[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo

[bugzilla]

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: boo


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-28 02:45 EST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Odd. This is building fine outside of mock. Could this be an selinux problem
> (ISTR seeing something similar with a C# package reported on the extras list)?

This looks to me more like a missing buildreq than an SELinux issue. Are the
missing files generated by some tool that needs to be buildreq-ed?

I think it would be a very good idea for you to try out a local mock setup as
it's *great* for finding things like this.

-- 
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 187964] Review Request: bsd-games - A collection of text-based games

[bugzilla]

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: bsd-games - A collection of text-based games


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187964





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-28 01:57 EST ---
I've addressed the issues from comment 30 and comment 31.  The hack gid patch
has a lot of changes to limit the setgid portions of code.  Fortunately,
phantasia was easier to deal with, and sail was already done upstream.

dm has also been dropped.

http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/bsd-games-2.17-7.src.rpm
http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/bsd-games.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 188208] Review Request: wings - A polygon mesh modeler

[bugzilla]

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: wings - A polygon mesh modeler


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188208


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

OtherBugsDependingO|163778  |163779
  nThis||




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-28 01:46 EST ---
Everything looks good.

APPROVED

-- 
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 188168] Review Request: gauche - Scheme script interpreter with multibyte character handling

[bugzilla]

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: gauche - Scheme script interpreter with multibyte 
character handling


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188168





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-28 01:33 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=128340)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128340&action=view)
Logg for failing build in rawhide


-- 
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 188168] Review Request: gauche - Scheme script interpreter with multibyte character handling

[bugzilla]

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: gauche - Scheme script interpreter with multibyte 
character handling


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188168





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-28 01:29 EST ---
Something seems to have busted; now I can't build any of the packages you've
submitted on the development branch.  Things start to go off here:

os_dep.c:20:30: error: linux/version.h: No such file or directory
In file included from /usr/include/asm/signal.h:5,
 from os_dep.c:27:
/usr/include/asm-x86_64/signal.h:6:27: error: linux/linkage.h: No such file or
directory
In file included from /usr/include/asm-x86_64/signal.h:7,
 from /usr/include/asm/signal.h:5,
 from os_dep.c:27:
/usr/include/linux/time.h:9: error: redefinition of 'struct timespec'
/usr/include/linux/time.h:15: error: redefinition of 'struct timeval'
/usr/include/linux/time.h:42: error: redefinition of 'struct itimerspec'
In file included from /usr/include/asm/signal.h:5,
 from os_dep.c:27:
/usr/include/asm-x86_64/signal.h:15: error: conflicting types for 'sigset_t'
/usr/include/signal.h:50: error: previous declaration of 'sigset_t' was here
In file included from /usr/include/asm/signal.h:5,
 from os_dep.c:27:
/usr/include/asm-x86_64/signal.h:102: error: redefinition of 'struct sigaction'
/usr/include/asm-x86_64/signal.h:103: error: expected ':', ',', ';', '}' or
'__attribute__' before '.' token
/usr/include/asm-x86_64/signal.h:113: error: redefinition of 'struct 
sigaltstack'

I'll attach a build log, but fortunately things still build on the FC5 release
branch, and that's all that's required, so I'll proceed with the review on that
basis.  I think something must have busted since I last pulled from rawhide a
couple of days ago.  The first file it can't find, /usr/include/linux/version.h,
is in FC5 part of glibc-kernheaders but it's not there in current rawhide.

Issues:
You should package the COPYING file as %doc.

I'm inclined to ignore the remaining rpmlint complaint.  In reality fixing
gauche-config should be a simple matter of patching src/genconfig.in, but I have
no way of knowing what that might break.  And anyway, compilers tend to be
something of a special case (c.f. gcc).

There's a test suite that you don't call; I added

%check
cd src; LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir} make test

and it runs and, most importantly, passes.

Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* license field matches the actual license.
X license is open source-compatible and is included upstream but is not included
in the package.
* source files match upstream:
   5c7cb6eba7455c9877aec884b0088a25  Gauche-0.8.7.tgz
   5c7cb6eba7455c9877aec884b0088a25  Gauche-0.8.7.tgz-srpm
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (fc5, i386 and x86_64).
O rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane.
* shared libraries are present; ldconfig is called as necessary.
* 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.
X %check is not present, but upstream includes one that can easily be run.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers present and in a -devel package.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.


-- 
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 174546] Review Request: trac

[bugzilla]

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: trac


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174546





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 23:34 EST ---
Well, the wiki may be the place to make this change,
but its example currently has:

sudo trac-admin /srv/trac/foobar initenv

This will fail unless /srv/trac already exists, so it could be
included in the rpm. Alternatively the wiki could be updated
to do just

sudo trac-admin /srv/trac initenv

though first-time users might be confused that they are 
creating a trac environment actually named "trac".

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 190135] Review Request: perl-DBM-Deep - A pure perl multi-level hash/array DBM

[bugzilla]

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: perl-DBM-Deep - A pure perl multi-level hash/array DBM


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190135


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 22:41 EST ---
Thx for the review, package has been built, closing as NEXTRELEASE.

-- 
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 190135] Review Request: perl-DBM-Deep - A pure perl multi-level hash/array DBM

[bugzilla]

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: perl-DBM-Deep - A pure perl multi-level hash/array DBM


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190135


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

OtherBugsDependingO|163778  |163779
  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 190135] Review Request: perl-DBM-Deep - A pure perl multi-level hash/array DBM

[bugzilla]

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: perl-DBM-Deep - A pure perl multi-level hash/array DBM


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190135


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776  |163778
  nThis||




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 22:12 EST ---
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, uses macros consistently and 
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  It's not included separately in the
package, but this is not necessary as the upstream tarball does not include it.
* source files match upstream:
   09ddd163183e983bf1085688d0b25b75  DBM-Deep-0.983.tar.gz
   09ddd163183e983bf1085688d0b25b75  DBM-Deep-0.983.tar.gz-srpm
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, i386)
* rpmlint is silent.
O final provides and requires are sane.  (DBM::Deep::_::Root is a bit weird, but
that's really what the package is called.)
* 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.
* %check is present and all tests pass:
   All tests successful.
   Files=28, Tests=371, 15 wallclock secs (12.99 cusr +  1.02 csys = 14.01 CPU)
* 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 GUI app.

APPROVED

-- 
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 190139] Review Request: rapidsvn - Graphical interface for the Subversion version-control system

[bugzilla]

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: rapidsvn - Graphical interface for the Subversion 
version-control system


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190139





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 21:55 EST ---
Oops, it seems I took this package by mistake, but I'll go ahead and do a 
review.

Right off, there's a build failure on x86_64:
checking for Subversion headers... found
checking for Subversion libraries... not found
configure: error: Subversion libraries are required. Try --with-svn-lib.
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.54929 (%build)

RPM build errors:
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.54929 (%build)
Error building package from rapidsvn-0.9.1-1.src.rpm, See build log
ending

However, the build succeeds on i386.  My assumption is that it isn't checking
/usr/lib64 for the subversion libraries.  You can probably pass
--with-svn-lib="/usr/lib /usr/lib64" to build everywhere.

Issues:
You include the COPYING file, but it contains only the string "Fill me in with
licensing information".  The actual license is more complex than just GPL, it
seems.  LICENSE.txt contains all of the details, so it should probably be
packaged.  I think "GPL and LGPL" would be a more appropriate license tag.

Is autoconf really required?  I didn't see it being called in the build log, and
removing it doesn't seem to hurt anything.

rpmlint complains:
E: rapidsvn library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/libsvncpp.so.0.0.0
E: rapidsvn library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/libsvncpp.so.0.0.0

You need to call ldconfig in %post and %postun: see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets (the "Shared Libraries" 
section).

W: rapidsvn devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsvncpp.so

The guidelines indicate that if you have a versioned .so, the unversioned one
must go in a -devel package.

It seems there's a bunch of headers included in /usr/include; those should
probably go in a -devel package as well.  (Well, they're .hpp files, which I
haven't seen before, but they look like C++ class definitions.)

