[Bug 190873] Review Request: gnome-ppp - A GNOME 2 WvDial frontend
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: gnome-ppp - A GNOME 2 WvDial frontend https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190873 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 02:02 EST --- Good: * md5sum matches upstream: ec2e20fc713a01c953d759bea3df8618 gnome-ppp-0.3.23.tar.bz2 * Package appropriately named (matches upstream) * spec file matches src.rpm name * Package meets package guidelines * Appropriate License (GPL), matches COPYING file, in %doc * Spec file written in legible American English * Succesfully builds in FC5 i386 mock * locales handled properly * no shared libs to fuss over * not relocatable * owns every directory it creates * no duplicate files. Not even any triplicate files. * %defattr properly used, proper file permissions * Proper %clean * consistent use of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT * doc package not necessary * Package functions w/o docs * No devel package to fuss over * Includes proper desktop file - uses desktop-file-install * Scriptlets are sane -=- I no longer have a modem for it to configure, so I have not tested this package. But that is a *should* and not a *must* -=- Output of rpmlint on mock built fc5 i386 packages: [EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ ls *.rpm gnome-ppp-0.3.23-1.fc5.i386.rpm gnome-ppp-debuginfo-0.3.23-1.fc5.i386.rpm gnome-ppp-0.3.23-1.fc5.src.rpm [EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint *.rpm [EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ echo $? 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ 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 190873] Review Request: gnome-ppp - A GNOME 2 WvDial frontend
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: gnome-ppp - A GNOME 2 WvDial frontend https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190873 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 02:12 EST --- Note on the test thing - I did try the app. No segfault. It correctly creates a ~/.wvdial.conf w/o a modem for it to detect though, that's as far as I could get. -- 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution||NEXTRELEASE
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 02:41 EST ---
(In reply to comment #15)
Some comments:
* %post -p /usr/bin/texhash
will automatically add
Requires(post) /usr/bin/texhash
Right.
So I think the explicit dependency on tetex-fonts is not really right
as it may change in the future.
OK.
* A dependence on kpsewhich should be there, however, in my opinion:
BuildRequires: /usr/bin/kpsewhich
Done.
* 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'`)}
I agree, we should probably harmonize this in rules for tetex derived
packages. Reading other tetex-* packages both ways are used.
* the tetex package is picked up by tetex-latex, so I think that
the dependencies on tetex should be removed.
I knew that. :-)
I removed it.
The changes have been commited to CVS but I don't think the changes require
a new build.
The package build cleanly for all branches so I will close this bug.
The package build cleanly, so
--
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 190502] Review Request: sportstracker
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: sportstracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190502
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 02:42 EST ---
Not a review - I've never reviewed a package that builds with mono before, so I
want to watch some be reviewed first.
But one thing I noticed :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Mono
It says
All mono packages need to be in /usr/lib rather than whereever %{_libdir}
happens to point to. There is a simple method to ensure this happens. At the
start of the spec file have the line
%define _libdir /usr/lib
-=-
Is that applicable to 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 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] 2006-05-06 02:58 EST ---
(In reply to comment #18)
* 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'`)}
I agree, we should probably harmonize this in rules for tetex derived
packages. Reading other tetex-* packages both ways are used.
In this case - using %{!?_texmf: %define blah}
should probably not be used since configure doesn't take an arguement for what
texmf to use.
So if I did
rpmbuild --define '_texmf /mnt/nfs/my_texmf' --rebuild foo.src.rpm
the package might fail because kpsewhich in configure would pick up TEXMFMAIN
instead of what the macro defines.
Once upstream adds a configure switch to optionally specify the texmf, then
allowing a custom texmf in the spec file via setting a macro makes sense.
