[Bug 173459] Review Request: initng
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] 2006-04-29 02:03 EST --- x86_64 bug is fixed for upstream initng-ifiles too. -- 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 190243] Review Request: scim-bridge (gtkimm module in C)
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: scim-bridge (gtkimm module in C) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||i18n CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO||167798 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 190243] New: Review Request: scim-bridge (gtkimm module in C)
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=190243 Summary: Review Request: scim-bridge (gtkimm module in C) 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/petersen/extras/scim-bridge.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/petersen/extras/scim-bridge-0.1.6-15.src.rpm Description: SCIM Bridge is an alternative Gtk Input Method module for SCIM implemented in C (ie it does not depend on libscim and libstdc++) to avoid libstdc++ symbol ABI conflicts. -- 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 188496] Review Request: PyQt-qscintilla
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: PyQt-qscintilla https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188496 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-29 00:26 EST --- Just took a quick look but I can't fetch the upstream source. It looks like they don't distribute 3.15 any longer. Now, if I understand things, this is just building some extra files that aren't included in the Core PyQt package. (They couldn't be; qscintilla is in Extras.) So the version of PyQt used here has to be exactly the same as the version that Core used for their packages. If so then we'll have to make an exception for the need for upstream sources. Just for grins I tried to build in rawhide; the build fails in configure.py. It builds fine on FC5 x86_64 (in mock). -- 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 190237] Review Request: perl-Email-MIME-Encodings - Unified interface to MIME encoding and decoding
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-Email-MIME-Encodings - Unified interface to MIME encoding and decoding https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190237 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 23:08 EST --- * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * 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: adb933af2ff9c3cc8e158bbdcf3d19e5 Email-MIME-Encodings-1.3.tar.gz adb933af2ff9c3cc8e158bbdcf3d19e5 Email-MIME-Encodings-1.3.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane. * 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: 1..12 ok 1 - use Email::MIME::Encodings; ok 2 - enc binary ok 3 - dec binary ok 4 - enc 7bit ok 5 - dec 7bit ok 6 - enc 8bit ok 7 - dec 8bit ok 8 - enc qp ok 9 - dec qp ok 10 - enc 64 ok 11 - dec 64 ok 12 - Error handling + exit 0 * 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 190236] Review Request: perl-Email-MIME-ContentType - Parse a MIME Content-Type Header
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-Email-MIME-ContentType - Parse a MIME Content-Type Header https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190236 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 23:02 EST --- * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, uses macros consistently and conforms to the Perl specfile template. * 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: 1aa682d2841f5d568416772bbaede1c9 Email-MIME-ContentType-1.01.tar.gz 1aa682d2841f5d568416772bbaede1c9 Email-MIME-ContentType-1.01.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane. * 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=1, Tests=6, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 cusr + 0.00 csys = 0.02 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 177556] Review Request: mod_extract_forwarded
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: mod_extract_forwarded https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177556 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 22:45 EST --- Well, heck, I worked up this review and then I noticed the NEEDSPONSOR blocker. But I looked through owners.list and I see that [EMAIL PROTECTED] already owns three packages, so perhaps that tag is out of date. I'll go ahead and include the review and just leave this as FE-NEW until things are cleared up. * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * 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: d7aeb59fa81cbe74c485c33873ea1c65 extract_forwarded-2.0.2.tar.gz d7aeb59fa81cbe74c485c33873ea1c65 extract_forwarded-2.0.2.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane. * no shared libraries are present, but they're not in the default locations so there's no need to call ldconfig. * package is not relocatable. * creates no directories. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no upstream test suite. * 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, assuming the NEEDSPONSOR blocker is incorrect. -- 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 169345] Review Request: SEC - Simple Event Correlator
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: SEC - Simple Event Correlator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169345
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 22:07 EST ---
rpmlint:
W: sec log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/sec.log
W: sec dangerous-command-in-%post rpm
W: sec dangerous-command-in-%preun rpm
W: sec dangerous-command-in-%postun rpm
E: sec no-chkconfig-line /etc/rc.d/init.d/sec
W: sec incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/sec $prog
The blocker here is the chkconfig line, you should change to something like
"chkconfig: - 26 74" so it by default doesn't start in any runlevel.