There does seem to be some kind of test suite (in src/tests/svncpp), but I'm not
sure how you would go about calling it.  This isn't a blocker, but you might
want to take a look.

Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
X license field matches the actual license.
X license is open source-compatible and included upstream but is not included in
the package.
* source files match upstream:
   ba03034db35912c7b51b146cc7e6090e  rapidsvn-0.9.1.tar.gz
   ba03034db35912c7b51b146cc7e6090e  rapidsvn-0.9.1.tar.gz-srpm
? BuildRequires are proper (not sure about autoconf)
X package fails to build in mock (development, x86_64).
X rpmlint is silent.
O final provides and requires are sane.
X shared libraries are present; ldconfig should be called but isn't.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directory it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
O %check not present; there seems to be an upstream test suite, but it's not
immediately obvious how it would be called.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
X headers present in main package.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* a GUI app; desktop file properly installed with desktop-file-install.


-- 
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 190144] Review Request: hevea - LaTeX to HTML translator

[bugzilla]

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: hevea - LaTeX to HTML translator


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190144





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 20:52 EST ---
The rpmlint message about there not being any executables in /usr/lib should be
ignorable, as no .so files are packaged.

-- 
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 190144] New: Review Request: hevea - LaTeX to HTML translator

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.




https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190144

   Summary: Review Request: hevea - LaTeX to HTML translator
   Product: Fedora Extras
   Version: devel
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: normal
  Priority: normal
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com


Spec URL: http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/hevea/hevea.spec
SRPM URL: http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/hevea/hevea-1.08-2.src.rpm
Description:
HEVEA is a quite complete and fast LATEX to HTML translator.

-- 
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 190139] Review Request: rapidsvn - Graphical interface for the Subversion version-control system

[bugzilla]

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: rapidsvn - Graphical interface for the Subversion 
version-control system


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190139


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776  |163778
  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 190070] Review Request: par2cmdline

[bugzilla]

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: par2cmdline


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190070


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

OtherBugsDependingO|163778  |163779
  nThis||




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 20:31 EST ---
Thanks for fixing things up.  I'll just respond point by point:

The source URL is good; Sourceforge often fails to respond for me, but things
usually start to work if you try long enough.

Let me try to fix up the %description a bit, using what's in the README:

par2cmdline is a program for creating and using PAR2 files to detect damage in
data files and repair them if necessary.  PAR2 files are usually published in
binary newsgroups on Usenet; they apply the data-recovery capability concepts of
RAID-like systems to the posting and recovery of multi-part archives.


BuildRoot: is now good.
Distribution: SuSE 9.1 is gone.
The problem with Obsoletes: is that you's behavior can be counter-intuitive, but
what you have here is fine.

rpmlint is now silent.

The only remaining issue is that I didn't notice the test suite upstream (which
was dumb of me since it's pretty obvious).  Can you add this after %clean:

%check
make check-TESTS

to run the test suite?  I checked that it passes on i386 and x86_64.

APPROVED.  Just add the %check bit when you check in.

-- 
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 190066] Review Request: php-pear-Mail

[bugzilla]

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: php-pear-Mail


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190066


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 19:42 EST ---
(In reply to comment #0)

> One important thing is that this extension  (as HTML, Net_SMTP, Net_Socket and
XML_Parser) was included until php-5.0.4 in FC4. So it's needed for backward
compatibility of Fedora Core >= 5.

Are you certain about this? The php Package in core does include the mail()
function, but AFAIK it never included pear-mail.

-- 
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 181450] Review Request: clamav-exim - Clam AV support files for Exim

[bugzilla]

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: clamav-exim - Clam AV support files for Exim


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181450


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  QAContact|fedora-extras-  |fedora-package-
   |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 18:44 EST ---
OK, I've looked into this. The /usr/share/clamav/clamd-wrapper script, provided
by clamav-server, hardcodes "clamd.XXX" as the service name in several places.
So either we stick with clamd.exim as the service name or have to file a bug
with Enrico and get him to patch the main ClamAV package.

I presume there was some reason why clamd.XXX was chosen.

Also, this package should possibly be renamed clamav-server-exim.

-- 
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 188542] Review Request: hylafax

[bugzilla]

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: hylafax


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 18:37 EST ---
Okay, I'm hoping this took care of the problem.  Now please try:

Spec URL: http://osdn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/hylafax/hylafax.spec
SRPM URL:
http://osdn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/hylafax/hylafax-4.3.0.1-1.src.rpm

-- 
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 190139] New: Review Request: rapidsvn - Graphical interface for the Subversion version-control system

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.




https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190139

   Summary: Review Request: rapidsvn - Graphical interface for the
Subversion version-control system
   Product: Fedora Extras
   Version: devel
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: normal
  Priority: normal
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com


Spec URL: http://www.timj.co.uk/linux/specs/rapidsvn.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.timj.co.uk/linux/srpms/rapidsvn-0.9.1-1.src.rpm
Description: 
RapidSVN is a GUI front-end for the Subversion revision control system. It
allows access to most of the features of Subversion through a user-friendly
interface.

-- 
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 187964] Review Request: bsd-games - A collection of text-based games

[bugzilla]

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: bsd-games - A collection of text-based games


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187964





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 18:10 EST ---
I'm all for dropping dm, its a strange beast, especially since there is no
similar functionality for any of the other games we 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 190135] New: Review Request: perl-DBM-Deep - A pure perl multi-level hash/array DBM

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.




https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190135

   Summary: Review Request: perl-DBM-Deep - A pure perl multi-level
hash/array DBM
   Product: Fedora Extras
   Version: devel
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: normal
  Priority: normal
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com


Spec URL: http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/perl-DBM-Deep/perl-DBM-Deep.spec
SRPM URL: http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/perl-DBM-Deep/perl-DBM-Deep-0.983-1.src.rpm
Description:
A unique flat-file database module, written in pure perl. True multi-level
hash/array support (unlike MLDBM, which is faked), hybrid OO / tie()
interface, cross-platform FTPable files, and quite fast. Can handle
millions of keys and unlimited hash levels without significant slow-down.
Written from the ground-up in pure perl -- this is NOT a wrapper around a
C-based DBM. Out-of-the-box compatibility with Unix, Mac OS X and Windows.

-- 
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 189092] Review Request: boo

[bugzilla]

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: boo


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 17:13 EST ---
Odd. This is building fine outside of mock. Could this be an selinux problem
(ISTR seeing something similar with a C# package reported on the extras list)?

-- 
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 189685] Review Request: Anjuta2

[bugzilla]

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: Anjuta2


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189685





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 17:10 EST ---
Spec URL: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/anjuta2.spec
SRPM : http://www.smmp/salford.ac.uk/packages/anjuta-2.0.1-2.src.rpm

It can only be built without the %{?_smp_flags}. The package builds but breaks
when installed and run. I have a feeling that is down to me rather than anything
else.

-- 
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 187625] Review Request: ices IceS is a source client for a streaming server

[bugzilla]

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: ices  IceS is a source client for a streaming server


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187625


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||WONTFIX
OtherBugsDependingO|163778  |
  nThis||




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 17:09 EST ---
So it turns out that someone had already submitted ices for review. Silly me for
not noticing.

-- 
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 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop

[bugzilla]

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: Monodevelop


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 17:07 EST ---
Spec Name or Url: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/monodevelop.spec
SRPM Name or Url: 
http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/monodevelop-0.10-8.src.rpm

Boo and java support are now built as part of the package.

As before, the x86_64 version has problems due to packaging, but the i386
version works fine on both x86_64 and i386 without a hitch.

-- 
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 189775] Review Request: dnsmasq - A lightweight DHCP/caching DNS server

[bugzilla]

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: dnsmasq - A lightweight DHCP/caching DNS server


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189775





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 17:06 EST ---
The issue in Comment #1 is the result of the default configuration triggering a
deprecated feature in dnsmasq.  The solution the error message suggests
(defining HAVE_ISC_READER) is a hack to re-enable that feature.  The dnsmasq
author asked me quite kindly to not enable the feature, as he'd rather not get
any more users hooked on a feature which will be going away eventually.

