[Bug 488687] New: Review Request: perl-Text-Password-Pronounceable - Generate pronounceable passwords
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-Text-Password-Pronounceable - Generate pronounceable passwords https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488687 Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-Password-Pronounceable - Generate pronounceable passwords Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Text-Password-Pronounceabl e OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cw...@alumni.drew.edu QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-Text-Password-Pronounceable.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~cweyl/review/perl-Text-Password-Pronounceable-0.28-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: This module generates pronuceable passwords, based the the English digraphs by D. Edwards. Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1222971 *rt-0.05 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488687] Review Request: perl-Text-Password-Pronounceable - Generate pronounceable passwords
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488687 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462521] Review Request: simplyhtml - Application and a java component for rich text processing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462521 John Guthrie guth...@counterexample.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #18 from John Guthrie guth...@counterexample.org 2009-03-05 03:10:44 EDT --- It now builds successfully in CVS. 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 488687] Review Request: perl-Text-Password-Pronounceable - Generate pronounceable passwords
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488687 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-03-05 03:13:22 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i386). koji Build = http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1222971 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url d6db4130b2c8e66f5d18f2c79af9ff31 Text-Password-Pronounceable-0.28.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test gave All tests successful. Files=4, Tests=9, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.00 usr 0.01 sys + 0.16 cusr 0.04 csys = 0.21 CPU) + Package perl-Text-Password-Pronounceable-0.28-1.fc11-noarch = Provides: perl(Text::Password::Pronounceable) = 0.28 Requires: perl(Carp) perl(strict) perl(warnings) APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488107] Review Request: django-pagination - Django pagination tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488107 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams ivazquez...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams ivazquez...@gmail.com 2009-03-05 03:23:46 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: django-pagination Short Description: Django pagination tools Owners: ivazquez Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486758] Review Request: yofrankie-bge - 3D Game with characters from Big Buck Bunny movie
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486758 --- Comment #10 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-03-05 03:42:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) I don't have permission to download the srpm file. Sorry, I turned off the read bits to prevent downloading until it is complete, and forgot to turned them off. Should be ok now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474391] Review Request: libbase - JFree Base Services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474391 Caolan McNamara caol...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||446452(F11Blocker) --- Comment #1 from Caolan McNamara caol...@redhat.com 2009-03-05 04:11:06 EDT --- Filed three months ago in anticipation, but today is when it becomes a requirement for 3.1 :-( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488185] Review Request: php-pecl-selinux - SELinux binding for PHP scripts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488185
--- Comment #4 from KaiGai Kohei kai...@kaigai.gr.jp 2009-03-05 04:55:07 EDT
---
Tasaka-san,
Thanks for your reviewing.
I uploaded the revised version:
Spec: http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/php-pecl-selinux.spec.20090305
SRPM: http://sepgsql.googlecode.com/files/php-pecl-selinux-0.1.2-1.fc10.src.rpm
* rpm name
- Please make Name consistent first.
- I guess this rpm should be named as php-pecl-selinx as
the spec file suggests.
- However currently Name uses php-selinux.
Sorry, it was my misoperation.
The newer package uses php-pecl-selinuc.
* Versioning
- If this is the pre-release of formal 0.1.2 release,
please follow
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
(Anyway using devel as Release seems strange)
Fixed. The devel was just a copy of PECL library.
* %__pecl
- To build this package on koji,
--
%{!?__pecl: %{expand: %%global __pecl %{_bindir}/pecl}}
--
cannot be removed because
- When buildroot is initialized, no PHP related rpms
are installed yet, so %__pecl is not defined at this stage.
- Then mock tries rpm -bs --nodeps foo.spec.
Then rpm complains like
--
error: line 14: Dependency tokens must begin with alpha-numeric, '_' or '/':
Requires(post): %{__pecl}
--
Fixed, I added the definition at the head of specfile.
* %if %{?php_zend_api}0
- Well, actually Fedora guideline actually suggests so, however
generally this should be if 0%{?php_zend_api} (no deference
for this case, however this is usual usage)
Fixed.
* BR (BuildRequires)
- Would you check if the following message in build.log ignored?
--
81 checking for re2c... no
82 configure: WARNING: You will need re2c 0.13.4 or later if you want to
regenerate PHP parsers.
--
The re2c is a parser engine, so this package has no relations.
Now I asks for PHP experts to confirm whether my understanding is correct, or
not.
http://marc.info/?l=pecl-devm=123621647005625w=2
* %post scriptlet
--
%post
%{pecl_install} %{pecl_xmldir}/%{name}.xml /dev/null || :
%endif
--
- However %{pecl_xmldir}/%{name}.xml does not seem to be
installed.