Missing dependancy on service for %postun (package initscripts)
Missing dependancy on service for %preun (package initscripts)
Missing dependancy on chkconfig for %post (package chkconfig)
Missing dependancy on chkconfig for %preun (package chkconfig)
You'll need to Require, say, /sin/service and /sbin/chkconfig
Source0 doesn't download automatically,
http://download.sourceforge.net/simple-evcorr/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz 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 190233] Review Request: perl-Email-MessageID - Generate world unique message-ids
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-Email-MessageID - Generate world unique message-ids https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190233 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 20:56 EST --- I added perl-Email-Address to a local repo to build this. * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, uses macros consistently and conforms to the Perl template. * 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: 578b8edbc259566ab61466e780481129 Email-MessageID-1.31.tar.gz 578b8edbc259566ab61466e780481129 Email-MessageID-1.31.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development + dependencies, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane. * no shared libraries are present. * 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. * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=2, Tests=2009, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.21 cusr + 0.03 csys = 0.24 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 190233] Review Request: perl-Email-MessageID - Generate world unique message-ids
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-Email-MessageID - Generate world unique message-ids https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190233 [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 190232] Review Request: perl-Email-Simple - Simple parsing of RFC2822 message format and headers
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-Email-Simple - Simple parsing of RFC2822 message format and headers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190232 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 20:30 EST --- * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, uses macros consistently, and conforms to the Perl template. * 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: e0ac39068afca5fa62f633a31a98f813 Email-Simple-1.92.tar.gz e0ac39068afca5fa62f633a31a98f813 Email-Simple-1.92.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane. * no shared libraries are present. * 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. * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=5, Tests=37, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.10 cusr + 0.04 csys = 0.14 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 190232] Review Request: perl-Email-Simple - Simple parsing of RFC2822 message format and headers
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-Email-Simple - Simple parsing of RFC2822 message format and headers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190232 [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 190231] Review Request: perl-Email-Address - RFC 2822 Address Parsing and Creation
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-Email-Address - RFC 2822 Address Parsing and Creation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190231 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 20:17 EST --- Not much to say... * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, uses macros consistently and follows the Perl template. * 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: b57726d9915a502bc6b52966217a453e Email-Address-1.80.tar.gz b57726d9915a502bc6b52966217a453e Email-Address-1.80.tar.gz-srpm * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane. * no shared libraries are present. * 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. * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=873, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.14 cusr + 0.02 csys = 0.16 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 190231] Review Request: perl-Email-Address - RFC 2822 Address Parsing and Creation
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-Email-Address - RFC 2822 Address Parsing and Creation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190231 [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 190237] New: Review Request: perl-Email-MIME-Encodings - Unified interface to MIME encoding and decoding
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=190237 Summary: Review Request: perl-Email-MIME-Encodings - Unified interface to MIME encoding and decoding 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://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Email-MIME-Encodings.spec SRPM URL: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Email-MIME-Encodings-1.3-1.src.rpm Description: This module simply wraps "MIME::Base64" and "MIME::QuotedPrint" so that you can throw the contents of a "Content-Transfer-Encoding" header at some text and have the right thing happen. Note: another HTTP::Recorder requirement -- 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 190236] New: Review Request: perl-Email-MIME-ContentType - Parse a MIME Content-Type Header
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=190236 Summary: Review Request: perl-Email-MIME-ContentType - Parse a MIME Content-Type Header 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://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Email-MIME-ContentType.spec SRPM URL: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Email-MIME-ContentType-1.01-1.src.rpm Description: This module is responsible for parsing email content type headers according to section 5.1 of RFC 2045. It returns a hash as above, with entries for the discrete type, the composite type, and a hash of attributes. Note: another HTTP::Recorder requirement -- 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 190231] Review Request: perl-Email-Address - RFC 2822 Address Parsing and Creation