The workaround (which you should be doing anyway) is to set dhcp-range and
dhcp-leasefile in the configuration file.

I've released an update (2.30-3) which doesn't have the feature enabled, and
also cleans up my slightly hacked patch situation.  It should be pushed out to
mirrors shortly.

-- 
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 178901] Review Request: gtksourceview-sharp

[bugzilla]

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: gtksourceview-sharp


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178901





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 17:05 EST ---
Oh poo! Just realised that boo and java support are for monodevelop and not
gtksourceview-sharp. I bad ;-p

-- 
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 178901] Review Request: gtksourceview-sharp

[bugzilla]

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: gtksourceview-sharp


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178901





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 17:04 EST ---
Spec Name or Url: 
http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/gtksourceview-sharp.spec
SRPM Name or Url:
http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/gtksourceview-sharp-2.0-6.src.rpm

Quite a lot of fixes from the 0-4 release. I am still having the same x86_64
problems as before, but I have the i386 version running here and at work (work
is x86_64) without a problem.

This version has both boo and java support built in.

-- 
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 188180] Review Request: qt4: Qt GUI toolkit

[bugzilla]

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: qt4: Qt GUI toolkit


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188180





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 16:37 EST ---
%changelog
* Thu Apr 27 2006 Rex Dieter  4.1.2-6
- devel: Requires: pkgconfig

Spec Name or Url: 
http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/qt4-4.1.2-6.spec
SRPM Name or Url:
http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/qt4-4.1.2-6.src.rpm

-- 
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 190129] New: Review Request: python-krbV

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.




https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190129

   Summary: Review Request: python-krbV
   Product: Fedora Extras
   Version: devel
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: normal
  Priority: normal
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com


Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/mikeb/python-krbV/python-krbV.spec
SRPM URL: 
http://people.redhat.com/mikeb/python-krbV/python-krbV-1.0.12-2.src.rpm
Description: python-krbV allows python programs to use Kerberos 5 
authentication/security

-- 
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 187964] Review Request: bsd-games - A collection of text-based games

[bugzilla]

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: bsd-games - A collection of text-based games


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187964





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 16:11 EST ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> I just also checked tetris, thats ok too.
> 
> Mike could you, post a new version which takes my comments from comment 30 and
> comment 31 into account, then I can hopefully use that for a full review.

I'm working on that now in between meetings.  :)  I'll have something by evening
PDT.

I think I'm going to drop dm altogether since it takes a significant amount of
admin work to use, and I don't see too much benefit from using it.  Besides, the
links to dm will get replaced with the actual binaries once the package gets an
update.

-- 
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 189717] Review Request: gcompris - Educational suite for kids 2-10 years old

[bugzilla]

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: gcompris - Educational suite for kids 2-10 years old


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189717


Bug 189717 depends on bug 189699, which changed state.

Bug 189699 Summary: Review Request: gnucap - The Gnu Circuit Analysis Package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189699

   What|Old Value   |New Value

 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 189699] Review Request: gnucap - The Gnu Circuit Analysis Package

[bugzilla]

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: gnucap - The Gnu Circuit Analysis Package


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189699


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 16:02 EST ---
Imported and build, 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 187964] Review Request: bsd-games - A collection of text-based games

[bugzilla]

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: bsd-games - A collection of text-based games


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187964





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 16:00 EST ---
I just also checked tetris, thats ok too.

Mike could you, post a new version which takes my comments from comment 30 and
comment 31 into account, then I can hopefully use that for a full review.


-- 
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 187964] Review Request: bsd-games - A collection of text-based games

[bugzilla]

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: bsd-games - A collection of text-based games


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187964





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 15:39 EST ---
Okay, I've reviewed all the "sgid games"-games except for bsd-tetris which seems
to be a special case.

Remarks:
1) cfscores is sgid games, but canfield/cfscores/cfscores.c  drops rights
 immediatly even before reading the scores file because of this and since this
 program only reads hence I believe the sgid bit is not needed.
2) Whats the use of having dm if we install the games directly instead of in a 
 "hide" path and creating gamename symlinks to the game?


-- 
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 188168] Review Request: gauche - Scheme script interpreter with multibyte character handling

[bugzilla]

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: gauche - Scheme script interpreter with multibyte 
character handling


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188168





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 15:36 EST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I added a BR: for texinfo and all is well.
Ok.

> rpmlint complains:
> 
> W: gauche file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gauche-refe.info-3.gz
> 
> E: gauche-debuginfo non-readable
> /usr/src/debug/Gauche-0.8.7/ext/sxml/sxml-sxpath.c 0600
> (and many similar lines)
I created a patch for this. I will try to push this upstream.

> The build process is creating these intermediate files:
> 
> /tmp/Gauche-0.8.7> find . -name sxml-sxpath.c -ls
> 197853  708 -rw---   1 tibbsusers  719935 Apr 26 22:39
> ./ext/sxml/sxml-sxpath.c
Ok, I changed all *.c files to 0644

> E: gauche-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
I am somewhat annoyed that rpmlint reports this as an error, not as
a warning.
Of course the include files should be in /usr/include/gauche/%{version}
or something similar, however "gauche-config" reports the /usr/lib
directory, and I don't think it is wise to make major restructuring.
However, I will suggest this upstream.


> W: gauche-devel doc-file-dependency
> /usr/share/doc/gauche-devel-0.8.7/template.DIST /bin/sh
> This file should not be executable.
Ok.

Update at:
http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/gauche-0.8.7-2.fc5.src.rpm


-- 
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 189400] Review Request: em8300(-kmod) - Hollywood+/DXR3 hardware MPEG decoder drivers and tools

[bugzilla]

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: em8300(-kmod) - Hollywood+/DXR3 hardware MPEG decoder 
drivers and tools


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189400





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 14:59 EST ---
http://cachalot.mine.nu/5/SRPMS/em8300-kmod-0.15.3-3.2.6.16_1.2096_FC5.src.rpm

* Thu Apr 27 2006 Ville Skyttä  - 0.15.3-3
- Provide "kernel-modules" instead of "kernel-module" to match yum's config.


-- 
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 177827] Review Request: python-ctypes - Advanced Foreign Function Interface for Python

[bugzilla]

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: python-ctypes - Advanced Foreign Function Interface 
for Python


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177827





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 14:46 EST ---
http://people.redhat.com/pnasrat/extras/python-ctypes-0.9.9.6-1.src.rpm
http://people.redhat.com/pnasrat/extras/python-ctypes.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 188208] Review Request: wings - A polygon mesh modeler

[bugzilla]

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: wings - A polygon mesh modeler


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188208





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 14:31 EST ---
http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/wings-0.98.32b-5.fc5.src.rpm

I changed the documentation and summary a little and split off the -docs 
package.
The README files are also removed and the SOURCE tags updated.

-- 
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 189699] Review Request: gnucap - The Gnu Circuit Analysis Package

[bugzilla]

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: gnucap - The Gnu Circuit Analysis Package


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189699


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

OtherBugsDependingO|163778  |163779
  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 189699] Review Request: gnucap - The Gnu Circuit Analysis Package

[bugzilla]

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: gnucap - The Gnu Circuit Analysis Package


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189699





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 14:26 EST ---
Looks much better now.  All MUST items fixed.  I'll trust you that that the
package works since I'm not familiar enough with how to use it.

Now I can start the long process of reviewing gcompris.  :)

APPROVED

-- 
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 190108] Review Request: perl-XML-SAX-Expat - SAX2 Driver for Expat (XML::Parser)

[bugzilla]

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: perl-XML-SAX-Expat - SAX2 Driver for Expat 
(XML::Parser)


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190108





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 14:14 EST ---
Is there an application that requires XML-SAX-Expat specifically, or is the
intention to just ship a SAX2 implementation that is an improvement over the
already shipped ones?