I added to install package.xml as %{pecl_xmldir}/%{name}.xml
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488185] Review Request: php-pecl-selinux - SELinux binding for PHP scripts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488185 --- Comment #5 from KaiGai Kohei kai...@kaigai.gr.jp 2009-03-05 04:57:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) The newer package uses php-pecl-selinuc. s/php-pecl-selinuc/php-pecl-selinux/g -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 #12 from Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com 2009-03-05 04:58:37 EDT --- I created a new bugzilla entry for the gcc bug mentioned above. It's http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39380 We should be able to get a patched gcc fairly soon. In the meantime we'll have to build the C++ components of pdftk with -O0. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488185] Review Request: php-pecl-selinux - SELinux binding for PHP scripts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488185 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-03-05 05:26:32 EDT --- Assigning. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488359] Review Request: dcbd - daemon and configuration tool for data center bridging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488359 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jzel...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@danny.cz Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-03-05 05:29:46 EDT --- adding future maintainer to CC -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486757] Review Request: divine-mc - Multi-core model checking system for proving specifications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486757 --- Comment #7 from Milos Jakubicek xja...@fi.muni.cz 2009-03-05 05:47:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) Moreover you should remove -fomit-frame-pointer (this is prohibited in Fedora, it makes debugging harder or impossible) and -pipe+ (gcc doesn't seem to know it -- don't know what's the difference to -pipe which is in Fedoras standard gcc flags). Regarding -pipe+: this comes from your sedding: + sed -i -e 's/ -gstabs\+//' CMakeLists.txt Remove the \ before + and it will be ok. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488404] Review Request: pony - Can I have a pony?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488404 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lkund...@v3.sk --- Comment #6 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-03-05 06:00:37 EDT --- Seriously -- please think for a while -- what value does this bring to users apart from growing the repositories a bit and thus making yum a bit slower? :) Here's some random points to consider: 1.) Does this comply with the code not content rule? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Code_Vs_Content Yes, I know there's a wrapper there, which probably classifies this as code, still I'm inclined to think it's role in the package is rather marginal. 2.) Doesn't this duplicate existing features? fortune package seems to do something roughly similar. Why not use it? 3.) Does this comply with our licensing guidelines? The ponnies file doesn't have licensing information. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488404] Review Request: pony - Can I have a pony?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488404 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX --- Comment #7 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-03-05 06:03:41 EDT --- On the second look; there's about a dozen of authors of the pictures, most of them didn't license it for free redistribution. Closing. http://www.ascii-art.de/info/copyright/ The collection of ASCII art pictures, the text on these pages and the web design may not be copied for non-personal use without the author's written permission. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468597] Review Request: rubygem-ferret - Full-featured text search engine library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468597 --- Comment #33 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com 2009-03-05 06:19:29 EDT --- Stefan, ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488359] Review Request: dcbd - daemon and configuration tool for data center bridging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488359 --- Comment #2 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-03-05 06:17:30 EDT --- - upstream download page says that 0.9.4 is the latest version (https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=42302) = check with upstream - wants to build with the included libconfig = BuildRequires: libconfig-devel is missing, but then it fails to build on Rawhide due some undefined symbols during linking - are the headers alone in -devel subpackage (no library there) useful for any development? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488100] Firebird SQL database management system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488100 --- Comment #10 from Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br 2009-03-05 06:48:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) please don't paste long lines of text here, this will make hard to read, and the people doesn't have much time available please use Attachments -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480724] Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #9 from Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br 2009-03-05 06:52:16 EDT --- *** Bug 488681 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 488681] Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488681 Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||ita...@ispbrasil.com.br Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br 2009-03-05 06:52:16 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 480724 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480724] Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br changed: What|Removed |Added Platform|i386|All AssignedTo|ita...@ispbrasil.com.br |nob...@fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #10 from Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br 2009-03-05 06:54:54 EDT --- you don't need a new review request for the same package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488681] Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488681 --- Comment #2 from _pjp_ pj.pan...@yahoo.co.in 2009-03-05 07:34:11 EDT --- Hey hi, (In reply to comment #1) *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 480724 *** Why is it closed? I would say rather close 480724 and let this be new. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480724] Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #11 from _pjp_ pj.pan...@yahoo.co.in 2009-03-05 07:37:00 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) you don't need a new review request for the same package. Oh, okay. Here are the links to the new updated soruce and rpms for review. SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns.spec SORC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.1.tar.gz SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.1-1.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 #6 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-03-05 07:51:38 EDT --- gvrpcd.