Upstream should probably be bugged about that. If I was building it from source,
I would want it in TEXMFLOCAL (or in my home dir texmf) - so it should be a
configure switch (and probably should default to TEXMFLOCAL if no arguement is
given to configure)
--
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 189219] Review Request: poker-eval - Poker hand evaluator 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: poker-eval - Poker hand evaluator library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189219 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: [Games SIG] |Review Request: poker-eval - |poker-eval - Poker hand |Poker hand evaluator library |evaluator library | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 03:24 EST --- Modifying the Summary, because it seems that: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/PackageStatus Gets confused by the [Games SIG] -- 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 167983] Review Request: evolution-caldav
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: evolution-caldav https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167983 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 03:32 EST --- Remving FE-NEW FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker bugs -- 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
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] 2006-05-06 05:09 EST ---
I've taken a look at part 3 of the docu at:
http://www.teletrust.de/index.php?id=548
It seems that the only relevant part of this pdf for our discussion is in
Appendix A under identification of CTAPI filenames with a wki what the
document says here is basicly that dynamicloaded libs implementing the ctapi
should have a name in the following format: ctxxx[yyy] where xxx is a 3 letter
abbreviation of the manufacturer (CTM ID) (the abbreviations are supposed to be
asigned by a national goverment instance)
So that helps a bit, what it says is that the way to install ctapi
implementations for different cardreaders is indeed to use dlopen and name the
implementation .so files different. The 3 letter thingie clearly is because of
the 8 char length limitation dos had, and since there is no list of assigned
abreviations to be found I say we standardize on the name:
libctapi-manufacturer.so
But since these libraries are intented to be dlopen-ed and dlopen-ed only, and
as such are unversioned (.so instead of .so.x) I don't believe the belong
directly under %{_libdir} but that they shoud instead be put under say
%{_libdir}/ctapi .
Your story about DT_RPATH and LD_LIBARY_PATH above is about how things work for
regular linked binari%{_libdir}/ctapies (iow not using dlopen). Notice that we
don't need to create subdirs under for each ctapi-lib instead we could just put
%{_libdir}/ctapi in a file under /etc/ld.so.conf.d . But that would beat the
entire purpose of putting these files in a seperate dir: not poluting the global
library soname namespace with these plugins .
Another solution would be to teach the dlopen-ing applications about the new
locations. I've moved ctapi-cyberjack.so* to %{_libdir}/ctapi on my system and
then tried to run cjgeldkarte:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ cjgeldkarte
Error loading CT-API library.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ cjgeldkarte -l ctapi/libctapi-cyberjack.so
Error loading CT-API library.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ cjgeldkarte -l /usr/lib64/ctapi/libctapi-cyberjack.so
Error doing CT_init. (Return code:-1)
As you can see cjgeldkarte can no longer find its default libctapi-cyberjack.so
and passing ctapi/libctapi-cyberjack.so doesn't help either, we need to pass a
full path. Thats unfortunate because I find the full path ugly and it differs
from one arch to the other (usr/lib vs /usr/lib/64) now we can patch the correct
path into the binary during during built but thats not pretty.
The last option is to set DT_RPATH in the elf headers of the binaries using the
plugins to %{_libdir}/ctapi. This is quite easy, just change the make line in
the specfile to:
export LD_RUN_PATH=%{_libdir}/ctapi
make
I must say I prefer this option, because it keeps the unversioned ctapi
libraries out of the regular soname namespace.
I'll open a bug against openct which currently also installs an unversioned .so
file in %{_libdir} for the ctapi.
Hopefully with the input of the openct maintainer we can choose one of the 3
choises which I see we have:
1) drop unversioned .so 's only intended for dlopen in %{_libdir}
2) put them in %{_libdir}/ctapi and code full path's to them (and users
who want to use a different then the defualtlib also must specify the full
path).
3) put them in %{_libdir}/ctapi and set rpath to %{_libdir}/ctapi for binaries
using the ctapi
1 and 3 are realistic options in my vision 2 is not.
--
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 190471] Review Request: yakuake - Quake-style terminal emulator for KDE
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: yakuake - Quake-style terminal emulator for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190471 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 05:10 EST --- Both spec files look good to me. Dawid, please post a link to the srpm so I can approve this formally. -- 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
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] 2006-05-06 05:22 EST --- As promised I've opened a bug against openct on this to get some sorta resolution, its bug 190903 . -- 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 190471] Review Request: yakuake - Quake-style terminal emulator for KDE
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: yakuake - Quake-style terminal emulator for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190471 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 06:03 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) Dawid Gajownik: Sorry, I didn't know about your package I did not publish my RPM earlier because I was waiting for marking yakuake as orphaned package ;-) I was using it locally. (In reply to comment #3) Dawid, please post a link to the srpm so I can approve this formally. Here's the link → http://fedora.pl/~gajownik/yakuake-2.7.5-1.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 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-06 06:17 EST ---
I agree with your vision wrt. 1) and 2), but I think 3) represents a too FE
centric world view which will cause some pain for 3rd party non-FE apps that
rightfully (per the spec) assume that they can just dlopen() the module.