I'm not really objecting, but there's XML-SAX-ExpatXS, which as far as I can
know is more featureful, faster, and more actively maintained.
http://rt.cpan.org/Dist/Display.html?Queue=XML-SAX-Expat
http://rt.cpan.org/Dist/Display.html?Queue=XML-SAX-ExpatXS

-- 
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 174546] Review Request: trac

[bugzilla]

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: trac


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174546





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 14:08 EST ---
re: comment #27:
I am unsure what you mean by your comment. Please elaborate. 

re: comment #28:
Changed all occurences of /svn to /srv in Trac on Fedora wiki:
http://projects.edgewall.com/trac/wiki/TracOnFedoraCore page.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 187964] Review Request: bsd-games - A collection of text-based games

[bugzilla]

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: bsd-games - A collection of text-based games


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187964





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 14:08 EST ---
I'm slowly descending into the bsd-games source, some initial remarks:
1) in bsd-games-2.17-hackgid.patch (line 81) you've seem to have left in /
 added a debug printf.
2) in hack you allow the user to specify the save game location and then the 
 savegame gets opened with full gamehack gid rights. This is a problem.
 Please modify hack so that the first thing it does in main is:
 gamehack_gid = getegid();
 setgid(getgid());
 Where gamehack_gid is a global available gid_t and then when it needs the extra
 rights it should do:
 setgid(gamehack_gid);
 // do stuff
 setgid(getgid());
3) The same (2) probably also goes for the other games which don't permanently
 drop their setgid rights with setresgid.

The spec looks good, but it will probably take me some time to properly review
all the setresgid using games for any problems. In the mean time a new version
addressing the above would be nice.



-- 
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 180149] Review Request: edje: A complex graphical design and layout library

[bugzilla]

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: edje: A complex graphical design and layout library


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180149


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE

Bug 180149 depends on bug 180102, which changed state.

Bug 180102 Summary: Review Request: embryo: A C like scripting language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180102

   What|Old Value   |New Value

 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE
 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED



--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 13:51 EST ---
Built on FC5 and 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 180149] Review Request: edje: A complex graphical design and layout library

[bugzilla]

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: edje: A complex graphical design and layout library


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180149


Bug 180149 depends on bug 180102, which changed state.

Bug 180102 Summary: Review Request: embryo: A C like scripting language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180102

   What|Old Value   |New Value

 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 180102] Review Request: embryo: A C like scripting language

[bugzilla]

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: embryo: A C like scripting language


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180102


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 13:51 EST ---
Built on FC4, FC5, and 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 189416] Review Request: python-nose: A discovery-based unittest extension for Python

[bugzilla]

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: python-nose: A discovery-based unittest extension for 
Python


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189416


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 13:41 EST ---
It has, I've just been swamped. Build on 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 190108] New: Review Request: perl-XML-SAX-Expat - SAX2 Driver for Expat (XML::Parser)

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.




https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190108

   Summary: Review Request: perl-XML-SAX-Expat - SAX2 Driver for
Expat (XML::Parser)
   Product: Fedora Extras
   Version: devel
  Platform: All
   URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: normal
  Priority: normal
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com


Spec Name or Url: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/perl-XML-SAX-Expat.spec
SRPM Name or Url:
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/perl-XML-SAX-Expat-0.37-1.src.rpm
Description: 

This is an implementation of a SAX2 driver sitting on top of Expat
(XML::Parser) which Ken MacLeod posted to perl-xml and which has been
updated.

-- 
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 189699] Review Request: gnucap - The Gnu Circuit Analysis Package

[bugzilla]

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: gnucap - The Gnu Circuit Analysis Package


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189699


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Attachment #128286|0   |1
is obsolete||




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 13:14 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=128312)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128312&action=view)
improved specfile

(In reply to comment #5)

> I agree that it's a bug in rpmbuild, but you still end up producing an almost

> useless debuginfo package.  I found a simple workaround.  Add the following
two
> lines to %prep to use hardlinks instead of softlinks:
> 
> %{__sed} -i 's!ln -s!ln!g' src/Make1
> %{__sed} -i 's!ln -s!ln!g' src/Make.aux
> 

Ok, I agree that this is a good workaround for now, added.

> In that case the URL tag should point to the Geda project page, since the gnu

> project page hasn't been updated since version 0.31, almost 4 years ago.

My bad, I though the gnu page went all the way to 0.34 and the only thing the
geda page had extra were the unstable snapshots, fixed.


-- 
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 165314] Review Request: kismet -- A WLAN detector, sniffer and IDS

[bugzilla]

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: kismet -- A WLAN detector, sniffer and IDS


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165314





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 13:12 EST ---
One last note, the debuginfo rpmlint warning can be fixed by replacing the
symlink with a hardlink in %prep. I filed a bug against rpm about this, see bug
189928.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 177583] Review Request: zaptel-kmod

[bugzilla]

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: zaptel-kmod


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177583





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 13:09 EST ---
Updated Spec/SRPM:

Spec Name or Url: 
http://www.ocjtech.us/zaptel-kmod-1.2.5-4.2.6.16_1.2157_FC6.spec
SRPM Name or Url:
http://www.ocjtech.us/zaptel-kmod-1.2.5-4.2.6.16_1.2157_FC6.src.rpm

%changelog
* Thu Apr 27 2006 Jeffrey C. Ollie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 1.2.5-4
- Updated kmodtool to 0.10.7.


-- 
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 185535] Review Request: lurker

[bugzilla]

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: lurker


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185535





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 13:07 EST ---
Thank you for your careful review Jason and your thoughtful comments. I'm sorry
I haven't responded sooner but I've got higher priority tasks than lurker
packaging which have captured my attention.

FYI, it was my plan to address the issue of a world writable database files by
adding the owner and group to the configure script and passing it configure via
%{mta_owner} and %{mta_group}. I do realized it is not strictly required to have
this be available to configure because the RPM %files section can enforce the
permissions but it is my belief that making this explicit is a win in terms of
readability, upstream use, and those who may use configure outside the context
of rpm. This is why these two variables appeared in the spec file, once
configure could accept them they would be passed and set in the %files section.

As for modern MTA configuration with respect to mail delivery I can attest as
the previous maintainer for postfix, dovecot and mailman this is an area of
endless user confusion :-( (Did you know postfix will deliver under the user id
associated with the alias file the alias was found in?) Now throw into the mix
per user procmail :-( It can be a mess and the source of lots of bug reports and
list questions. I believe the best solution is to be absolutely explicit over
the expected owner and group and thus will allevate 1 axis of confusion. As
indicated above I will modify the spec file to make this absolutely explicit and
locked down.

With respect to requiring a C++ compiler, the code is C++ so that seemed
necessary. It sounds like you may be more familar with this particular issue
than I am so I will defer to you on this topic.

You are correct, %{buildsubdir} is not guarenteed to exist, I'll fix that.

I'm not sure I share your opinion that RPM_SOURCE_DIR should never be used. I
appreciate that SOURCEn will always properly refer to it but I find use of
SOURCEn to reduce readability and comprehenion of spec files. Whenever I
encouter this use when reading a spec file I have to mentally expand the macro
to understand what the spec file is doing, I find it much more comprensible if
the operation is explicit. Hmm... I suppose the same argument could be used
against %{httpdconffile} :-)

At the time I packaged up lurker only the 1.3 version was available. Looks like
the 2.0 release occurred shortly after I completed my work but before I got my
review request in. I agree, 2.1 should be version in extras. I'll go back and do
that, but it won't be immediate, I've got other tasks on my plate. I'm also
going to have to figure out the differences between 1.3 and 2.x.



-- 
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 190070] Review Request: par2cmdline

[bugzilla]

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: par2cmdline


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190070





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 12:58 EST ---
Updated:
  Spec URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/par2cmdline.spec
  SRPM URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/par2cmdline-0.4-6.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #1)
> Issues:
> spectool cannot fetch the upstream source; your Source: URL is wrong.

Fixed, I think. I cannot reach dl.sourceforge.net at the present time. :-(

> you perhaps include a quick description of a PAR2 file in %description?

I modified it:
"par2cmdline is a program for creating and using PAR2 files. PAR2 files are
usually published in binary newsgroups, on Usenet. They apply the
data-recovery capability concepts of RAID-like systems to the posting and
recovery of multi-part archives. On Usenet, PAR2 files are posted together
with multi-part archives. par2cmdline can detect and repair dammaged files
using the corresponding PAR2 files."