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-Email-Address - RFC 2822 Address Parsing and Creation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190231 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||190233 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 190233] Review Request: perl-Email-MessageID - Generate world unique message-ids
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-Email-MessageID - Generate world unique message-ids https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190233 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||190231 -- 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 190233] New: Review Request: perl-Email-MessageID - Generate world unique message-ids
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=190233 Summary: Review Request: perl-Email-MessageID - Generate world unique message-ids 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://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Email-MessageID.spec SRPM URL: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Email-MessageID-1.31-1.src.rpm Description: Message-ids are optional, but highly recommended, headers that identify a message uniquely. This software generates a unique message-id. -- 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
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] 2006-04-28 18:50 EST --- > * Not a blocker but I think it would be nice to have the documentation > http://hevea.inria.fr/distri/hevea-1.08-manual.tar.gz > included (maybe in a -doc subpackage if you prefer). After reading the licence of the doc it doesn't seems so clear. This licence doesn't seem to allow modification of the documentation, so it is not free documentation. It is not very clear in the fedora extras wiki. Documentation could be considered as non-executable content, but to be acceptable "The files must be necessary for the functionality of open source code being included in Fedora.", it is not very clear for documentation. In my opinion it goes against fedora extras goal, but if you really want to include documentation, I believe the best would be to ask on fedora 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 190232] New: Review Request: perl-Email-Simple - Simple parsing of RFC2822 message format and headers
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=190232 Summary: Review Request: perl-Email-Simple - Simple parsing of RFC2822 message format and headers 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://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Email-Simple.spec SRPM URL: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Email-Simple-1.92-1.src.rpm Description: "Email::Simple" is the first deliverable of the "Perl Email Project", a reaction against the complexity and increasing bugginess of the "Mail::*" modules. In contrast, "Email::*" modules are meant to be simple to use and to maintain, pared to the bone, fast, minimal in their external dependencies, and correct. Note: Will be required by http://search.cpan.org/dist/HTTP-Recorder/ -- 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 190231] New: Review Request: perl-Email-Address - RFC 2822 Address Parsing and Creation
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=190231 Summary: Review Request: perl-Email-Address - RFC 2822 Address Parsing and Creation 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://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Email-Address.spec SRPM URL: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Email-Address-1.80-1.src.rpm Description: This class implements a complete RFC 2822 parser that locates email addresses in strings and returns a list of "Email::Address" objects found. Alternatley you may construct objects manually. The goal of this software is to be correct, and very very fast. Note: Will be required by http://search.cpan.org/dist/HTTP-Recorder/ -- 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
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 18:33 EST ---
* There are other requirements listed here
http://hevea.inria.fr/doc/manual038.html#requirements
After reading imagen, I propose
Requires: netpbm-progs ghostscript tetex-dvips
* You need the texhash run, which could be run using
%post -p /usr/bin/texhash
%postun -p /usr/bin/texhash
Or as said in comment #4
* I don't think
Group: Development/Languages
is appropriate. I believe
Group:Applications/Publishing
is better.
* one %{_datadir}/texmf/ is still there, to be replaced by %{_texmf}
* Not a blocker but I think it would be nice to have the documentation
http://hevea.inria.fr/distri/hevea-1.08-manual.tar.gz
included (maybe in a -doc subpackage if you prefer).
* Also not a blocker but a personal preference, I like to have trailing /
in %files for directories, such that it is visible that these are
directories. In that case this leads to:
%{_datadir}/hevea/
%{_texmf}/tex/latex/hevea/
--
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
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
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 18:27 EST ---
> I'm quite confused by the %{_libdir} problem because I follow Joe Orton & Tim
> Jackson work on Bug #176733 (for php-pear-DB).
Well, %_libdir is different on AMD64 and on x86 & PPC. If you build your package
as noarch, only one package will be build for all archs. Say the package was
built on an AMD64 host: il will install the xml file in /usr/lib64/php/pear. If
this package is installed on an x86 machine, the lib64 path will not be searched
and the file will not be found.
> For the install problem, i only have to substitue the --packagingroot option
> (which work with pear >= 1.4.8) by -R (for pear = 1.4.6)
Do as you want, you'll be maintaining it in the end. But just copying the files
looked like the KISS way to me.