1) is not too nice, agreed, but a fourth alternative would be to ship let's say
a ctapi-common package which drops a /etc/ld.so.conf.d/ctapi.conf snippet which
adds %{_libdir}/ctapi to the linker's load path, as well as include a README in
the package that describes the install location and naming conventions for FE
CT-API modules.
There is also a slight issue wrt. the libctapi-implementation.so scheme
because in some cases, for example openct and (I guess) towitoko, it would
differ from upstream module names. I think we should either stick with upstream
naming or create compatibility symlinks.
--
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
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] 2006-05-06 06:19 EST ---
Forgot to note that when using the fourth approach, ctapi-common would own
%{_libdir}/ctapi and all packages that install CT-API modules would install them
into that dir and have a dependency on ctapi-common.
--
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] 2006-05-06 06:37 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) pkgconfigdir=$(prefix)/$(libdir)/pkgconfig The configure script then exports either lib or lib64 depending on what is passed in using --libdir Without knowing a thing about mono stuff, that looks wrong to me. Did you mean $(prefix)/$(lib)/pkgconfig (or something else that doesn't have the potential of having the prefix inserted twice in the path)? $(libdir) usually already contains $(prefix). -- 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
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] 2006-05-06 06:37 EST ---
The 4th alternative sounds like the best one to me. In this case I don't think
we need to standardise the .so filenames, since they are already under
%{_libdir}/ctapi, making clear what they are and giving apps a unique way to
enumerate all ctapi implementations available (all .so files under
%{_libdir}/ctapi)
So I say lets go with the 4th approach:
-ctapi implementing libs go under %{_libdir}/ctapi
-%{_libdir}/ctapi is owned by ctapi-common
-ctapi-common drops a (64 and 32bit?) file under /etc/ld.so.conf.d
-ctapi implementing libs must depend on ctapi-common(.arch?)
Who wants to create the ctapi-common package?
We should also think about a ctapi-devel package containing a unified ctapi.h
ctbcs.h and maybe manpages (from the towitoko ctapi 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-06 06:52 EST --- I think number 4 is the best solution. But where build the ctapi-common package?? It must be an solution where non OpenSource software also work, for example somethink like moneyplex. Ok when an final work about the solutions was find I will countinus to work on my 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 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-06 06:56 EST --- an unified ctapi.h is an second problem, because some manufacture add specal function the the api. But we can do make can ctapi-common-devel package, witch contains an general ctapi.h witch only has the the 3 needed funtion's(ct_init,ct_data,ct_close) so it can be used with all readers. -- 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 190911] New: Review Request: ctapi-common - Common infrastructure for CT-API modules
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=190911 Summary: Review Request: ctapi-common - Common infrastructure for CT-API modules 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 Common files and packaging infrastructure for CT-API modules. For reference, see discussion in bug 188369. No URLs; the package is built from a selfcontained specfile which will be attached 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 190911] Review Request: ctapi-common - Common infrastructure for CT-API modules
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-common - Common infrastructure for CT-API modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190911
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 07:25 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=128690)
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128690action=view)
ctapi-common.spec, first cut
Here's the specfile. Contents of README intentionally kept generic for all
architectures. I'm not aware of a way to specify arch-qualified dependencies
in packages, so this one adds the %{name}(%{_target_cpu}) Provides for that
purpose.
Others are welcome to take ownership of this package, I'm not particularly
interested in maintaining it (although there's not much to maintain here) as I
don't have use for any CT-API modules myself at the moment.
