --- *** Bug 487879 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487879] Review Request: python-reinteract - Interactive shell for 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=487879 Michel Alexandre Salim michel.syl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel.syl...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 18:36:28 EDT --- Bizarre, searching for package reviews containing 'reinteract' did not show up the previous (completed) review. Marking this as duplicate. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 467365 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-28 18:40:16 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480102] Review Request: weka - Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480102 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-28 18:41:33 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484560] Review Request: pydb - An expanded version of the Python debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484560 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-28 18:39:00 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487365] Review Request: eclipse-oprofile - Eclipse plugin for OProfile integration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487365 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-28 18:44:43 EDT --- Thanks. cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487730] Review Request: perl-AnyEvent-XMPP - Implementation of the XMPP Protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487730 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-28 18:46:58 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487645] Review Request: mediawiki-wikicalendar - Simple calendar extension for mediawiki
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487645 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-28 18:45:54 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487839] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Email - Send emails with Catalyst
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487839 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-28 18:48:11 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467365] Review Request: reinteract - interactive Python shell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467365 Michel Alexandre Salim michel.syl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|walt...@redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel.syl...@gmail.com 2009-02-28 19:00:03 EDT --- I just signed up for ACL access in pkgdb -- Owen, if you'd like, I can start the build for Rawhide, F-10 and F-9. Some notes: - the reinteract modules refer to numpy, python-matplotlib and sox, but these are not declared as runtime dependencies - hicolor-icon-theme should also be a dependency for directory ownership (/usr/share/icons/hicolor) How much work would it take to make this work on RHEL 5? (Python 2.4, gtk2 2.10). My university's CS department deploys RHEL 5 on the Linux desktops, and I'm planning to propose using Reinteract for the programming classes that already use Python. It'd be a bit bizarre if we could install them on the Macs and Windows machines but not on Linux. Thanks, -- Michel -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481516] Review Request: sugar-stopwatch - Simple stopwatch 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=481516 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-28 19:05:21 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469291] Review Request: uml_utilities - Utilities for user-mode linux kernel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469291 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #17 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-28 19:08:23 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487730] Review Request: perl-AnyEvent-XMPP - Implementation of the XMPP Protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487730 Allisson Azevedo allis...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487847] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-Merge - Three-way merge and diff
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487847 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-28 19:12:46 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487841] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Unicode - Unicode aware Catalyst
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487841 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-28 19:10:31 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487840] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Singleton - Singleton to context
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487840 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-28 19:09:36 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487852] Review Request: perl-HTML-SimpleParse - Bare-bones HTML parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487852 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-28 19:13:35 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487617] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-ISO8601 - Parses ISO8601 formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487617 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-28 19:20:39 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487856] Review Request: perl-Data-FormValidator - Validates user input (usually from an HTML form) based on input profile
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487856 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-28 19:17:59 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #20 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-28 19:19:35 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487818] Review Request: perl-Task-Catalyst - All you need to start with Catalyst
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487818 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-28 19:24:48 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487808] Review Request: perl-HTML-FormFu-Model-DBIC - Integrate HTML::FormFu with DBIx::Class
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487808 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-28 19:21:41 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