--
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
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 18:16 EST --- A few odd things: The specfile you link immediately above isn't the one that's in the srpm. The specfile should be named according to the base RPM: anjuta.spec. Either that or the package name should be changed to anjuta2. I notice Anjuta is already in Extras (and you maintain it). Is it your intention to just upgrade the existing version or did you want this package to coexist? If the former, you technically don't need to go through a review, although you probably just want to push the new version for FC6 and leave the old ones alone. I tried to do a build but it fails: Cannot find build req gnome-build-devel. Exiting. I can't seem to find this anywhere. -- 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
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 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 17:53 EST --- thx for the review, importing. -- 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
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 17:50 EST --- Looks great and builds fine. 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 190066] Review Request: php-pear-Mail
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
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 17:49 EST ---
I'm quite confused by the %{_libdir} problem because I follow Joe Orton & Tim
Jackson work on Bug #176733 (for php-pear-DB).
For the install problem, i only have to substitue the --packagingroot option
(which work with pear >= 1.4.8) by -R (for pear = 1.4.6)
--
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
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 17:38 EST --- I added the %check and the COPYING file: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/gauche-0.8.7-3.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 190007] Review Request: php-pecl-zip
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-pecl-zip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190007 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 17:18 EST --- Thank for your comment. Here is the new spec. http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pecl-zip.spec http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pecl-zip-1.3.1-2.fc5.src.rpm 1/ upgrade to new version 2/ BuildRoot and Requires corrected 3/ Build with mock succed. -- 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 190213] New: Review Request: gq - Graphical LDAP directory browser and editor
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=190213 Summary: Review Request: gq - Graphical LDAP directory browser and editor 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.pvv.ntnu.no/~terjeros/rpms/gq/gq.spec SRPM URL: http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~terjeros/rpms/gq/gq-1.0.0-1.src.rpm Description: GQ is a graphical browser for LDAP directories and schemas. Using GQ, an administrator can search through a directory and modify objects stored in that directory -- 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
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 OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 16:08 EST --- Issues: src/ccrtp/rtp.h is executable in the source tarball. It gets stuck in the debuginfo package, which causes rpmlint to complain: E: ccrtp-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/ccrtp-1.3.7/src/ccrtp/rtp.h I suggest just doing chmod 644 src/ccrtp/rtp.h in %prep. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible and is included in the package as %doc. * source files match upstream: 6621be1852bd90c3dbbafa895618d8f0 ccrtp-1.3.7.tar.gz 6621be1852bd90c3dbbafa895618d8f0 ccrtp-1.3.7.tar.gz-srpm * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). X rpmlint complains (see above) * final provides and requires are sane. * shared libraries are present; ldconfig is invoked as necessary. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directoryies it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. X rtp.h has inappropriate permissions. * %clean is present. O %check not present; no test suite upstream. * code, not content. O documentation is large, but is all development-related and in the -devel subpackage. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in -devel subpackage. * pkgconfig files are in -devel. * unversioned libraries are in the -devel subpackage. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. With just one minor issue, I'll go ahead and approve and you can fix it when you check in. 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 180300] Review Request: ccrtp
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 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 188168] Review Request: gauche - Scheme script interpreter with multibyte character handling
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 14:58 EST --- The build failure seems to be fixed with last night's glibc-kernheaders package 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 190086] Review Request: rman
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: rman https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190086 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 14:19 EST --- Thanks - I had intended to package contrib and neglected to :-/ It is packaged now (with %doc) - with correct line breaks and correct /usr/bin/perl for the contrib perl scripts. -- 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
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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 14:02 EST --- This a CPAN convention: a package is considered 'unstable' or 'development' if there is an underscore in the version number. -- 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
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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 13:51 EST --- I've not seen the underscore convention before, but I do see the bug "***DEVELOPER RELEASE***" at CPAN. The daily updated packages messages sent to comp.lang.perl.announce unfortunately don't indicate development releases (unless you're expected to intuit such from the underscore in the version, I guess). -- 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
