[Bug 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 Bug 187318 depends on bug 462982, which changed state. Bug 462982 Summary: Review Request: buffer - General purpose buffer program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462982 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||ERRATA -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Comment #48 from Gratien D'haese 2009-01-21 10:28:53 EDT --- (In reply to comment #47) As mention in comment #46: for file in COPYING INSTALL NEWS README TODO AUTHORS Changelog; do => only above files should be converted if needed during the build -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Comment #47 from Jan ONDREJ 2009-01-19 11:38:52 EDT --- (In reply to comment #46) > - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. > > /usr/share/doc/mondo-2.2.8/AUTHORS:ASCII text > /usr/share/doc/mondo-2.2.8/ChangeLog: ASCII text > /usr/share/doc/mondo-2.2.8/COPYING:ASCII English text > /usr/share/doc/mondo-2.2.8/INSTALL:ASCII English text > /usr/share/doc/mondo-2.2.8/mondorescue-howto.html: HTML document text > /usr/share/doc/mondo-2.2.8/mondorescue-howto.pdf: PDF document, version 1.4 > /usr/share/doc/mondo-2.2.8/NEWS: UTF-8 Unicode English text, > with very long lines > /usr/share/doc/mondo-2.2.8/NEWS.old: UTF-8 Unicode English text > /usr/share/doc/mondo-2.2.8/README: ASCII English text > /usr/share/doc/mondo-2.2.8/TODO: ASCII English text > > ==> please convert to UTF-8 What do you need to convert? I think Bruno can't convert these to UTF-8. 7bit ASCII will remain ASCII also after conversion and HTML and PDF does not say aboout encoding here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318
Gratien D'haese changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gratien.dha...@it3.be
--- Comment #46 from Gratien D'haese 2009-01-19
09:36:45 EDT ---
Official review of 47a66f982319e2c8d0b73a6400f4342f mondo-2.2.8-1.fc9.src.rpm
- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
Clean.
- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
Good.
- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
Good.
- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
==> in spec file the line:
Source: ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/src/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
can better be called
Source0: ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/src/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .
Good.
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
Good.
- 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.
Good.
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
Good.
- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is
unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review.
Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest
(http://www.ioccc.org/).
Good. Might want to trim the changelog (getting too large to be useful in spec
file)
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
Good.
- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
Good.
- MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug
filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not
compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be
placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New
packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so
they should put this description in the comment until the package is
approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation
with the bug number. The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more)
of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues:
FE-ExcludeArch-x86 , FE-ExcludeArch-x64 , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc ,
FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64
Spec file mentions: ExcludeArch: ppc
==> Please read above recommendation carefully and do what is required.
- 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.
Requires: rtld(GNU_HASH)
seems to be missing.
- MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
Good.
- MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each
subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig.
An example of the correct syntax for this is:
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
NA.
- 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.
NA.
- 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. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.
Good.
- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
Good.
- 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.
==>
In spec file there is : %defattr(-,root,root)
Please replace it with : %defattr(-,root,root,-)
- MUST: Eac
[Bug 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Comment #45 from manuel wolfshant 2009-01-17 05:27:02 EDT --- I do not want to sound rude, but Martin, none of your comments is related to package submission / review. Please be as kind as to solve your problem[s] via more appropriate channels. -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Comment #44 from MartinG 2009-01-16 19:02:16 EDT --- Ok, I'm not sure how to exclude i386 (not even sure that is the right thing to do - some stuff relies on i386 even on 64bit), but this is what I did: 'yum remove mindi-busybox' (also removed mondo and mindi), then 'yum install mondo' (wants to install mondo.x86_64, mindi.x86_64 and mindi-busybox.i386, all from mondorescue repo). So it seems the x86_64 version is not available: "yum list mindi-busybox" shows only mindi-busybox.i386 1.7.3-1.fc9. Any hints appreciated. -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Comment #43 from Bruno Cornec 2009-01-16 18:16:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #42) > ...and then I tried it, and it failed: > "---FATALERROR--- Failed to generate boot+data disks" > > Seems to be because of this: > "Unable to find mindi-busybox, please install it" > > Hm, read bug #187317 and understand there are some problems regarding > (mindi-)buybox. This is what I've got on my system: > mindi-busybox-1.7.3-1.fc9.i386 Which is not compatible with mondo x86_64 and mindi x86_64 You should exclude the i386 arch when using yum to get the right one I think. Maybe there is a better way to indicate that in the repo file. -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Comment #42 from MartinG 2009-01-16 17:02:49 EDT --- ...and then I tried it, and it failed: "---FATALERROR--- Failed to generate boot+data disks" Seems to be because of this: "Unable to find mindi-busybox, please install it" Hm, read bug #187317 and understand there are some problems regarding (mindi-)buybox. This is what I've got on my system: mindi-busybox-1.7.3-1.fc9.i386 Hope this will be sorted out, good luck Bruno! In the meantime, is there a workaround anyone can suggest...? -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Comment #41 from MartinG 2009-01-16 15:48:32 EDT --- Thanks - the test repo seems to work just fine. I'm able to install: Installing: mindi x86_64 2.0.5-1.fc9 mondorescue 218 k mondo x86_64 2.2.8-1.fc9 mondorescue 900 k Installing for dependencies: afiox86_64 2.5-1.fc9 mondorescue75 k buffer x86_64 1.19-4.fc9 mondorescue22 k mindi-busybox i386 1.7.3-1.fc9 mondorescue 244 k mtools x86_64 3.9.11-4.fc9 fedora212 k syslinuxx86_64 3.61-2.fc9 fedora770 k -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Comment #40 from Bruno Cornec 2009-01-15 19:02:18 EDT --- I'm making my integration tests for fedora at the moment for my first package buffer. In the mean time, my tests packages available with that repo file: ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/test/fedora/9/mondorescue.repo Sorry for the confusion. As soon as I've finished validating them, I'll put them in the main directory. -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 MartinG changed: What|Removed |Added CC||grons...