Perhaps somebody can help me to correct my english. I declare the hunt of 
frenchisms opened! ;)

(I personnaly use it to repair files from binaries of Lost, season 2, which 
will not be on french TV until next year. But do not tell to anybody!)


> Please use the recommended BuildRoot:
> %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

Done.

> Please remove Distribution: SuSE 9.1.

Sorry! Done. As you can see, I have adapted an existing (and trivial) spec 
file.

> I'm not sure about your Obsoletes: and Provides:, but I'll assume you 
> have some previous package history that requires this.  I'll ask the list
> for a bit of guidance.

I do not understand. parchive-1.1.4 exists in Fedora Extras 4. See
ftp://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/4/SRPMS/parchive-1.1-4.src.rpm

par2cmdline provides the same functionalities as parchive, and has a 
symlink /usr/bin/par->par2. That's why I made this couple of 
Obsoletes:/Provides: Perhaps I am wrong. I must admit that I am not totally 
used with such a trick.

> rpmlint complains:
> You should remove the executable bits from these files in %build;

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 189416] Review Request: python-nose: A discovery-based unittest extension for Python

[bugzilla]

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: python-nose: A discovery-based unittest extension for 
Python


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189416





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 12:54 EST ---
Ignacio, has this been imported into FE CVS yet?

-- 
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 173459] Review Request: initng

[bugzilla]

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: initng


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173459





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 12:53 EST ---
(In reply to comment #261)
> Created an attachment (id=128285)
 --> 
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128285&action=view) 
[edit]
> initng-ifiles 0.0.3.1-3 spec file
> 
> (In reply to comment #250)
> > 1. initng-ifiles %post doesent generate the required files... 
> > the generate script actually only does something if the -all switch is used.
> 
> I really wonder why that was changed. Well, I'll add -all to it then...
> 
for me -all creates some files but it does not even add gdm and some services
that are started in sysvinit
> > 3. and initng %post requires grubby to be installed. (post requires)
> 
> Check again. Grubby is run from %triggerin -- mkinitrd now.
> 
> 
> (In reply to comment #251)
> > #250: 2. audit wasnt installed on my fc5 test system (fresh install with 
> > updates) i have to look into that. not an initng problem really unless maybe
> of 
> > the runlevel gen... why did it add it when its not present.
> 
> Hmmm... I thought audit was one of those fundamental things that was installed
> on all recent fedora systems?
> 
no audit is only for debugging.
> 
> (In reply to comment #252)
> > at some point of booting up initng output becomes russian for me. someone 
> > has
> 
> > to figure out what script triggers that. (probably wrong encoding?) it
> switches 
> > back at the end of the booting process. 
> 
> This one is really a pain in the ass. I tried hard to fix it a while back
> (check #84 above) without any success. You could try running with 
> "interactive"
> on the grub prompt, I guess it would make it easier to determine where the
> problem is.
> 
> 
> (In reply to comment #259)
> > This spec file fixes the x86_64 build issues and the rpath issues.
> 
> Is this really a good idea? Hardcoding stuff in our spec file because they're
> hardcoded upstreams?

ok fixed it upstream (commit 3961) add -DLIB_INSTALL_DIR:STRING=/%{_lib} to the
cmake line in the spec file.
other issue:
the deps have a chicken egg problem :
initng-ifiles requires initng-devel to build; initng-devel depends on initng;
initng depends on initng-ifiles 
so I am forced to use --nodeps onm initng-devel
does it really require initng?

-- 
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 189699] Review Request: gnucap - The Gnu Circuit Analysis Package

[bugzilla]

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: gnucap - The Gnu Circuit Analysis Package


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189699





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 12:53 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)

> > W: gnucap-debuginfo dangling-relative-symlink
> > /usr/src/debug/gnucap-0.34/src/O/d_mos123.cc ../d_mos123.cc
> > 
> > - The build system compiles against symlinks to the actual source files,
> which
> >   seems to confuse rpmbuild when it creates the debuginfo package.  You 
> > might
> 
> >   try using hardlinks instead of softlinks to work around this.
> > 
> 
> I noticed this too, this also came up during a review  by me of kismet which
> generates the same warnings. We (I and the kismet packager) concider this an
> rpmbuild bug and have bugzilla'd it, see:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189928

I agree that it's a bug in rpmbuild, but you still end up producing an almost
uselss debuginfo package.  I found a simple workaround.  Add the following two
lines to %prep to use hardlinks instead of softlinks:

%{__sed} -i 's!ln -s!ln!g' src/Make1
%{__sed} -i 's!ln -s!ln!g' src/Make.aux

> > QUESTIONS
> > =
> >  * There seems to be two home pages for gnucap.  The one listed in the
> >spec file at www.gnu.org lists 0.31 as the most recent version.  But
> >a similarly looking page at http://www.geda.seul.org/tools/gnucap
> >shows 0.34.  Why the two home pages?
> > 
> 
> I noticed this too, it seems that gnucap @ gnu is dead, and that the geda
> project has taken it over.

In that case the URL tag should point to the Geda project page, since the gnu
project page hasn't been updated since version 0.31, almost 4 years ago.  Add a
 comment with a pointer to the gnu.org page if you feel it's necessary.



-- 
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 177583] Review Request: zaptel-kmod

[bugzilla]

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: zaptel-kmod


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177583





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 12:45 EST ---
FYI, there's a new kmodtool (0.10.7) available in CVS, for example in lirc-kmod
devel, which should make yum behave better with the resulting packages.
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/lirc-kmod/?root=extras

By the way, the SRPM url in comment 27 has noe "-1.2.5" too many.

-- 
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 189830] Review Request: xmms-scrobber - Audioscrobbler plugin for XMMS

[bugzilla]

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: xmms-scrobber - Audioscrobbler plugin for XMMS


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189830


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 12:34 EST ---
Thx for the review.

Package has been updated to current 0.3.8 (upstream changed urls. gnarghl.) and
build. closing as nextrelease.

-- 
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 177584] Review Request: zaptel

[bugzilla]

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: zaptel


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177584





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 12:29 EST ---
Updated Spec/SRPM:

Spec Name or Url: http://www.ocjtech.us/zaptel-1.2.5-2.spec
SRPM Name or Url: http://www.ocjtech.us/zaptel-1.2.5-2.src.rpm

%changelog
* Thu Apr 27 2006 Jeffrey C. Ollie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 1.2.5-2
- Changed ownership of device nodes to "root" in udev rules file.
- Don't build sethdlc.


-- 
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 177827] Review Request: python-ctypes - Advanced Foreign Function Interface for Python

[bugzilla]

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: python-ctypes - Advanced Foreign Function Interface 
for Python


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177827





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 12:11 EST ---
Hmmm Paul - do you want to take over packaging and I'll review?  I'm only
swamped with work, not seriously swamped :-)

-- 
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 190101] New: Review Request: php-pear-Log

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.




https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190101

   Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Log
   Product: Fedora Extras
   Version: devel
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: normal
  Priority: normal
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com


Spec URL: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pear-Log.spec
SRPM URL: 
http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pear-Log-1.9.4-1.fc5.src.rpm
Description: 
The Log framework provides an abstracted logging system.
It supports logging to console, file, syslog, SQL, Sqlite, mail, and mcal 
targets.
It also provides a subject - observer mechanism.

-- 
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 190071] Review Request: dvipost - latex post filter command

[bugzilla]

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: dvipost - latex post filter command


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190071


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

OtherBugsDependingO|163778  |163779
  nThis||




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 12:05 EST ---
Approved

-- 
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 189830] Review Request: xmms-scrobber - Audioscrobbler plugin for XMMS

[bugzilla]

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: xmms-scrobber - Audioscrobbler plugin for XMMS


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189830


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

OtherBugsDependingO|163778  |163779
  nThis||




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 11:55 EST ---
Changes look good, rpmlint is silent, builds on i386/x86_64, I think we're good
to go.

ACCEPT.