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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 13:45 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) > It seems a new version came out today (0.99_01). This is a development release (note the underscore). It should *never* be used as a stable release. /jpo -- 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
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 13:39 EST --- FWIW, I discovered that the change from setregid() to setresgid() is superfluous because it turns out, on linux at least, that setregid() will also change the saved gid if the new real gid is not -1, or if the new egid != the old egid. However, the setresgid patch should remain because it adds error checking to the setresgid() call and aborts if the privileges could not be dropped. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190135] Review Request: perl-DBM-Deep - A pure perl multi-level hash/array DBM
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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 13:27 EST --- It seems a new version came out today (0.99_01). -- 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] Review Request: rman
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: rman https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190086 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 13:25 EST --- Everything looks good. Issues: Your Source URL points to a specific sourceforge mirror. Admittedly I was amazed that I was able to get the file on the first try, but I wonder if it's a good ide to do that. Is there any specific reason you chose to use that mirror? You don't package the stuff in contrib. If you wanted to, you'd need to delete or chmod 644 sco-wrapper.sh and then fix up end-of-line encodings and the perl shebang lines. You should ping upstream to include the text of their license. None of these are blockers. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * 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: 6d1d67641c6d042595a96a62340d3cc6 rman-3.2.tar.gz 6d1d67641c6d042595a96a62340d3cc6 rman-3.2.tar.gz-srpm * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, i386 and x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane. * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns 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 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. 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 190086] Review Request: rman
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: rman https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190086 [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 188180] Review Request: qt4: Qt GUI toolkit
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||190189 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 190189] Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4
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: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190189 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||188180 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 12:52 EST --- For devel/fc6 branch only, since it requires sip >= 4.4.2 Also requires qt4 (see bug #188180) -- 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 190189] New: Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4
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=190189 Summary: Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4 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://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/PyQt4-4.0-0.5.beta1.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/PyQt4-4.0-0.5.beta1.src.rpm Description: These are Python bindings for Qt4. -- 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 189250] Review Request: python-lxml - ElementTree-like python bindings for libxml2
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-lxml - ElementTree-like python bindings for libxml2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189250 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||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 187964] Review Request: bsd-games - A collection of text-based games
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 11:15 EST --- (In reply to comment #36) > MUST Fix: > - > * Add missing "Requires(Pre): /usr/sbin/groupadd" Added. > * Package must own /usr/share/bsd-games Good catch. It's owned now. > Should Fix: > --- > * "# It looks like textutils became coreutils at some point. I'm not sure ># what is needed from it, so I'm commenting it out until I can find out. >#Requires: textutils" I never did figure out what needs it. I didn't notice any obvious exec() or system() calls to external applications. > * Maybe use "BSD" as license, as all games eem to be under one or the other > variant of the BSD license? I won't object to that. I used Distributable as that's what RH7 used for the license before it was dropped. > * Shouldn't the highscore files be marked %config(noreplace) ? I say no. If the high score file formats changes at any time then we want to make sure that the old ones get removed. We could mark them as %config only, but that seems pointless because the only reason to preserve the old scoreboard files is if a migration tool is also provided to move it to the new format, and I don't see that happening for any of these games. > * Suspicious compiler warnings: > "canfield/cfscores/cfscores.c:130: warning: comparison of unsigned > expression < > 0 is always false" > "hunt/hunt/playit.c:117: warning: comparison is always true due to limited > range of data type" > "hunt/hunt/playit.c:652: warning: comparison is always true due to limited > range of data type These are part of some paranoid error checking. All are harmless. > "phantasia/setup.c:71: warning: 'path' may be used uninitialized in this function" This is a bogus warning. Besides, this file is only used during the %build phase to create the initial shared game files, not as part of any shipped executable. New package with MUSTFIX fixes: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/bsd-games-2.17-8.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 190175] New: Review Request: p0rn-comfort - Support programs for browsing image-gallery sites
