[Bug 187282] Review Request: sax2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sax2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187282 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 |201449 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187282] Review Request: sax2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sax2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187282 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-03 07:49 EST --- Sorry for the delay. I think we can close this one. With the development of randr v1.2 and the way to dynamic X configuration it doesn't make much sense -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187282] Review Request: sax2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sax2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187282 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-30 23:30 EST --- Ping Marcus. Do you still wish to submit this package? If so can you post an updated version? If not, can we close this request? If I don't hear anything in a week, I will close this request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187282] Review Request: sax2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sax2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187282 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-09 04:49 EST --- Marcus, I'm assuming you need to be sponsored. Adding FE-NEEDSPONSOR. Also there is traditionally strong resistance to accept SPEC files that contain non-Fedora related bits, so I think you have a much better chance to get this reviewed with a Fedora-only SPEC file. :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187282] Review Request: sax2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sax2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187282 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 04:01 EST --- BTW, we have no rule for this in the Guidelines, but I think the questions should be raised: Does it create a valid config for Fedora Core? E.g. are module path set proberly? Does it load the same modules as the xorg.conf created my system-config-display? In other words: Does sax2 really make sense for Fedora Extras or might it do more harm because it does things in different ways than system-config-display (which could lead to problems or bugs in other areas)? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187282] Review Request: sax2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sax2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187282 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 10:54 EST --- - In reply to comment #3. John, thanks for pointing out the mistakes I made in the spec file. I will take care for the mentioned issues. - But before I continue I think it is more important to discuss comment #4 Thorsten I can understand your concerns and maybe it makes no sense to have more than one X11 config tool an a distribution. I started to make sax working on fedora because there were enough questions :) I thought it would be a good idea to have that config tool available as an extra package. As far as I understand this will give people an option to use it. I really don't want to come into conflict with system-config-display and if I did that it happens accidently and I'm sorry for that. In this case I have no problems to stop my efforts immediately. sax touches only the xorg.conf file and creates a valid file which can be read in using Xorg's libxf86config. If system-config-display has its own library I agree this could lead to a problem when it tries to parse the sax written file. I'm using fedora at the University and I'm using sax to configure X there. If you want you can give it a try with the packages I provide on: ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/sax/head-build/i386/FC5 To see how it works it is the best to run sax2 from runlevel 3 If you think it is not useful, I will stop bothering you guys :) Thanks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187282] Review Request: sax2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: sax2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187282
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-04 16:13 EST ---
Not building, same error. Add readline-devel to BuildRequires.
/usr/share/locale is forbidden, use %find_lang
Use python macros from fedora-rpmdevtools package to avoid hardcoding
site-packages dir.
Require the libX* package instead of the xorg implementation.
Drop the PreReq, not needed. Probably most of Requires too, most of it is
covered from library requirements brought in by BuildRequires.
Why %define __perl_requires %{nil} ? This could use a comment.
Need to use a lot more macros. Ideally, at least in my opinion, there are no
/usr references anywhere in the spec.
There are readability issues with the SuSE specific parts.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187282] Review Request: sax2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sax2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187282 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://sax.berlios.de --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-30 06:23 EST --- yes readline is required. I added the package to the BuildRequires. If you don't mind try again: ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/sax/review/sax2-8.1-70.src.rpm I was able to build it on my test machine with FC5 installed. Packages can be found on berlios ftp as well. Thanks for your effort I'm hopping you will be successful the next time -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