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/gvrpcd This is acceptable. Especially due to the new initscript, which exits early when not finding a vlan config. gvrpcd.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/gvrpcd $prog A false positive as explained by rpmlint -i. If you have strong feelings about it, you can define lockfile=/var/lock/subsys/gvrpcd directly after the exec=/prog= definitions. I mean, it's not that you would change this value often, so reusing $prog during definition of lockfile is not much of a benefit. About the defaults in the initscript, this is less than ideal. Currently, there are _three_ places where configuration values are defined: 1) the daemon's built-in defaults (time=3, eth0, /proc/...) 2) your initscript defaults (time=3, eth0, /proc/...) 3) the sysconfig file (commented out) Isn't that overhead? Wouldn't it be better to use the daemon's defaults and let /etc/sysconfig/gvrpcd contain only GVRPCD_OPTIONS= or GVRPCD_OPTIONS=-i eth0 plus a comment on gvrpcd -h (or a future manual page)? In the initscript, you would simply source /etc/sysconfig/gvrpcd and add $GVRPCD_OPTIONS to the daemon's required -d arg. Much more simpler to rely on the daemon's defaults (also explained in -h output), which may change. You would not have multiple places that refer to different defaults. Usage: gvrpcd [-dvh] [-f configfile] [-d iface] [-i time] This is wrong. Should be: ... [-i iface] [-t time] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 #7 from Jasper Capel ca...@stone-it.com 2009-03-05 08:13:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) gvrpcd.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/gvrpcd $prog A false positive as explained by rpmlint -i. If you have strong feelings about it, you can define lockfile=/var/lock/subsys/gvrpcd directly after the exec=/prog= definitions. I mean, it's not that you would change this value often, so reusing $prog during definition of lockfile is not much of a benefit. True, I'll change it so rpmlint will shut up. :) About the defaults in the initscript, this is less than ideal. Currently, there are _three_ places where configuration values are defined: 1) the daemon's built-in defaults (time=3, eth0, /proc/...) 2) your initscript defaults (time=3, eth0, /proc/...) 3) the sysconfig file (commented out) Isn't that overhead? Wouldn't it be better to use the daemon's defaults and let /etc/sysconfig/gvrpcd contain only GVRPCD_OPTIONS= or GVRPCD_OPTIONS=-i eth0 plus a comment on gvrpcd -h (or a future manual page)? In the initscript, you would simply source /etc/sysconfig/gvrpcd and add $GVRPCD_OPTIONS to the daemon's required -d arg. Much more simpler to rely on the daemon's defaults (also explained in -h output), which may change. You would not have multiple places that refer to different defaults. Ok, makes sense to me. It should be noted that upstream adapted my previous init-scripts to support spawning multiple daemons (one for each interface you want the daemon to send on). It does this, by making $INTERFACES a list. I think we'll want to support this as well. The reason I haven't yet, is because I still have to figure out the way in which this is acceptable in Fedora. To keep this option open, I think we should go for setting $INTERFACES, and putting the other parameters in $GVRPCD_OPTIONS. Usage: gvrpcd [-dvh] [-f configfile] [-d iface] [-i time] This is wrong. Should be: ... [-i iface] [-t time] I'll patch it and send it upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484563] Review Request: php-ezc-ConsoleTools - eZ Components ConsoleTools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484563 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-05 08:38:12 EDT --- php-ezc-ConsoleTools-1.5-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-ezc-ConsoleTools-1.5-1.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 484563] Review Request: php-ezc-ConsoleTools - eZ Components ConsoleTools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484563 Bug 484563 depends on bug 484507, which changed state. Bug 484507 Summary: Review Request: php-channel-ezc - eZ Components https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484507 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-05 08:38:07 EDT --- php-ezc-ConsoleTools-1.5-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-ezc-ConsoleTools-1.5-1.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 481333] Review Request:sugar-update-control - Activity update control panel 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=481333 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2009-03-05 08:47:18 EDT --- I'll give it a whirl -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487527] Review Request: watchdog - Software and/or Hardware watchdog daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487527
Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 2009-03-05
08:51:51 EDT ---
OK Rpmlint must be run on every package.
OK The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
OK The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
OK The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
OK The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file.
OK The spec file must be written in American English.
OK The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK f4fbb3465bdc0d0ac27bdd2972f7f469 The sources used to build the package must
match the upstream source.
OK The package MUST successfully compile.
OK Correct BuildRequires.
OK Proper use of %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.
OK Shared library files (not just symlinks) must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun.
OK Relocatable package must state this fact in the request for review.
OK A package must own all directories that it creates.
OK A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
? Permissions on files must be set properly.
OK Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK Each package must consistently use macros.
OK The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
OK If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
OK Header files must be in a -devel package.
OK Static libraries must be in a -static package.
OK Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'.
OK Library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1) and files that end in .so
(without suffix) must go in -devel.
OK In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package.
OK Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
OK Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file.
OK At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
Usually instead of 755 in %defattr(-, root, root, 0755) is used simply -.
rpmlint has true. The scripts which are installed into /usr/share meant to be
examples. That means they shouldn't be executable.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488347] Review Request: kdepim3 - Compatibility support for kdepim3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488347 Steven M. Parrish smparr...@shallowcreek.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||smparr...@shallowcreek.net AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|smparr...@shallowcreek.net 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 225906] Merge Review: iptables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225906
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Woerner twoer...@redhat.com 2009-03-05 09:14:11
EDT ---
Please have a look at iptables-1.4.2-3 in rawhide.