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=190175 Summary: Review Request: p0rn-comfort - Support programs for browsing image-gallery sites 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/p0rn-comfort/p0rn-comfort.spec SRPM URL: http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/p0rn-comfort/p0rn-comfort-0.0.4-1.src.rpm Description: p0rn-comfort consists of several support programs for browsing image-gallery sites. It includes a proxy which enables blacklisting of thumbnail sites on-the-fly. It also supports queueing of entire pages for download and fetching them at a later time. Queuing can either be done manually (directly from your browser) or by an automated download script which can also follow links between different galleries. This tool is quite useful as well for browsing non-pr0n galleries such as deviantart. -- 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 168719] Review Request: gdal
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: gdal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=168719 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 10:31 EST --- (In reply to comment #16) > Ping? I think, this PR has been lingering around long enough and should be closed to give others who might be more interested into this package that the OP an opportunity to take over. -- 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 177106] Review Request: libgdgeda - graphical library for gEDA
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: libgdgeda - graphical library for gEDA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177106 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 10:26 EST --- Cool, keep up the good work! -- 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 190007] Review Request: php-pecl-zip
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-pecl-zip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190007 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 10:21 EST --- Note: This is not a formal review. 1. Package doesn't build in Mock. Looks like your missing some BuildRequires. For information on Mock, refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/MockTricks. 2. Duplicate BuildRequires: automake (by php-devel), php (by php-devel), autoconf (by php-devel), libtool & gcc-c++ (provided in base install in Mock) -- 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 177106] Review Request: libgdgeda - graphical library for gEDA
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: libgdgeda - graphical library for gEDA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177106 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 10:03 EST --- Adding "-lgl " to GDGEDA_LIBS makes libgeda to require libgd.so.2. Now I am going to try a complete build without libgdgeda. -- 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 187799] Review Request: perl-Cairo - Perl interface to the cairo library
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-Cairo - Perl interface to the cairo library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187799 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 09:35 EST --- Thanks for the review. Imported and built for FC-5 and devel. Now I have to update perl-Gtk2 (FC-5 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 169345] Review Request: SEC - Simple Event Correlator
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: SEC - Simple Event Correlator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169345 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 08:56 EST --- SRPM upgraded to upstream 2.3.3 ; fixed spec-file in accordance with comment #1. http://www.dmbr.ugent.be/~didier/sec/sec-2.3.3-1.src.rpm http://www.dmbr.ugent.be/~didier/sec/sec.spec TIA for reviewing ! -- 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
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] 2006-04-28 08:18 EST --- I should have mentioned this - but you also need to BuildRequires /usr/bin/kpsewhich to use the _texmf macro - or else mock will fail. Also - since the package installs a file into the texmf tree, you should have %post texhash >/dev/null 2>&1 || : %postun texhash >/dev/null 2>&1 || : so that ls-R database gets 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 190144] Review Request: hevea - LaTeX to HTML translator
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] 2006-04-28 07:33 EST --- New spec&srpm at http://home.bawue.net/~ixs/hevea -- 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
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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 07:18 EST --- Created an attachment (id=128357) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128357&action=view) New install system -- 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
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
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 07:16 EST ---
Needs work:
* BuildRoot should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot)
* The package cannot be noarch since it installs files to %{_libdir} (which is
/usr/lib64 on x86_64)
* Build section is useless, you can safely remove it
* The test dir for PEAR packages is called "test", not "tests" (in
/usr/share/pear/)
* Build failed in mock with this message:
install ok: channel://pear.php.net/Mail-1.1.10
PHP Fatal error: Call to a member function setConfig() on a non-object in
/usr/share/pear/PEAR/Command/Install.php on line 546
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.10675 (%install)
I propose to install the files without the pear tool, by just copying them. It
should make it much easier to debug. Incoming patch...
--
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 175047] Review Request: NetworkManager-openvpn
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: NetworkManager-openvpn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175047 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 06:46 EST --- I'm currently investigating some problems in the code, when that is done I will post a new version of the srpm. Expect this for next week. -- 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
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] 2006-04-28 06:28 EST ---
NOT a formal review.
Just some notes
The stuff it puts in /usr/lib might be better to put in /usr/share since it
looks to be arch independent.
maybe in /usr/share/hevea
-=-
It probably should require tetex-latex since it puts files in texmf/tex/latex/
LATEXLIBDIR=%{_datadir}/texmf/tex/latex/hevea
should be done differently.
define a macro as follows:
%{!?_texmf: %define _texmf %(eval "echo `kpsewhich -expand-var '$TEXMFMAIN'`")}
Then use
LATEXLIBDIR=%{_texmf}/tex/latex/hevea
That allows people using a custom texmf to rebuild the src.rpm defining where
the texmf is that they want it to use.