--
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
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||190911 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 07:30 EST --- Bug 190911 contains a first cut of the ctapi-common package, feel free to review and/or take ownership. -- 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 190911] Review Request: ctapi-common - Common infrastructure for CT-API modules
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-common - Common infrastructure for CT-API modules https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190911 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #128691|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 07:33 EST --- Created an attachment (id=128692) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128692action=view) ctapi-common.spec, fixed even better *blush* -- 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 190471] Review Request: yakuake - Quake-style terminal emulator for KDE
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: yakuake - Quake-style terminal emulator for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190471 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 10:22 EST --- Ok, I'm retiring my package to use Dawid Gajownik works. All review should be in these files now: Spec URL: http://fedora.pl/~gajownik/yakuake.spec SRPM URL: http://fedora.pl/~gajownik/yakuake-2.7.5-1.src.rpm Way to go! -- 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 185795] Review Request: python-fpconst (Python lib for IEEE 754)
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-fpconst (Python lib for IEEE 754) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185795 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: fpconst |Review Request: python- |(Python lib for IEEE 754) |fpconst (Python lib for IEEE ||754) -- 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 190397] Review Request: netpanzer-data - Data files for netpanzer
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: netpanzer-data - Data files for netpanzer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190397 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 11:31 EST --- Package built for devel, and will be copied by Warren Togami for the other branches. I think the work is completed, closing ;) -- 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 190396] Review Request: netpanzer - An Online Multiplayer Tactical Warfare Game
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: netpanzer - An Online Multiplayer Tactical Warfare Game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190396 Bug 190396 depends on bug 190397, which changed state. Bug 190397 Summary: Review Request: netpanzer-data - Data files for netpanzer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190397 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 189044] Review Request: perl-Log-Message
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-Log-Message https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189044 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 12:07 EST --- Imported, branches created, and builds requested. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189047] Review Request: perl-Term-UI
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-Term-UI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189047 Bug 189047 depends on bug 189044, which changed state. Bug 189044 Summary: Review Request: perl-Log-Message https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189044 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 189048] Review Request: perl-CPANPLUS
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-CPANPLUS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189048 Bug 189048 depends on bug 189044, which changed state. Bug 189044 Summary: Review Request: perl-Log-Message https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189044 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 177081] Review Request: nucleo
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: nucleo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177081 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 12:23 EST --- Okay, it may take me a while to get to this since I have a lot of packages I need to get in before I need this one. Also changing my e-mail address for this bug. -- 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 189046] Review Request: perl-Log-Message-Simple
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-Log-Message-Simple https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189046 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 12:29 EST --- Imported, branches created, and builds requested. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189047] Review Request: perl-Term-UI
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-Term-UI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189047 Bug 189047 depends on bug 189046, which changed state. Bug 189046 Summary: Review Request: perl-Log-Message-Simple https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189046 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 188482] Review Request: scipy-0.4.8
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: scipy-0.4.8 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188482 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 13:15 EST --- Hi Neal, heres a few more comments (not a thorough review): good: + license is OK: its BSD-w/o-advertise-clause + source matches upstream needswork: - missing license file (please add %doc LICENSE.txt) - missing BuildRequires: numpy - please use %setup -q Also, *please* build your package locally in mock. The commands are: 1) yum install mock 2) add yourself to the mock group (vi /etc/group) 3) log out/in for group addition to take full effect 4) run mock -r fedora-5-i386-core scipy-0.4.8-2.src.rpm and it will help you identify problems. Its a very good idea since mock is what the buildsystem itself uses. -- 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 189047] Review Request: perl-Term-UI
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-Term-UI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189047 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 13:16 EST --- Imported, branches created, builds requested. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189048] Review Request: perl-CPANPLUS
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-CPANPLUS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189048 Bug 189048 depends on bug 189047, which changed state. Bug 189047 Summary: Review Request: perl-Term-UI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189047 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 189048] Review Request: perl-CPANPLUS
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-CPANPLUS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189048
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 13:33 EST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
The Requires: filter is:
@@PERL_REQ@@ $@ | sed -e '/^perl(Your::Module::Here)$/d'
I'm not sure what you wanted to filter there.
I literally had to filter perl(Your::Module::Here).
CPANPLUS-0.061$ find . -type f -exec grep -Hn Your::Module::Here {} \;
./lib/CPANPLUS/Internals/Constants/Report.pm:268:use Your::Module::Here; ok(1);
rpmlint is unhappy:
E: perl-CPANPLUS useless-explicit-provides perl(CPANPLUS::Config)
That's auto-generated during rpmbuild, so I think we can ignore that.
W: perl-CPANPLUS hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/CPANPLUS/inc/.inc
E: perl-CPANPLUS zero-length
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/CPANPLUS/inc/.inc
Fixed in -2.
http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-CPANPLUS-0.061-2.src.rpm
Sorry about the rpmlint warnings. I thought I had checked that before
submitting all of these packages. I guess I missed one...