Solved Issues:
1) using %{buildroot} everywhere
3) using sed instead of perl
4) #462207 has already been addressed in iptables-1.4.2-1
#432617 will require basic firewall changes and is therefore not possible
now
5) using RPM_OPT_FLAGS, but with -fno-strict-aliasing (needed for libiptc)
--
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 486686] Review Request: tkgate - Digital Circuit Simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486686 --- Comment #2 from Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com 2009-03-05 09:32:06 EDT --- Thanks for the feedback. There is a new beta available, so it is now updated[1], and works for me. Could you check again please ? [1]SRPM URL: http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/FEL/tkgate-2.0-1.beta7.fc11.src.rpm [2]RPM i586: http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/FEL/tkgate-2.0-1.beta7.fc11.i586.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 488347] Review Request: kdepim3 - Compatibility support for kdepim3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488347
Steven M. Parrish smparr...@shallowcreek.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Steven M. Parrish smparr...@shallowcreek.net 2009-03-05
09:33:40 EDT ---
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
- Checked spec file and src.rpm 0 errors, 0 warnings
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
ok
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines
OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK
MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc
OK
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK all archs
MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
OK
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
OK
MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
OK
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory.
OK
MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK
MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
OK
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
OK
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
OK
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).
OK
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
OK
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
OK
MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
OK
MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
OK
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or
[Bug 485420] Review Request: openbios - Open Source implementation of IEEE 1275-1994
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485420 --- Comment #11 from Glauber de Oliveira Costa gco...@redhat.com 2009-03-05 09:43:16 EDT --- Uploaded: http://glommer.fedorapeople.org/openbios-1.0-0.5.svn463.fc11.src.rpm http://glommer.fedorapeople.org/openbios.spec changing openbios-doc to openbios-common -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472639] Review Request: Scilab - Numerical Analysis 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=472639 --- Comment #24 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-03-05 10:13:05 EDT --- Spec URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/scilab-5.1-2.spec SRPM URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/scilab-5.1-2.fc10.src.rpm Koji: No, mising deps. rpmlint: $ rpmlint scilab.spec ../SRPMS/scilab-5.1-2.fc10.src.rpm ../RPMS/i386/scilab-5.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm 21 | grep -v lang Changelog: - Added patch to fix scilab bug 4052 - Minor changes to de-lint spec file - Change java-1.6 to java for requires buildrequires - Move .so back to main, as scilab 5.1 won't run without them (many java exceptions) Known issues: *Still affected by the gluegen-rt/jogl classpath problem. I'm not going to resolve this until gluegen/jogl packages are 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 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 Matthias Saou matth...@rpmforge.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #21 from Matthias Saou matth...@rpmforge.net 2009-03-05 10:23:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #20) I see this in rawhide, can you close out this bug? Yes! :-) Now if I could only figure out how to do a chain build for stable releases... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 #22 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-03-05 10:25:16 EDT --- You can't do chain builds for non-rawhide branches. You have to ask rel-eng to do override tags for packages that you need in the buildroot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 #23 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2009-03-05 10:29:04 EDT --- Now if I could only figure out how to do a chain build for stable releases... You can't. You build the first package and then open a ticket with rel-eng [1] to get the package tagged for a buildroot override [1] https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/newticket -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484363] Review Request: ggz-base-libs - Base libraries for GGZ gaming zone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484363 Steven M. Parrish smparr...@shallowcreek.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||smparr...@shallowcreek.net AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|smparr...@shallowcreek.net 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 487527] Review Request: watchdog - Software and/or Hardware watchdog daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487527 --- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-03-05 10:39:44 EDT --- The scripts which are installed into /usr/share meant to be examples. That means they shouldn't be executable. I guess the trouble is if they're not executable, then people won't be able to run them ... You want me to make this change? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487527] Review Request: watchdog - Software and/or Hardware watchdog daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487527 --- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-03-05 10:37:35 EDT --- Thanks for looking at this package. I think that %defattr is just a mistake copied from the RHEL package. The following package is just modified to make that change: Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/watchdog.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/watchdog-5.5-2.fc11.src.rpm * Thu Mar 5 2009 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com - 5.5-2 - Use '-' in defattr line instead of explicit file mode. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481333] Review Request:sugar-update-control - Activity update control panel 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=481333 --- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2009-03-05 10:40:18 EDT --- sugar-update-control.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/bitfrost/update/microformat.py 0644 sugar-update-control.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/bitfrost/util/urlrange.py 0644 sugar-update-control.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/bitfrost/update/actutils.py 0644 sugar-update-control.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/bitfrost/update/actinfo.py 0644 sugar-update-control.noarch: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/pseudo/LC_MESSAGES/sugar-update-control.mo error checking signature of sugar-update-control-0.20-1.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 0 warnings. I consider the non-executable-script things to be mostly harmless in this context. The incorrect locale is worrisome, upstream should fix that, but I don't consider it a blocker. The guideines mention needing BuildRequires: sugar-toolkit but that's not included here. Why? not needed? oversight? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481333] Review Request:sugar-update-control - Activity update control panel 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=481333 --- Comment #5 from Steven M. Parrish smparr...@shallowcreek.net 2009-03-05 10:47:35 EDT --- The reason is that sugar-update-control is not an activity, but a component of the base system, used to update activities to newer release, so the BR is not required. I'll upstream the incorrect locale and take a look at the permissions. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481333] Review Request:sugar-update-control - Activity update control panel 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=481333
--- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2009-03-05 10:49:30 EDT
---
Checked source files and COPYING, seems the license ought to be
License: GPLv2+
%files
%{_datadir}/sugar
looks a bit excessive too, that dir is already owned by 'sugar', maybe
something like this would be an improvement:
%{_datadir}/sugar/data/icons/*
# currently nothing (on f-10 anyway) owns extentions, not sure
# here is the best place, but...
%dir %{_datadir}/sugar/extentions/
%{_datadir}/sugar/extensions/cpsection/
Otherise, the rest of the spec is largely simple and clean...
macros used consistently and correctly.