-- 
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 190071] Review Request: dvipost - latex post filter command

[bugzilla]

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: dvipost - latex post filter command


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190071





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 11:41 EST ---
What about:

%changelog
* Thu Apr 27 2006 José Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 1.1-4
- Rename package to tetex-dvipost

Spec URL: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/tetex-dvipost.spec
SRPM URL: 
http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/tetex-dvipost-1.1-4.src.rpm

-- 
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 186811] Review Request: libnfnetlink - Netfilter netlink userspace library

[bugzilla]

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: libnfnetlink - Netfilter netlink userspace library


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186811





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 11:38 EST ---
You may be able to download the current CPL text from 
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt and add is to your package.

Then you may poke the upstream to include a verbatin copy of the license in 
the upstream package.

When this may be happen, you can create an updated version of your package, 
which use the text from the upstream package instead of the text from 
www.gnu.org

-- 
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 180300] Review Request: ccrtp

[bugzilla]

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: ccrtp


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180300


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Component|openvpn |Package Review




-- 
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 185535] Review Request: lurker

[bugzilla]

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: lurker


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185535





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 11:31 EST ---
Also, the current version seems to be 2.1; there are what look to be serious
security implications for any version older than 2.1.  (Sorry for spamming, but
I was starting on a review when I noticed.)

-- 
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 190071] Review Request: dvipost - latex post filter command

[bugzilla]

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: dvipost - latex post filter command


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190071





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 11:06 EST ---
(In reply to comment #11)

>   Something like:
> 
>  %{!?_texmf: %define _texmf %(eval "echo 
> `kpsewhich -expand-var '$TEXMFMAIN'`")}

Well, except that defining _texmf would in this case cause an error as well
unless configure was patched to take it as an arguement (which I don't think is
necessary) - I guess in this case expecting to support building against modified
tetex environments might be a bit much because of the upstream configure script
which looks for a specific file and doesn't take a texmf as a switch.

> 
>   That makes sense but then it would imply to Require: tetex-doc. That would 
> mean that a 40 KB package could potencially require an 100 MB package. I 
> don't 
> think this is worth it. :-)

/usr/bin/texdoc is owned by tetex.
The potential problem is who owns the directories within the tex documentation
tree if tetex-doc isn't installed - but other packages just own it themselves.

Since it is just the man page, and available as a man page, it isn't that big of
a deal.


> 
>   Actually I think that dvipost requires a tex installation, there is nothing 
> exclusive from tetex. That was the reason why I have proposed dvipost and not 
> tetex-dvipost.
> 
>   If you feel strongly about this I will rename it.

On fedora - tetex is what provides tex.
There are other examples of this (in core)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] Desktop]$ rpm -qf /usr/bin/dvips
tetex-dvips-3.0-17
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Desktop]$ rpm -qf /usr/bin/xdvi
tetex-xdvi-3.0-17

It also makes it a little easier to find when browsing repoview for tetex 
boltons.

-- 
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 189313] Review Request: liblrdf

[bugzilla]

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: liblrdf


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189313


Bug 189313 depends on bug 189309, which changed state.

Bug 189309 Summary: Review Request: raptor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189309

   What|Old Value   |New Value

 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 189315] Review Request: ardour

[bugzilla]

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: ardour


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189315


Bug 189315 depends on bug 189309, which changed state.

Bug 189309 Summary: Review Request: raptor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189309

   What|Old Value   |New Value

 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 190070] Review Request: par2cmdline

[bugzilla]

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: par2cmdline


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190070


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776  |163778
  nThis||




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 10:44 EST ---
Issues:
spectool cannot fetch the upstream source; your Source: URL is wrong.  I think
it should be http://dl.sourceforge.net/parchive/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz, which
I'll assume is the proper upstream.

To help those of us who won't understand why we would need this software, could
you perhaps include a quick description of a PAR2 file in %description?

Please use the recommended BuildRoot:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

Please remove Distribution: SuSE 9.1.

I'm not sure about your Obsoletes: and Provides:, but I'll assume you have some
previous package history that requires this.  I'll ask the list for a bit of
guidance.

rpmlint complains:

E: par2cmdline-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/par2cmdline-0.4/par2repairersourcefile.h
E: par2cmdline-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/par2cmdline-0.4/par2repairer.cpp
E: par2cmdline-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/par2cmdline-0.4/galois.h
E: par2cmdline-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/par2cmdline-0.4/par2repairersourcefile.cpp
E: par2cmdline-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/par2cmdline-0.4/par1repairer.cpp

You should remove the executable bits from these files in %build; otherwise RPM
thinks they're executables and sticks them in the debuginfo package.

Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
X specfile is properly named but the preamble needs minor cleanup.  %prep and
below look good.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible and is included in the package as %doc.
* source files match upstream:
   1551b63e57e3c232254dc62073b723a9  par2cmdline-0.4.tar.gz
   1551b63e57e3c232254dc62073b723a9  par2cmdline-0.4.tar.gz-srpm
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
X rpmlint has a few complaints
X final requires are sane; final provides 
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* creates no non-%doc directories.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
O %check not present; no test suite upstream.
* 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 GUI app.

-- 
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 189309] Review Request: raptor

[bugzilla]

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: raptor


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189309


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 10:44 EST ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> APPROVED

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 190071] Review Request: dvipost - latex post filter command

[bugzilla]

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: dvipost - latex post filter command


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190071





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 10:37 EST ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Good:
> 
> md5sum matches upstream : 2ec79283a8348312bc72831ca80ae3a2  dvipost.tar.gz
> Builds in mock (fc5 x86)
> rpmlint clean on all packages
> spec file written in proper English
> spec file easy to read and understand
> cleanly installs and removes w/ no unowned directories
> spec file name matches package name
> consistent use of macros
> Appropriate license (GPL), matches package COPYING file.
> Package works.
> 
> Suggestions (non blocking):
> 1) The spec file explicitly specifies /usr/share/texmf in the %files.
> That is the location in every fedora install - but some other spec files 
detect
> the texmfmain directory in a macro and use that instead.
> 
> If a user has for whatever reason changed their texmfmain - the src.rpm 
would
> have a build error when rebuilt.

  Something like:

 %{!?_texmf: %define _texmf %(eval "echo 
`kpsewhich -expand-var '$TEXMFMAIN'`")}

> 2) The html documentation might want to placed into texmf/doc somewhere so 
that
> texdoc dvipost will launch a browser window to the documentation.

  That makes sense but then it would imply to Require: tetex-doc. That would 
mean that a 40 KB package could potencially require an 100 MB package. I don't 
think this is worth it. :-)

> Question:
> 
> From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines
> 
> If a new package is considered an "addon" package that enhances or adds a 
new
> functionality to an existing Fedora Core or Fedora Extras package without 
being
> useful on its own, its name should reflect this fact.
> 
> The new package ("child") should prepend the "parent" package in its name, 
in
> the format: %{parent}-%{child}.
> 
> 
> Since this package isn't useful without tetex, and is used in conjunction 
with
> tetex, should it be called tetex-dvipost ?

  Actually I think that dvipost requires a tex installation, there is nothing 
exclusive from tetex. That was the reason why I have proposed dvipost and not 
tetex-dvipost.

  If you feel strongly about this I will rename it.

> -=-
> Misc suggestion for upstream - filter out the cgi-bin references in the 
man2html
> conversion of the man page.

  I agree.

-- 
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 177583] Review Request: zaptel-kmod

[bugzilla]

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: zaptel-kmod


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177583





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 10:23 EST ---
Updated Spec/SRPM:

Spec Name or Url: 
http://www.ocjtech.us/zaptel-kmod-1.2.5-3.2.6.16_1.2157_FC6.spec
SRPM Name or Url:
http://www.ocjtech.us/zaptel-kmod-1.2.5-1.2.5-3.2.6.16_1.2157_FC6.src.rpm

%changelog
* Thu Apr 27 2006 Jeffrey C. Ollie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 1.2.5-3
- Update zaptel-ztdummy-250hz.diff.txt with fixes from Andy Kwong


-- 
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 190000] Review Request: partimage

[bugzilla]

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: partimage


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 10:19 EST ---
Bad:
- Buildroot should be 
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
- Server requires should probably be %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- Doesn't build on x86_64:

fs_xfs.h:115: error: conflicting declaration 'typedef long long int __int64_t'
/usr/include/bits/types.h:47: error: '__int64_t' has a previous declaration as
'typedef long int __int64_t'
fs_xfs.h:116: error: conflicting declaration 'typedef long long unsigned int
__uint64_t'
/usr/include/bits/types.h:48: error: '__uint64_t' has a previous declaration as
'typedef long unsigned int __uint64_t'
make[4]: *** [fs_xfs.o] Error 1

rpmlint isn't very happy w/ the 32bit package either.