@gmail.com --- Comment #39 from MartinG 2009-01-15 08:00:29 EDT --- I just tried the repo file from ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/fedora/9/mondorescue.repo but get Error: Missing Dependency: afio is needed by package mondo-2.2.7-1.fc9.x86_64 (mondorescue) Error: Missing Dependency: buffer is needed by package mondo-2.2.7-1.fc9.x86_64 (mondorescue) when I try "yum install mondo mindi". Any workaround? Anything I can do to help testing? -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Comment #38 from manuel wolfshant 2008-12-12 10:46:57 EDT --- Could you please can try to trim the changelog? I doubt anyone still cares about the entries from 2000 and in the current form it has almost 1300 lines out of the total of 1382. Not to mention that a large part of the content seems to better fit into a program changelog, not in the package's changelog And also please fix the ending ".fc9" automatically appended to all entries. I am kind of sure .fc9 was not around when the first ones were created. -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 Bruno Cornec changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bruno_cor...@hp.com Depends on|449037 | --- Comment #37 from Bruno Cornec 2008-12-12 10:18:09 EDT --- mondo may work without afio, using star already in fedora, so removing the link. Will regenerate packages accordingly asap. -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 manuel wolfshant changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #36 from manuel wolfshant 2008-12-12 10:09:09 EDT --- restoring NEW as status, according to its history no one has ever formally decided to review the bug. -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 manuel wolfshant changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Comment #35 from Bruno Cornec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-23 03:39:39 EDT --- The latest version to look at is under: ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/test/fedora/9/mondo-2.2.7-1.fc9.src.rpm SPEC: ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/test/fedora/9/mondo.spec -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Comment #34 from Jan ONDREJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-23 01:35:12 EDT --- Any sponsor watching this package? I think all dependencies have been solved. I am ready to approve buffer package, just I am not a sponsor and it's better, if packager's first package is approved by a sponsor. I am in packager group and I am interested in packaging mondorescue project. It's a good project and I have to use it in fedora. -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Comment #33 from Bruno Cornec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-19 19:57:18 EDT --- Buffer is now submitted at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462982 -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 Bruno Cornec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||462982 -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 Itamar Reis Peixoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Alias||mondo -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||449037 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-29 19:21 EST --- Here is the ticket for afio: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449037 I'll work on buffer and provide it here as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 18:24 EST --- This builds but fails to install for me: /usr/bin/yum --installroot /mock/fedora-development-x86_64/root/ install /mock/fedora-development-x86_64/result/mondo-2.2.6-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm /mock/fedora-development-x86_64/result/mondo-debuginfo-2.2.6-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm Error: Missing Dependency: mindi >= 1.2.1 is needed by package mondo Error: Missing Dependency: afio is needed by package mondo Error: Missing Dependency: buffer is needed by package mondo I guess the mindi review is stalled out. I don't see any review tickets for afio or buffer, though; what are they? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-30 07:45 EST --- Sorry, 2.2.5 has since been published officially. So the new correct URLs at the tuime of the writing are: ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/fedora/8/test/mondo-2.2.6-1.fc8.src.rpm (latest beta) ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/fedora/8/mondo-2.2.5-1.fc8.src.rpm (latest official) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-29 18:15 EST --- Unfortunately the URL in comment 27 is invalid. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |m) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-01 14:18 EST --- It looks like Bruno neglected to check the "I am providing the requested information" box, and so this is improperly set as NEEDINFO. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-27 14:57 EST --- the latest package version built is at ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/fedora/8/test/mondo-2.2.5-1.fc8.src.rpm Hope they will show progress -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||m) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-25 12:08 EST --- So it's been another month and there hasn't been any actividy on either this or bug 187317 (besides these pings) in ages. Setting NEEDINFO; I will close them in one week if there is no response. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-25 11:49 EST --- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-09-15 02:21 EST --- PLease add an URL for new src.rpm for next review. You can update rpmlint on FC6 and F7 to display proper information. I think it is not important, what shows old rpmlint on non-supported fedoras. The package will be compatible with any versions of Fedora older than FC6 with any License tag, because there was no LicensingGuidelines for these fedoras. Another way can be rebuild of rpmlint for your older fedora, if you want, but it is highly recommended to upgrade all non-supported Fedoras asap. Because they have no updates, I think it is not required to make new backups of these systems. :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-09-14 18:22 EST --- I've removed the % in my svn version. I made summary shorter also in SVN. spec file should now be UTF-8. I'll try to shorten the log and remove the svn.log as well. For the License, how to you handle compatibility with previous versions of fedora ? If I put GPLv2, and tr to build on an older version rpmlint will say it doesn't exists. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-09-08 02:40 EST --- FE-NEW does not need to be blocked anymore. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-09-06 03:44 EST ---
rpmlint says:
W: mondo invalid-license GPL
E: mondo non-utf8-spec-file mondo.spec
W: mondo macro-in-%changelog attr
W: mondo macro-in-%changelog done
W: mondo macro-in-%changelog d
Please change license to GPLv2 or GPLv2+ .