Address these items:
1. License
2. dir ownership
and I'll approve 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 486977] Review Request: gnu-free-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=486977 Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||479238 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488687] Review Request: perl-Text-Password-Pronounceable - Generate pronounceable passwords
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488687 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488687] Review Request: perl-Text-Password-Pronounceable - Generate pronounceable passwords
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488687 --- Comment #2 from Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2009-03-05 11:14:39 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Text-Password-Pronounceable Short Description: Generate pronounceable passwords Owners: cweyl Branches: F-9 F-10 devel InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475603] Review Request: jFormatString - Java format string compile-time checker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475603
Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|needinfo?(tcall...@redhat.c |
|om) |
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com 2009-03-05 11:19:07 EDT
---
Thanks, Andrew. Here are my responses to the flagged items. First the rpmlint
complaints from comment #1.
jFormatString.src:104: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package
%{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
This is a side effect of the standard spec file template for using gcj. I
can't do anything about it (and there is actually nothing wrong).
jFormatString.src: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
Dozens of Fedora packages already use this group (it is derived from
jpackage.org) and the Group name doesn't matter anyway. I don't see any reason
to change it. This goes for the rpmlint complaints about the binary rpm, too.
jFormatString.src: W: non-coherent-filename
jFormatString-0-0.1.20081016svn.src.rpm
jFormatString-0-0.1.20081016svn.fc10.src.rpm
That's just me being dumb in the way I copied the file to my web site. If you
build it yourself, this won't happen.
jFormatString.src: W: strange-permission jFormatString-0.tar.bz2 0745
That is a strange permission. It looks like the file must have passed through
a Windows machine on its way to my web site. Fixed.
X make sure lines are = 80 characters
- please add a line continuation to fix this on line 69
Fixed.
* md5sum matches upstream
- the tarball I generated does not match but diff -uNr shows no differences
so I assume svn timestamp differences
When you do an svn checkout, it goes into a freshly created directory. Tar
then faithfully preserves the timestamp on that directory. For that reason,
tarballs created from upstream SCM snapshots will never have matching
checksums. I hadn't thought about checking with diff. That one goes into my
bag of reviewer tricks. Thanks!
X license text included in package and marked with %doc
- this isn't the case. Perhaps since you're doing an SVN snapshot you can
include a coyp of it?
Oops, that was an oversight on my part. But that's why we do package reviews,
right? Fixed.
So I guess we're just waiting for the license question to be resolved. Here
are the new versions:
http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jFormatString/jFormatString.spec
http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jFormatString/jFormatString-0-0.2.20081016svn.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 483360] Review Request: pdfshuffler - PDF file merging, rearranging, and spliting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483360 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-05 11:27:54 EDT --- pdfshuffler-0.3.1-3.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481192] Review Request: perl-pgsql_perl5 - Pg - Perl5 extension for PostgreSQL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481192 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||1.9.0-2.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 478364] Review Request: perl-Verilog-Readmem - Parse Verilog $readmemh or $readmemb text file
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478364 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-05 11:27:39 EDT --- perl-Verilog-Readmem-0.04-1.fc10, perl-Verilog-3.120-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481004] Review Request: pg_top - top for postgresql
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481004 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||3.6.2-3.fc10 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 478364] Review Request: perl-Verilog-Readmem - Parse Verilog $readmemh or $readmemb text file
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478364 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||0.04-1.fc10 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 475603] Review Request: jFormatString - Java format string compile-time checker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475603 --- Comment #5 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-03-05 11:28:00 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) The license field is correct but I would like spot to weigh in on their statement: The library produced by compiling this project is used by the FindBugs project. To avoid any licensing questions due to incompatible licenses (FindBugs is licensed under the LGPL), it is broken out as a separate project. While there may be some confusion/discussion about the licenses, the FindBugs project does not interprete the FindBugs LGPL license to be any stronger than GPL v2 + the Classpath exception. spot, what do you think? I think that: A) There is no compatibility concern between LGPL and GPLv2 with Classpath exception B) The GPLv2 (even with the classpath exception) is a more restrictive license than LGPL. C) This musing is reasonably irrelevant to anything. :) There is no legal restriction on this package going forward (that I am aware of at this time). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485000] Review Request: libbsr - Barrier Synchronization Register access library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485000 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-05 11:31:04 EDT --- libbsr-0.2-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481192] Review Request: perl-pgsql_perl5 - Pg - Perl5 extension for PostgreSQL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481192 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-05 11:27:21 EDT --- perl-pgsql_perl5-1.9.0-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483360] Review Request: pdfshuffler - PDF file merging, rearranging, and spliting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483360 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||0.3.1-3.fc9 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 484509] Review Request: php-ezc-Base - eZ Components Base
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484509 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-05 11:31:33 EDT --- php-ezc-Base-1.6.1-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update php-ezc-Base'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-2400 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481004] Review Request: pg_top - top for postgresql