W: partimage conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/pam.d/partimage
W: partimage conffile-without-noreplace-flag 
/etc/security/console.apps/partimage
E: partimage use-old-pam-stack /etc/pam.d/partimage
E: partimage use-old-pam-stack /etc/pam.d/partimage
W: partimage-server conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/logrotate.d/partimaged
W: partimage-server conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/pam.d/partimaged
W: partimage-server conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/partimaged
E: partimage-server non-readable /etc/partimaged/partimagedusers 0600
E: partimage-server executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/partimaged
E: partimage-server incoherent-logrotate-file /etc/logrotate.d/partimaged
W: partimage-server file-not-in-%lang 
/usr/share/man/en/man5/partimagedusers.5.gz
W: partimage-server file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man8/partimaged.8.gz
W: partimage-server incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/partimaged $prog
W: partimage-server incoherent-init-script-name partimaged
E: partimage-server use-old-pam-stack /etc/pam.d/partimaged
E: partimage-server use-old-pam-stack /etc/pam.d/partimaged
E: partimage-server use-old-pam-stack /etc/pam.d/partimaged



Indifferent: 
- %description is a bit long winded...
- chmod of pam.d/partimaged followed by install -m seems redundant.


NEEDSWORK

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 187186] Review Request: up-imapproxy

[bugzilla]

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: up-imapproxy


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187186





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 10:13 EST ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Up to you. I'd push upstream to look at this sooner rather than later though.

Ok, I'm gonna get the build out there as soon as I can, and I'll notify the
developer list.


-- 
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 190090] New: Review Request:

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.




https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190090

   Summary: Review Request: 
   Product: Fedora Extras
   Version: devel
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: normal
  Priority: normal
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com


Spec URL: 
SRPM URL: 
Description: http://www.clu.cl.opoka.org.pl/test/kooka-ocrad.png>

-- 
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 190086] New: Review Request: rman

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.




https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190086

   Summary: Review Request: rman
   Product: Fedora Extras
   Version: devel
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: normal
  Priority: normal
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com


Spec URL: http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/rman.spec
SRPM URL: http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/rman-3.2-1.fc5.src.rpm
Description:
Parse formatted man pages and man page source from most flavors of UNIX.
Convert to HTML, ASCII, TkMan, DocBook, and other formats.

-=-
This is hands down the best man to html converter I personally have ever used.

-- 
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 187292] Review Request: gecko-sharp

[bugzilla]

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: gecko-sharp


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187292





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 09:37 EST ---
> I'm sure blam can be patched to use gecko-sharp2, but that's work that
> should happen upstream. 

Well, it's work that should coordinate with upstream.  If it's a simple fix,
there's no reason not to make it and carry the patch until upstream incorporates
it if it lets us avoid adding what is essentially a dead package into extras.

That said, there's certainly precedent for keeping in extras old packages that
have been superceded by incompatible versions in core.  (See gtk+.)  But it's
worth at least asking upstream to see what their plans are and what they 
recommend.


-- 
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 190071] Review Request: dvipost - latex post filter command

[bugzilla]

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: dvipost - latex post filter command


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190071





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 09:16 EST ---
Good:

md5sum matches upstream : 2ec79283a8348312bc72831ca80ae3a2  dvipost.tar.gz
Builds in mock (fc5 x86)
rpmlint clean on all packages
spec file written in proper English
spec file easy to read and understand
cleanly installs and removes w/ no unowned directories
spec file name matches package name
consistent use of macros
Appropriate license (GPL), matches package COPYING file.
Package works.

Suggestions (non blocking):
1) The spec file explicitly specifies /usr/share/texmf in the %files.
That is the location in every fedora install - but some other spec files detect
the texmfmain directory in a macro and use that instead.

If a user has for whatever reason changed their texmfmain - the src.rpm would
have a build error when rebuilt.

2) The html documentation might want to placed into texmf/doc somewhere so that
texdoc dvipost will launch a browser window to the documentation.

Question:

>From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines

If a new package is considered an "addon" package that enhances or adds a new
functionality to an existing Fedora Core or Fedora Extras package without being
useful on its own, its name should reflect this fact.

The new package ("child") should prepend the "parent" package in its name, in
the format: %{parent}-%{child}.


Since this package isn't useful without tetex, and is used in conjunction with
tetex, should it be called tetex-dvipost ?

-=-
Misc suggestion for upstream - filter out the cgi-bin references in the man2html
conversion of the man page.

-- 
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 190071] Review Request: dvipost - latex post filter command

[bugzilla]

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: dvipost - latex post filter command


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190071





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 08:36 EST ---
* Thu Apr 27 2006 José Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 1.1-3
- Capitalize Summary, fix spell error in description, rework
  invocation of post and postun calls (thanks to Patrice Dumas)
- Add tetex-latex to Requires and BuildRequires.
- Add tetex-fonts to Requires to satisfy direct dependency on texhash

Spec URL: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/dvipost.spec
SRPM URL: 
http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/dvipost-1.1-3.src.rpm

-- 
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 190071] Review Request: dvipost - latex post filter command

[bugzilla]

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: dvipost - latex post filter command


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190071





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 08:27 EST ---
>From the makefile inside the mock build -

# Directory to install LaTeX styles

LATEX=  $(DESTDIR).

which is incorrect.

-=-

This is how configure does it:

if  texpath=`kpsewhich latex.ltx 2>/dev/null`
thenkpseflag=""
eliftexpath=`kpsewhich tex latex.ltx 2>/dev/null`
thenkpseflag="-DKPSEWHICH_NEED_TYPE"
elsetexpath="."; kpseflag=""
fi


texpath=`echo $texpath | sed -e 's%/[^/][^/]*/[^/]*$%/misc%'`


if  test "$texpath" = "."
thenecho "$ac_t"""broken"" 1>&6
eliftest "$kpseflag" != ""
thenecho "$ac_t""kpsewhich needs type" 1>&6
elseecho "$ac_t""ok" 1>&6
fi

latex.ltx is tetex-latex - which is probably why the mock build failed.

-- 
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 187186] Review Request: up-imapproxy

[bugzilla]

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: up-imapproxy


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187186





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 08:22 EST ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Ok, removed from OrphanedPackages.
> 
> I do see this error when building on FC5.  I know upstream is preparing a new
> release, hopefully this will be corrected.  I don't know how to fix this error
> myself.  Is it still ok to schedule a build?

Up to you. I'd push upstream to look at this sooner rather than later 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 190071] Review Request: dvipost - latex post filter command

[bugzilla]

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: dvipost - latex post filter command


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190071





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 08:21 EST ---
The purpose of texhash is to create an hash with .sty files paths archived.

That is why we need to run it after installing and after removing it.

In general I agree with you, but in this case the relation between tetex and 
tetex-fonts is such that I don't expect ever to able to run tetex without 
tetex-fonts (famous last words ;-).

In reply to #4, Patrice I have incorporated your patch in release 3.

In reply to #6 /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/misc/ belongs to tetex-latex, so 
better requiring it for building and install.


-- 
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 189830] Review Request: xmms-scrobber - Audioscrobbler plugin for XMMS

[bugzilla]

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: xmms-scrobber - Audioscrobbler plugin for XMMS


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189830





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 08:18 EST ---
Updated files at http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/xmms-scrobbler/
The permission issue is fixed as well as it came from the template-spec I 
copied.