-=-
I'm willing to review formally next week if someone else does not decide to.
--
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
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] 2006-04-28 06:18 EST --- Yes, that's what I said above. I think BuildRequires: /usr/bin/kpsewhich is better than BuildRequires: tetex-fonts Not a big deal. -- 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 175047] Review Request: NetworkManager-openvpn
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: NetworkManager-openvpn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175047 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 06:01 EST --- I'd like to see this in extras too. -- 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
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] 2006-04-28 05:52 EST --- kpsewhich is provided by tetex-fonts. It would need to be there if explicit tetex-fonts dependency is removed. -- 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
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] 2006-04-28 05:24 EST ---
Some comments:
* %post -p /usr/bin/texhash
will automatically add
Requires(post) /usr/bin/texhash
So I think the explicit dependency on tetex-fonts is not really right
as it may change in the future.
* A dependence on kpsewhich should be there, however, in my opinion:
BuildRequires: /usr/bin/kpsewhich
* In my opinion the following should be used to detect %_texmf, since
in configure kpsewhich is also used (even though a bit differently
but I believe the result is the same)
%{!?_texmf: %define _texmf %(eval "echo `kpsewhich -expand-var '$TEXMFMAIN'`")}
* the tetex package is picked up by tetex-latex, so I think that
the dependencies on tetex should be removed.
--
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
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||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 05:07 EST --- ( Update: Spec URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/par2cmdline.spec SRPM URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/par2cmdline-0.4-7.src.rpm ) Thank you Jason for your review! I am waiting now for my account creation approval. (...) Having read the guide again, it appears to me that I forgot one step: the sponsoring! :-( This my first review request for Fedora Extras, and I should have been reviewed by a sponsor! Jason, you did a good job with this review, however. I have added FE-NEEDSPONSOR to blockers. I hope this will unblock the situation. -- 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
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 Status|CLOSED |NEW Keywords||Reopened Resolution|NOTABUG | -- 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 190156] Review Request: php-pear-HTTP
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-HTTP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190156 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: php-mail|Review Request: php-pear- ||HTTP OtherBugsDependingO||177841 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 190156] New: Review Request: php-mail
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=190156 Summary: Review Request: php-mail 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-HTTP.spec SRPM URL: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pear-HTTP-1.4.0-2.fc5.src.rpm Description: The HTTP class is a class with static methods for doing miscellaneous HTTP related stuff like date formatting, language negotiation or HTTP redirection. Also see Bug #190066 -- 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
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 Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG OtherBugsDependingO||177841 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 187964] Review Request: bsd-games - A collection of text-based games
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 04:34 EST --- Looking good, almost there! MUST: - * rpmlint output is: E: bsd-games configure-without-libdir-spec E: bsd-games zero-length /var/games/robots_roll E: bsd-games non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/canfield 02755 E: bsd-games non-standard-gid /var/games/phantasia/characs gamephant E: bsd-games zero-length /var/games/phantasia/characs E: bsd-games non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/snake 02755 E: bsd-games non-standard-gid /var/games/phantasia gamephant E: bsd-games non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/phantasia 0775 E: bsd-games non-standard-gid /usr/bin/phantasia gamephant E: bsd-games setgid-binary /usr/bin/phantasia gamephant 02755 E: bsd-games non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/phantasia 02755 E: bsd-games non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/robots 02755 E: bsd-games non-standard-gid /var/games/hack gamehack E: bsd-games non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/hack 