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481004 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-05 11:28:27 EDT --- pg_top-3.6.2-3.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 485159] Review Request: anki - Flashcard program for using space repetition learning
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485159 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-05 11:30:11 EDT --- anki-0.9.9.6-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 481564] Review Request: bind-to-tinydns - Convert DNS zone files in BIND format to tinydns format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481564 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-05 11:33:38 EDT --- bind-to-tinydns-0.4.3-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475603] Review Request: jFormatString - Java format string compile-time checker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475603 Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com 2009-03-05 11:30:14 EDT --- Great, thanks Jerry and spot! This package is now 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 485159] Review Request: anki - Flashcard program for using space repetition learning
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485159 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||0.9.9.6-4.fc10 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 481564] Review Request: bind-to-tinydns - Convert DNS zone files in BIND format to tinydns format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481564 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||0.4.3-4.fc10 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 485000] Review Request: libbsr - Barrier Synchronization Register access library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485000 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-05 11:32:04 EDT --- libbsr-0.2-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478364] Review Request: perl-Verilog-Readmem - Parse Verilog $readmemh or $readmemb text file
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478364 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|0.04-1.fc10 |0.04-1.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 476832] Review Request: mydns - serve DNS records directly from an SQL database
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476832 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||1.2.8.25-1.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 484509] Review Request: php-ezc-Base - eZ Components Base
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484509 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-05 11:34:16 EDT --- php-ezc-Base-1.6.1-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update php-ezc-Base'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-2408 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488404] Review Request: pony - Can I have a pony?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488404 --- Comment #8 from Yaakov Nemoy loupgaroubl...@gmail.com 2009-03-05 11:32:17 EDT --- 1) It's on the border of what's code or content, and there are several other packages that are on that border as well. Closing this bug report on that basis alone is arbitrary and unfair. 2) The fortune package plays a slightly different role. Aside from being basically a displayer of certain content, it has played an historical role in Unix and Linux for many years. While this pony might be a good candidate for content to be added to the fortune package, the role of this application is to fill a specific meme in the Red Hat and Fedora communities. 3) The licensing does present some questions. Rather than closing this request due to some prejudice, i've emailed upstream asking about the licensing issue. As i was writing this, i actually got a reply from Don mentioning that he does not have a valid license for this, and realistically we would need to find a public domain picture to use. I would also like to note that the upstream haskell community has accepted this package as part of their internal culture and memes as well. Licensing issues aside, packaging this would play the same role as packaging fortune in any Unix or Linux distro. IIRC fortune is not installed by default in Fedora. Nor would this package be. Think along the lines of Haskell will give you a pony, but not if you use 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 476832] Review Request: mydns - serve DNS records directly from an SQL database
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476832 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-05 11:34:03 EDT --- mydns-1.2.8.25-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478364] Review Request: perl-Verilog-Readmem - Parse Verilog $readmemh or $readmemb text file
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478364 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-05 11:34:22 EDT --- perl-Verilog-Readmem-0.04-1.fc9, perl-Verilog-3.120-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488752] New: Review Request: mythes-sv - Swedish thesaurus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mythes-sv - Swedish thesaurus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488752 Summary: Review Request: mythes-sv - Swedish thesaurus Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caol...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/mythes-sv.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/rpms/mythes-sv-0.20090225-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Swedish thesaurus -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487665] Review Request: soud - Tools for hardware related services based on udev events
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487665 --- Comment #11 from Petr Lautrbach plaut...@redhat.com 2009-03-05 11:38:01 EDT --- All it does is create an obfuscation/abstraction layer between udev rules and its own configuration. It was designed as framework for multiple services, however it is configured only for one service now and sad to say I don't know about any other common service it could be used for. I don't see how soud-watch.pl gives you anything you don't already have with 'udevadm monitor', and if we need more infrastructure there, we should get it added upstream. I am missing filter functionality. e.g. if I want to see only udev events with ACTION=add or SUBSYSTEM=bluetooth ... So, for both the 'normal' boot cases, it adds code and complication to the boot process, without much benefit. Benefit should be for running system. Service need not run whole time but only in case when hardware is present or switched on and user need not to care about 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 481333] Review Request:sugar-update-control - Activity update control panel 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=481333 --- Comment #7 from Steven M. Parrish smparr...@shallowcreek.net 2009-03-05 11:46:20 EDT --- Updated SPEC file: http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/sugar-update-control/sugar-update-control.spec Updated SRPM: http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/sugar-update-control/sugar-update-control-0.20-2.src.rpm Build log: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1224230name=build.log -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488347] Review Request: kdepim3 - Compatibility support for kdepim3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488347 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2009-03-05 11:43:02 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: kdepim3 Short Description: Compatibility support for kdepim3 Owners: rdieter Branches: 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 486977] Review Request: gnu-free-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=486977 Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(l...