-- 
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 190071] Review Request: dvipost - latex post filter command

[bugzilla]

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: dvipost - latex post filter command


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190071





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 08:14 EST ---
mock build error:

RPM build errors:
File not found by glob: /var/tmp/dvipost-1.1-2.fc5-root-mockbuild/usr/share/
texmf/tex/latex/misc/*

It seems that in mock, it can't identify the TEXMF and installs it into
dvipost-1.1-2.fc5-root-mockbuild./




-- 
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 190071] Review Request: dvipost - latex post filter command

[bugzilla]

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: dvipost - latex post filter command


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190071





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 08:05 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Created an attachment (id=128299)
 --> 
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128299&action=view) 
[edit]
> cleanings for rpmlint
> 

-Requires(post): /usr/bin/texhash
-Requires(pre):  /usr/bin/texhash

What is the purpose of that?
I know texhash is supplied by tetex-fonts which is required by tetex, and that
any tetex install is going to have to have texhash, but I personally think it is
a good idea to explicitly require what is run the post/postun scripts.

Other changes in the patch are good.

-- 
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 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack

[bugzilla]

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: ctapi-cyberjack


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188369





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 07:57 EST ---
So I have build an new spec file.
I think I have do all needed changes.
I have alos fix the readers config file.
And the spec file can now be used for FC4 and FC5.
here the URL:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/qsmartcard/ctapi-cyberjack.spec?download

-- 
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 171314] Review Request: gtkhtml36

[bugzilla]

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: gtkhtml36


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171314


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

OtherBugsDependingO|163778  |163779
  nThis||




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 07:56 EST ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Thanks for the excellent review.
> I made all of the suggested and mandatory changes:
> 
> http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/gtkhtml36-3.6.2-3.fc5.src.rpm
> http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/gtkhtml36.spec

Approved.

-- 
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 190071] Review Request: dvipost - latex post filter command

[bugzilla]

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: dvipost - latex post filter command


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190071





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 07:56 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=128299)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128299&action=view)
cleanings for rpmlint


-- 
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 190071] Review Request: dvipost - latex post filter command

[bugzilla]

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: dvipost - latex post filter command


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190071


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 07:55 EST ---
Here is a patch to make rpmlint happy.

-- 
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 190071] Review Request: dvipost - latex post filter command

[bugzilla]

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: dvipost - latex post filter command


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190071


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776  |163778
  nThis||




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 07:52 EST ---
I'll review 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 187186] Review Request: up-imapproxy

[bugzilla]

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: up-imapproxy


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187186





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 07:44 EST ---
Ok, removed from OrphanedPackages.

I do see this error when building on FC5.  I know upstream is preparing a new
release, hopefully this will be corrected.  I don't know how to fix this error
myself.  Is it still ok to schedule a build?


-- 
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 188946] Review Request: contacts

[bugzilla]

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: contacts


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188946





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 07:42 EST ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> David isn't as interested in maintaining this anymore, so I've gone ahead and
> pushed it through.  It should wind up in extras-development soon.

I see from owners.list that you've taken over ownership of this package yourself
(which is good). Reading the above, it could be interpreted as pushing through
an already-orphaned package (which wouldn't have been good).

-- 
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 189197] Review Request: ghc-gtk2hs

[bugzilla]

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: ghc-gtk2hs


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189197





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 07:29 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> * Could you update the package to ghc-6.4.2?

Yep, I updated the package with some changes:

  http://people.redhat.com/petersen/extras/ghc-gtk2hs.spec
  http://people.redhat.com/petersen/extras/ghc-gtk2hs-0.9.10-2.src.rpm

> * BuildRoot must be:
>   %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

Fixed.

> * Is the epoch necessary for mozilla version?

Yes.

> * I think PreReq should simply be Requires

I prefer PreReq for post/preun requirements: it is equivalent to Requires
actually, but if you object I can change it.

> * ghclibdir should probably %{_libdir}/ghc-%{ghc_version}

Well ghc upstream has said that %{_libdir}/ghc-%{ghc_version}
should be reserved for ghc itself.  For cabalised packages
I'm using %{_libdir}/ghc as the library prefix: it would be good
if gtk2hs followed this scheme too IMHO.  I hear upstream is planning
to make the install configuration more flexible, but for now maybe
the current location is good enough.

> * Can you explain your system of versioning?

You mean the package naming scheme?  That is a bit of a long story. :)
This is the naming scheme I have been using for a while for libraries
and ghc in Fedora Haskell .  Let me try to
summarize here.

The starting point is the fact that ghc changes ABI with every minor
version update (this is the main reason for the ghcXYZ subpackaging of
ghc: ie currently there is ghc, ghc642, ghc642-prof); so since ghc is
rather a large package to rebuild as a compat- package say it
seemed to make more sense to me to allow parallel installs of ghcXYZ's (so
you can install ghc641 with ghc642, etc and still be able to compile with your
old libraries built for ghc641 say) until you can update them to ghc642.
While gtk2hs builds quicker than ghc it is still pretty
time-consuming to build, so following the ghc scheme it is subpackaged
for ghcXYZ.  I decided to make subpackages for each ghc package (gtk, glib,
sourceview, etc) since they depend on the corresponding 
{gtk2,glib2,sourceview}-devel packages and so people can just install what they
need: probably ghcXYZ-gtk would be most common.  Again this allows parallel
installs of libraries (gtk2hs) for parallel installs of ghc.
Does that make some sense?  I can go into more details if you wish.
In the latest naming scheme now I'm just using the
ghc-package name to name the subpackages (ghcXYZ-glib rather than
ghc642-gtk2hs-glib etc)  since that is what the ghc package is actually called
so it seems more natural.  The ghcXYZ scheme also means that if you have say
ghc641-gtk installed with ghc-6.4.1, you can upgrade to ghc-6.4.2 without
breaking the deps for ghc641 libs like gtk2hs, and then later update to
ghc642-gtk when it is 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 190071] Review Request: dvipost - latex post filter command

[bugzilla]

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: dvipost - latex post filter command


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190071





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 07:15 EST ---
I was not completly satisfied with the resulting package so I have a new 
versio available:

* Thu Apr 27 2006 José Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 1.1-2
- Add new entries to %%doc and expand description

Spec URL: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/dvipost.spec
SRPM URL: 
http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/dvipost-1.1-2.src.rpm

-- 
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 190071] New: Review Request: dvipost - latex post filter command

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.




https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190071

   Summary: Review Request: dvipost - latex post filter command
   Product: Fedora Extras
   Version: devel
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: normal
  Priority: normal
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com


Spec URL: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/dvipost.spec
SRPM URL: 
http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/dvipost-1.1-1.src.rpm

Description:
dvipost - a latex post filter command to support change bars
and overstrike mode.

-- 
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 189717] Review Request: gcompris - Educational suite for kids 2-10 years old

[bugzilla]

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: gcompris - Educational suite for kids 2-10 years old


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189717





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 06:37 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=128297)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128297&action=view)
improved specfile

Here is an improved specfile, this fixes the changelog <-> version warning.
I've dropped the desktop.in patch as that breaks .desktop file translations and
replaced this with 2 sed commands, which are run at the end of %build, thus
after the translations have been merged into the desktop files. It turns out
that the upstream .desktop files do have .png at the end for the icons, and I
no longer remove this :)


-- 
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 190070] New: Review Request: par2cmdline

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.




https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190070

   Summary: Review Request: par2cmdline
   Product: Fedora Extras
   Version: devel
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: normal
  Priority: normal
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com


Spec URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/par2cmdline.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/par2cmdline-0.4-5.src.rpm
Description: par2cmdline is a program for creating and using PAR2 files to
detect damage in data files and repair them if necessary. It can be used with
any kind of 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 187292] Review Request: gecko-sharp

[bugzilla]

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: gecko-sharp


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187292





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-27 05:44 EST ---
The reason I'm doing this package in the first place was to fill a dependency
for the blam news reader (#187621) which doesn't build with the gecko-sharp2
package. I'm sure blam can be patched to use gecko-sharp2, but that's work that
should happen upstream. 

-- 
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