Convert your spec file to UTF-8.
Remove macros (%attr, %done, %d) from changelog entries, you can remove the "%"
sign and leave only the "attr macro" string.
Your localized summary lines are too loing. They can be only 80 characters long.
The ".fc7" tag is hardcoded into spec file. Please change it to "%{?dist}".
Update changelog entries to more Fedora notation. Change this:
* Fri Jul 06 2007 Bruno Cornec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2.2.4-1.fc7
to:
* Fri Jul 06 2007 Bruno Cornec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 2.2.4-1.fc7
("-" sign has been added)
I think your changelog is too long and may be reduced.
I think svn.log is not needed in package documentation, ChangeLog is enough.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-09-02 06:48 EST --- New packages at ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/fedora/6/mondo-2.2.4-1.fc6.src.rpm and ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/fedora/7/mondo-2.2.4-1.fc7.src.rpm I have rebuild the packages and they work just fine. Someone here to do the formal packaging checks? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-29 06:22 EST --- An updated version is now available at ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/fedora-extras/mondo-2.2.3-1.fc6.src.rpm which hopefully solves the issues encountered in the past. Of course, mindi needs to be accepted first, so this has to wait till that point. TIA for your feedback. -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-03 20:54 EST --- So a new version of mondo is available and I hope it will meet Fedora Extra requirements. ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/fedora/5/mondo-2.2.1-1.fc5.src.rpm TIA for your feedback -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 07:58 EST --- the latest status on my side is available at ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/fedora/5/mondo-2.2.0-2.fc5.src.rpm Not all the previous remarks made on this bug report have been integrated :-( That's why I haven't given feedback till now. Version 2.2.1 should arrive soon (tests running now), and I hope to be able to fix most remaining problems with it. A snapshot is available at ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/fedora/5/mondo-stable-1.fc5.src.rpm I hope that at that point inclusion will be easier. BTW as noted, first point is to fix mindi for inclusion. -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||187317 -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-04 05:28 EST --- hello No activity logged since August 2006. What's is the status of inclusion of Mondo rescue into Fedora Extras ? -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 23:36 EST --- Created an attachment (id=134115) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=134115&action=view) corrected spec -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 23:34 EST ---
ok quick thing drop the define addreq and just put your requires in a
Requires line you do realise you dont have to have them all on one line?