0775 E: bsd-games non-standard-gid /var/games/phantasia/motd gamephant E: bsd-games zero-length /var/games/phantasia/motd E: bsd-games non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/atc 02755 E: bsd-games zero-length /var/games/cfscores E: bsd-games zero-length /var/games/atc_score E: bsd-games non-standard-gid /var/games/hack/record gamehack E: bsd-games zero-length /var/games/hack/record E: bsd-games non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/battlestar 02755 E: bsd-games non-standard-gid /var/games/saillog gamesail E: bsd-games zero-length /var/games/saillog E: bsd-games non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/tetris-bsd 02755 E: bsd-games non-standard-gid /usr/bin/sail gamesail E: bsd-games setgid-binary /usr/bin/sail gamesail 02755 E: bsd-games non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/sail 02755 E: bsd-games zero-length /var/games/tetris-bsd.scores E: bsd-games non-standard-gid /var/games/phantasia/monsters gamephant E: bsd-games non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/cribbage 02755 E: bsd-games zero-length /var/games/criblog E: bsd-games non-standard-gid /var/games/phantasia/scoreboard gamephant E: bsd-games zero-length /var/games/phantasia/scoreboard E: bsd-games non-standard-gid /var/games/phantasia/mess gamephant E: bsd-games zero-length /var/games/phantasia/mess E: bsd-games non-standard-gid /var/games/hack/perm gamehack E: bsd-games zero-length /var/games/hack/perm E: bsd-games non-standard-gid /var/games/sail gamesail E: bsd-games non-standard-dir-perm /var/games/sail 0775 E: bsd-games zero-length /var/games/battlestar.log E: bsd-games non-standard-gid /var/games/phantasia/void gamephant E: bsd-games zero-length /var/games/phantasia/void E: bsd-games zero-length /var/games/snakerawscores E: bsd-games non-standard-gid /var/games/phantasia/lastdead gamephant E: bsd-games zero-length /var/games/phantasia/lastdead E: bsd-games non-standard-gid /var/games/phantasia/gold gamephant E: bsd-games zero-length /var/games/phantasia/gold E: bsd-games zero-length /var/games/snake.log E: bsd-games non-standard-gid /usr/bin/hack gamehack E: bsd-games setgid-binary /usr/bin/hack gamehack 02755 E: bsd-games non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/hack 02755 These are all not a problem, see discussion above. * Package and spec file named appropriately * Packaged according to packaging guidelines * License ok, license file included * spec file is legible and in Am. English. * Source matches upstream * Compiles and builds on devel-x86_64 * BR: ok (see below) * No locales * No shared libraries * Not relocatable * Package owns all dirs it installs, with one exception see below. * No duplicate files & Permissions ok * %clean & macro usage OK * Contains code and permissable content * %doc does not affect runtime, and isn't large enough to warrent a sub package * no -devel package needed, no libs / .la files. * no gui -> no .desktop file required MUST Fix: - * Add missing "Requires(Pre): /usr/sbin/groupadd" * Package must own /usr/share/bsd-games Should Fix: --- * "# It looks like textutils became coreutils at some point. I'm not sure # what is needed from it, so I'm commenting it out until I can find out. #Requires: textutils" * Maybe use "BSD" as license, as all games eem to be under one or the other variant of the BSD license? * Shouldn't the highscore files be marked %config(noreplace) ? * Suspicious compiler warnings: "canfield/cfscores/cfscores.c:130: warning: comparison of unsigned expression < 0 is always false" "hunt/hunt/playit.c:117: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type" "hunt/hunt/playit.c:652: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type "phantasia/setup.c:71: warning: 'path' may be used uninitialized in this function" " -- Configure
[Bug 183439] Review Request: papyrus (Canvas drawing library based on cairo/cairomm)
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: papyrus (Canvas drawing library based on cairo/cairomm) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 04:18 EST --- Are you in need of a sponsor? I don't see the e-mail that opened this bug in the owners.list file. If you are in need of a sponsor, you should add bug #177841 the the Bug 183439 blocks field -- 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
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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 04:11 EST --- Yes, i'm quite sure. # rpm -qlp php-5.0.4-10.5.src.rpm | grep gz$ DB-1.7.6.tgz HTTP-1.3.5.tgz Mail-1.1.4.tgz Net_SMTP-1.2.6.tgz Net_Socket-1.0.6.tgz XML_Parser-1.2.6.tgz XML_RPC-1.4.0.tgz php-5.0.4.tar.gz -- 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
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 02:59 EST --- Not sure. When I look at the built RPM everything is there. I'll give mock a shot -- 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
