[Bug 189322] Review Request: rosegarden4
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: rosegarden4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-19 18:51 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) > Patched and built on devel and FC5! FC4 is missing liblrdf, liblo and dssi > though. Great news! I wasn't planning on putting those packages in FC4, as I don't have an FC4 machine to test with. Is this still something you would really like? -- 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 189322] Review Request: rosegarden4
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: rosegarden4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-19 18:36 EST --- Patched and built on devel and FC5! FC4 is missing liblrdf, liblo and dssi though. -- 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 189322] Review Request: rosegarden4
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: rosegarden4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-15 22:47 EST --- Created an attachment (id=132518) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=132518&action=view) Patch to look for DSSI plugins in lib64 directories Please apply this patch when you check rosegarden4 in. It tells rosegarden where to find DSSI plugins on x86-64 systems. -- 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 189322] Review Request: rosegarden4
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: rosegarden4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||158728 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 189322] Review Request: rosegarden4
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: rosegarden4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|183912, 189892 | OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-13 19:38 EST --- Ok, I'm in fedorabugs. This package is ACCEPTED! -- 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 189322] Review Request: rosegarden4
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: rosegarden4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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 189322] Review Request: rosegarden4
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: rosegarden4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 22:12 EST --- I don't have the "fedorabugs" membership yet, so this I can't approve yet, but here's my formal review anyways... * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * source files match upstream: md5sum is e7fb7ebcb21ac6841ac5cfd6683f5fb2 * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock ( ). * rpmlint is silent apart from empty file complaints which we've discussed in bugzilla. Those will be fixed upstream. * final provides and requires are sane: rosegarden4-1.2.3-2.x86_64.rpm rosegarden4 = 1.2.3-2 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/perl desktop-file-utils libDCOP.so.4()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXft.so.2()(64bit) libXrender.so.1()(64bit) libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libjack.so.0()(64bit) libkdecore.so.4()(64bit) libkdeprint.so.4()(64bit) libkdeui.so.4()(64bit) libkio.so.4()(64bit) liblirc_client.so.0()(64bit) liblo.so.0()(64bit) liblrdf.so.2()(64bit) libqt-mt.so.3()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) perl(File::Basename) perl(File::Copy) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(XML::Twig) perl(strict) * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a web app. I would approve this if I had "fedorabugs" membership (which I've requested). -- 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 189322] Review Request: rosegarden4
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: rosegarden4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-10 05:15 EST --- That's part of the pre-rendered music notation font its using. Dunno why there's a bunch of null files in there. I figure we can ignore it for now, and I'll report it upstream along with all the patches once the review is done. -- 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 189322] Review Request: rosegarden4
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: rosegarden4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-10 01:57 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) > Alright, shiny new package update: > > http://www.haxxed.com/rpms/rosegarden4-1.2.3-2.src.rpm > http://www.haxxed.com/rpms/rosegarden4.spec Do you know what all this is about? # rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/rosegarden4-1.2.3-2.i386.rpm E: rosegarden4 zero-length /usr/share/apps/rosegarden/fonts/feta/6/custodes-medicaea.xpm E: rosegarden4 zero-length /usr/share/apps/rosegarden/fonts/feta/4/custodes-rvaticana.xpm E: rosegarden4 zero-length /usr/share/apps/rosegarden/fonts/feta/8/custodes-mensural.xpm E: rosegarden4 zero-length /usr/share/apps/rosegarden/fonts/feta/12/custodes-rmedicaea.xpm E: rosegarden4 zero-length /usr/share/apps/rosegarden/fonts/feta/12/accordion-accSB.xpm E: rosegarden4 zero-length /usr/share/apps/rosegarden/fonts/feta/12/custodes-rvaticana.xpm E: rosegarden4 zero-length /usr/share/apps/rosegarden/fonts/feta/4/accordion-accDot.xpm etc etc etc -- 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 189322] Review Request: rosegarden4
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: rosegarden4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-18 02:40 EST --- Alright, shiny new package update: http://www.haxxed.com/rpms/rosegarden4-1.2.3-2.src.rpm http://www.haxxed.com/rpms/rosegarden4.spec - Removed which from Buildrequires, mock needing it is confirmed to be a bug. - Use find_lang macro. - Look for ladspa plugins in the correct place on x86_64. - Build against liblo, jack, dssi, lirc. - Salvage the upstream desktop file, rather than using our own. -- 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 189322] Review Request: rosegarden4
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: rosegarden4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 02:16 EST --- Alright, so I've run into a problem on the timing front. On my x86_64 system, using snd-rtctimer will cause a total system lockup within seconds, when the ALSA sequencer is used. So snd-rtctimer does in fact still not get along with SMP, and it appears simply *running* an SMP kernel, even on a UP system, will cause lockups with snd-rtctimer. (x86_64 always runs with an SMP kernel, as it apparently doesn't suffer the speed hit i386 does when running an SMP kernel on UP systems.) This happens with any ALSA MIDI app, not just Rosegarden. However, I'm not sure if its something I did, but somehow Rosegarden is causing snd-rtctimer to be loaded when it starts up, even if I take it out of my modprobe.conf. And it seems to insist on using it even if I tell it not to. I had to blacklist snd-rtctimer in modprobe.conf to keep my system from locking up. Since I approved dssi, I'll get an updated rosegarden package up tomorrow hopefully. (Summer session just started and I'm taking a few classes. 3 months worth of class mashed into one month...) -- 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 189322] Review Request: rosegarden4
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: rosegarden4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 Bug 189322 depends on bug 189892, which changed state. Bug 189892 Summary: Review Request: dssi - Disposable Soft Synth Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189892 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- 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 189322] Review Request: rosegarden4
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: rosegarden4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 18:33 EST --- Actually the updated package I'm sitting on uses %find_lang. Today I plan to finish up my dssi review, which is the last remaining soft-dependency for this package. -- 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 189322] Review Request: rosegarden4
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: rosegarden4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 06:45 EST --- Why do you not use %find_lang macro? You may uncomment BR: jack-aufio-connection-kit due to it is built for devel, fc4,5 repos. -- 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 189322] Review Request: rosegarden4
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: rosegarden4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 Bug 189322 depends on bug 183912, which changed state. Bug 183912 Summary: Review Request: jack-audio-connection-kit - The Jack Audio Connection Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183912 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- 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 189322] Review Request: rosegarden4
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: rosegarden4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||183912 -- 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 189322] Review Request: rosegarden4
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: rosegarden4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|183912 |189892 -- 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 189322] Review Request: rosegarden4
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: rosegarden4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-16 03:58 EST --- Okay, so I tried building rosegarden against jack, and now the timer setting will stick, and /proc/asound/seq confirms it is actually using the RTC timer, however it STILL complains about the system timer resolution on startup. Bleh. I'm going to hold off on updates until its various (supposedly) optional dependencies are accepted. Looks like liblo was accepted, and I'm working on reviewing jack. -- 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 189322] Review Request: rosegarden4
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: rosegarden4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||183912 -- 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 189322] Review Request: rosegarden4
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: rosegarden4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-13 16:56 EST --- Created an attachment (id=128983) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128983&action=view) Patch for x86-64 ladspa This patch tells rosegarden4 to look for plugins in lib64 instead of lib. Just conditionally apply it in the spec file like so... # Conditionally apply patch to read ladspa plugins from lib64 dir. %ifarch x86_64 %patch1 -p0 %endif Admittedly, this is a bit of a hack. I'll follow up with upstream to make sure there's a cleaner solution in the next release. -- 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