@jcomserv.net | |) | --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-03-05 11:55:23 EDT --- Corrected all but 9. Can't test if 9 is needed in rawhide as mock builds are failing at the yum step with 404s, even with a fresh root cache. Probably a temporary issue. rel-eng ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1225 Otherwise I *think * I hit all your points. SPEC: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/gnu-free-fonts/gnu-free-fonts.spec SRPM: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/gnu-free-fonts/gnu-free-fonts-20090104-4.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 480724] Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #12 from Mark Johnson johns...@gmail.com 2009-03-05 12:01:40 EDT --- I know I'm probably butting in where I'm not wanted, but... At the moment, via this URL: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns.spec I see: License: GPLv2+ Is that a mistake or do you intend the changes you have made for this package under the GPL? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488185] Review Request: php-pecl-selinux - SELinux binding for PHP scripts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488185 --- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-03-05 11:58:01 EDT --- Okay, two issues/questions * Source tarball - source tarball in your srpm differs from what I could download from the URL written in your spec file. Does this mean that the source tarball used is the pre-release of 0.1.2? If so, please follow Pre-release package naming guideline. * %changelog - EVR (Epoch-Version-Release) information in %changelog differs from the actual EVR of this rpm. Please fix 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 480724] Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #13 from Mark Johnson johns...@gmail.com 2009-03-05 12:04:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) I know I'm probably butting in where I'm not wanted, but... At the moment, via this URL: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns.spec I see: License: GPLv2+ Is that a mistake or do you intend the changes you have made for this package under the GPL? Coherent grammer: Is that a mistake or do you intend the changes you have made for this package to be covered by the GPL? If the latter, should the license for the whole package really be listed as GPL when the original source is Public Domain? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487052] Review Request: dc3dd - Patched version of GNU dd for use in computer forensics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487052 --- Comment #4 from Adam Miller maxamill...@gmail.com 2009-03-05 12:20:40 EDT --- Spec URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/dc3dd.spec SRPM URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/dc3dd-6.12.2-3.src.rpm I applied the cleanup and I inspected the source of a number of the files in the build-aux directory and they appear to just be a cludge of python scripts that provide work arounds for different build environments and/or compilers that don't support certain things. Thank you again for your comments, looking forward to further review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488609] Review Request: python-ptrace - Debugger using ptrace written in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488609 Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2009-03-05 12:38:30 EDT --- Thanks! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: python-ptrace Short Description: Debugger using ptrace written in Python Owners: terjeros 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 488404] Review Request: pony - Can I have a pony?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488404 --- Comment #9 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-03-05 12:43:10 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) 1) It's on the border of what's code or content, and there are several other packages that are on that border as well. Closing this bug report on that basis alone is arbitrary and unfair. I would never close a bug for a reason like this. I'm sorry if I was misunderstood. 2) The fortune package plays a slightly different role. Aside from being basically a displayer of certain content, it has played an historical role in Unix and Linux for many years. While this pony might be a good candidate for content to be added to the fortune package, the role of this application is to fill a specific meme in the Red Hat and Fedora communities. Understood. 3) The licensing does present some questions. Rather than closing this request due to some prejudice, i've emailed upstream asking about the licensing issue. As i was writing this, i actually got a reply from Don mentioning that he does not have a valid license for this, and realistically we would need to find a public domain picture to use. I would also like to note that the upstream haskell community has accepted this package as part of their internal culture and memes as well. Licensing issues aside, packaging this would play the same role as packaging fortune in any Unix or Linux distro. IIRC fortune is not installed by default in Fedora. Nor would this package be. Think along the lines of Haskell will give you a pony, but not if you use Fedora. Feel free to reopen or open another review request once you have a package with valid 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 474910] Review Request: esperanza - A graphical audio player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474910 Bug 474910 depends on bug 474908, which changed state. Bug 474908 Summary: Review Request: xmms2 - A modular audio framework and plugin architecture https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474908 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #2 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-03-05 12:46:34 EDT --- I think the translations are going into qrc_esperanza.cpp which is compiled into libdata.a, which gets shoved into esperanza. The missing -fexception flags is because QT is not built with that flag: # drop -fexceptions from $RPM_OPT_FLAGS RPM_OPT_FLAGS=`echo $RPM_OPT_FLAGS | sed 's|-fexceptions||g'` (from devel/qt.spec) All of the optflags seem to be generated on the fly from qmake, and I'm honestly not sure how to override them to add this one back in... With the exception of that, everything else is fixed here: New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/esperanza-0.4.0-2.fc11.src.rpm New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/esperanza.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 488752] Review Request: mythes-sv - Swedish thesaurus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488752 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 2009-03-05 12:45:50 EDT --- * builds fine in koji * rpmlint is silent * license text is OK (MIT) * upstream source verified as a48801d5b6bfcfa75a05c217a53f181dabab1e8f SwedishThesaurus.oxt 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 483498] Review Request: earth-and-moon-backgrounds - Modern background
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483498
--- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-03-05
13:04:51 EDT ---
- As said in comment 9, for now
Please also add %dir %{_datadir}/gnome-background-properties/
to %files.