do not hard code .fc5 in release use %{?dist}
is there any reason you are not using %{?_smp_mflags} with make you really
should just call make not %{__make}
drop --program-prefix=%{?_program_prefix} from %configure your not using it
at all
you really should not add all the Requires unless they are only needed at
run time. if they please state so.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requires
you dont need to require gcc
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/FullExceptionList
dont use %makeinstall
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0dbcfbdd2fcb7791dd002
I would write the spec file more like attached spec
--
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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-07 19:43 EST --- So here is the latest version I prepared. I hope it includes all the points mentined above. Spec Name or Url: in the src.rpm SRPM Name or Url: ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/fedora/5/mondo-2.0.9-1.fc5.src.rpm Description: A program which a Linux user can utilize to create a rescue/restore CD/tape -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 20:07 EST --- I'm still interested, and have read most of what was advised. I want to propose a new version with the upstream 2.0.9 version which should arrive RSN. I'll amend this bug report as soon as it's available. -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-31 22:27 EST --- Are you stillintrested in getting this package in Fedora Extras? If so please review the packaging guidelines. and ensure that your package meets them. Please note that you can not use your existing build system with the extras package. It must meet the fedora guidelines and live in fedora extras cvs. you can keep a copy in your local svn tree but your package must meet fedora guidelines always. -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO_REPORTER -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 10:50 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #1) > > 1. Don't use all the macros at the top of your spec, it just makes it > > harder to > > do any qa on. > > Well, as I explained already in the mindi package, I have a build system to > create .spec already in place. I'll see if I can do better, but for now these > macros are useful for multirpm distro support (aka mandriva + suse + rhel + > sles) Well, since this will be imported in Fedora Extras CVS, the other distro support should be dropped, and the unnecessary macros dropped. -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 10:43 EST --- disttag explenation http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag it will have zero effect on other Distros \ we only provide one version of slang so if its not high enough build will fail. rpmbuild partial output. Requires: /bin/sh afio binutils bzip2 >= 0.9 libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6 (GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libnewt.so.0.52()(64bit) libnewt.so.0.52 (NEWT_0.52)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5) (64bit) mindi >= 1.0.7 mkisofs newt >= 0.50 slang >= 1.4.1 syslinux >= 1.52 so you link to libnewt's shared objects rpm knows that and has a requires on it. you dont link toslang though so it is a superfluous Requires as it is brought in via newt. i am assuming that you are using bzip2 binutils mkisofs syslinux via scripts? as you havent linked to them. you also have alot of duplicate files listed did you read the packaging guidelines? they answer most of these issues -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 10:38 EST --- > 2. Drop the additional languages from the spec. Actually, it is recommanded to have the translations in the spec file. See the bottom of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines?highlight=translations (2nd SHOULD item) -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 10:26 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > by duplicate he means > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ rpm -q --whatrequires slang-devel > newt-devel-0.52.2-6 > > so by BuildRequire newt-devel you also get slang-devel Ok, understood. But what about th fact we need slang > 1.4.1 ? This constraint is different from the previous one no ? Bruno. -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 10:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) (will do shorter as my comments were thrown away due to simultabeous modifs grumph) > in addition to above you need to fill in the changelog. the source needs > the > full http:// or ftp:// url generally package builds start at 1 not 454. it > is recommeneded to use disttags. Corrected in SVN. We used SVN revision up to now so the 454. What is the rule for SVN devs ? What are disttags ? (no ref in your above http link) > you have alot of duplicate requires rpm is smart enough to pick up shared > objects that are linked. Do you mean newt ? And what if I require at least a certain version of newt ? > looks like it requires mindi but it is not available it seems to be > submitted > bug #187317 you should block this bug also. The answers to the rest are in the mindi bug report (don't want to mix and match bug reports). Bruno. -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 10:10 EST --- by duplicate he means [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ rpm -q --whatrequires slang-devel newt-devel-0.52.2-6 so by BuildRequire newt-devel you also get slang-devel -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 10:05 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) > 1. Don't use all the macros at the top of your spec, it just makes it harder > to > do any qa on. Well, as I explained already in the mindi package, I have a build system to create .spec already in place. I'll see if I can do better, but for now these macros are useful for multirpm distro support (aka mandriva + suse + rhel + sles) > 2. Drop the additional languages from the spec. Why that ? Is fedora becoming an english only distro ? there are billions of people not speaking english, and for them having the possibility to read something else that english is useful no ? To be honest those rpms exist nearly since the begining of the project, and nobody never complained on that before, so I'm really surprised. > 3. Missing ChangeLog. My fault, will redeliver and add it. Corrected in SVN. > 4. You using a non-standard Group. Corrected in SVN. > 5. Duplicate BuildRequires: slang-devel (provided by newt-devel) I don't see the point here: # rpm -q slang-devel --provides slang-devel = 2.0.5-5.2.1 # rpm -q newt-devel --provides newt-devel = 0.52.2-5.2 What do you mean by duplicate ? Thanks for your answer, Bruno. -- 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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-07 23:46 EST ---
in addition to above you need to fill in the changelog. the source needs the
full http:// or ftp:// url generally package builds start at 1 not 454. it
is recommeneded to use disttags.
you have alot of duplicate requires rpm is smart enough to pick up shared
objects that are linked.
looks like it requires mindi but it is not available it seems to be submitted
bug #187317 you should block this bug also.
you need to own all the files/directories you create
why is there executable files in %{_datadir} ?
--
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 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-07 16:16 EST --- Note that this is not a formal review. Here's a couple of quick items: 1. Don't use all the macros at the top of your spec, it just makes it harder to do any qa on. 2. Drop the additional languages from the spec. 3. Missing ChangeLog. 4. You using a non-standard Group. 5. Duplicate BuildRequires: slang-devel (provided by newt-devel) I would suggest fully reading the packing guidelines on the wiki, since most of these issues are addressed there. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras -- 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