- For install -p:
install -m644 images/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/backgrounds/%{_appname}/
please use -p option also here.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-03-05 13:14:03 EDT --- OK, all issues are fixed, so this package is 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 487052] Review Request: dc3dd - Patched version of GNU dd for use in computer forensics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487052 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-03-05 13:17:07 EDT --- So, those files are irrelevant. Then I think everything is fine now. You're welcome This package (dc3dd) is APPROVED by oget -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC 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 Glauber de Oliveira Costa gco...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Glauber de Oliveira Costa gco...@redhat.com 2009-03-05 13:19:01 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: openbios Short Description: OpenBios implementation of IEEE 1275-1994 Owners: glommer Branches: InitialCC: fedora-virt-ma...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 487665] Review Request: soud - Tools for hardware related services based on udev events
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487665 --- Comment #12 from Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com 2009-03-05 13:27:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) All it does is create an obfuscation/abstraction layer between udev rules and its own configuration. It was designed as framework for multiple services, however it is configured only for one service now and sad to say I don't know about any other common service it could be used for. Right, but it's still a one-way abstraction, even if it's for other services - you can accomplish the same just by adding an upstart event and a udev rule, without having the soud conf file in between. So, for both the 'normal' boot cases, it adds code and complication to the boot process, without much benefit. Benefit should be for running system. Service need not run whole time but only in case when hardware is present or switched on and user need not to care about it. While it may make the service not run if you disable the hardware, it does it in a way that actually *increases* the boot time. I don't think that's how we want to go about 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 474910] Review Request: esperanza - A graphical audio player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474910 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-03-05 13:32:32 EDT --- OK. I believe everything is as good as it can be now. This package (esperanza) is APPROVED by oget -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480724] Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #14 from Mark Johnson johns...@gmail.com 2009-03-05 13:36:40 EDT --- Quoting README from: http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.1.tar.gz Hello all, I am pleased to release this *new* version of djbdns-1.05.1. Djbdns is a fully-fledged Domain Name System(DNS), originally written by the eminent author of qmail, Dr. D J Bernstein. This new release is a complete makeover to the original source(djbdns-1.05) and is meant to make life a lot more pleasant. The notable changes so far are in the set-up configuration steps. Also, this new release is distributed under the GNU General Public Licence. See ChangeLog for more details. Whoah...is it legal to do that? Take public domain software, make some changes, and distribute the entire result under the GPL? Note also that DJB's original copyright notice has been removed and I see no mention of his release of djbdns into the public domain. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474910] Review Request: esperanza - A graphical audio player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474910 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #4 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-03-05 13:40:15 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: esperanza Short Description: A graphical audio player Owners: spot Branches: F-9 F-10 devel InitialCC: ... and it's 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 487052] Review Request: dc3dd - Patched version of GNU dd for use in computer forensics
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487052 Adam Miller maxamill...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Adam Miller maxamill...@gmail.com 2009-03-05 13:40:11 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: dc3dd Short Description: Patched version of GNU dd for use in computer forensics Owners: maxamillion Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 480724] Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #15 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-03-05 13:43:35 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14) Whoah...is it legal to do that? Take public domain software, make some changes, and distribute the entire result under the GPL? Absolutely. Anyone can pick up public domain software and do _whatever_ they want to it. Relicense it, make it proprietary, turn it into a play, wear it as a hat, anything. Note also that DJB's original copyright notice has been removed and I see no mention of his release of djbdns into the public domain. While it might be good to mention that it is based on the Public Domain djbdns, there is no requirement that he do this. Also, there is no longer a copyright notice, because when DJB put it into the Public Domain, he officially abandoned copyright on the work. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 486977] Review Request: gnu-free-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=486977 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-03-05 13:45:44 EDT --- Sorted out mock. Yup, it needs -lang=ff. SPEC: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/gnu-free-fonts/gnu-free-fonts.spec SRPM: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/gnu-free-fonts/gnu-free-fonts-20090104-5.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 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 #13 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-03-05 13:50:33 EDT --- New release: Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/pdftk/pdftk.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/pdftk/pdftk-1.41-10.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 486686] Review Request: tkgate - Digital Circuit Simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486686
--- Comment #3 from Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com 2009-03-05
13:55:20 EDT ---
There was indeed a bug with the file site-preferences moved as a document. Now
creates and empty file %{_datadir}/%{name}/site-preferences, that's what tkgate
wants to find its home directory.
SRPM and RPM have been updated, same address than above.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 #8 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-03-05 14:07:49 EDT --- Does it make a difference whether a service starts multiple processes or multiple threads? I don't think so. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