--
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] 2006-05-06 13:34 EST ---
New spec and SRPM using %{_datadir}/pear/.pkgxml
Spec URL: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pear-Mail.spec
SRPM URL:
http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pear-Mail-1.1.10-2.fc5.src.rpm
Build succed with 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 180571] Review Request: puppet
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: puppet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180571 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 13:48 EST --- Not running on FC5, x86_64, ruby-1.8.4-3.2 $ puppet /usr/lib64/site_ruby/1.8/puppet/server/filebucket.rb:8:in `require': no such file to load -- facter (LoadError) from /usr/lib64/site_ruby/1.8/puppet/server/filebucket.rb:8 from /usr/lib64/site_ruby/1.8/puppet/server.rb:180 from /usr/lib64/site_ruby/1.8/puppet.rb:332 from /usr/bin/puppet:58 -- 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 189727] Review Request: Scribes
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: Scribes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189727 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 14:01 EST --- MD5Sums: 5031eaa0ef8817ea32d390fc4d26ceda scribes-0.2.4.3.tar.gz Good: * Source URL is canonical * Upstream source tarball verified * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines * Group Tag is from the official list * Buildroot has all required elements * All paths begin with macros * Desktop entry is fine * All directories are owned by this or other packages * All necessary BuildRequires listed. * All desired features are enabled * Builds fine in mock. Minor: * Non-blocker rpmlint errors, that are being addressed upstream: E: scribes zero-length /usr/share/gnome/help/scribes/C/figures/scribes_status.png E: scribes zero-length /usr/share/gnome/help/scribes/C/figures/scribes_editing.png Bad: * In your schemas scriptlets you can drop the 'killall -HUP gconfd-2 || :', since it's no longer needed in FC5 and above. * Instead of Requires for yelp, you should be using scrollkeeper, and it's associated scriptlets. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets#head-3c9f517f0cd4aaabb369a8805226d85dc2f02793 -- 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
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 14:02 EST ---
New spec and SRPM using %{_datadir}/pear/.pkgxml
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
Build succeed with 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 189080] Review Request: perl-Module-Info
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-Module-Info https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189080 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 14:17 EST --- OK, so I'm an idiot, I read version.pm found, can not test wrong. Sorry about that... I've made the requested changes in -2. http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Module-Info-0.30-2.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 190911] Review Request: ctapi-common - Common infrastructure for CT-API modules
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-common - Common infrastructure for CT-API modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190911
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 14:30 EST ---
Oops hit save too soon (before typing the comment I wanted to type)
I was away this afternoon (outside, fresh air and sun you know) and while
cycling to the city I was wondering about the arch problem. And I came up with a
nice and clean solution which imho is much better then in the current spec file:
Why not make ctapi lib packages require %{_libdir}/ctapi instead of ctapi-cmmon,
then on dual arch systems like x86_64 they will automaticly drag in the right
one. Since both an i386 and an x86_64 version of ctapi-common could get
installed we do still need the arch in the filename under /etc/ld.so.conf.d
Also in this case I think it would be better to put the README in a seperate
file and install -p it so that both arch packages have the same timestamp for
it.
What do you think if you agree please attach a new version and I'll review it.
If you don't agree any better suggestions? I find your current solution not so
elegant.
--
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 189080] Review Request: perl-Module-Info
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-Module-Info https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189080 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 14:34 EST --- No problem. MD5SUMS: cba0296eedd5f24439aad1716d4caf76 perl-Module-Info-0.30-2.src.rpm a1e4e39cceda93dc0ab2d296b5075d76 Module-Info-0.30.tar.gz 66ce44d44e3e2c1b7c645aa55f89f6a3 perl-Module-Info.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 190346] Review Request: vdr-subtitles - DVB subtitles plugin for VDR
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: vdr-subtitles - DVB subtitles plugin for VDR https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190346 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 14:43 EST --- http://cachalot.mine.nu/5/SRPMS/vdr-subtitles-0.4.0-1.src.rpm * Sat May 6 2006 Ville Skyttä ville.skytta at iki.fi - 0.4.0-1 - 0.4.0. -- 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 190911] Review Request: ctapi-common - Common infrastructure for CT-API modules
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-common - Common infrastructure for CT-API modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190911
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 15:17 EST ---
Ok,
I kinda strongly prefer the %{_libdir} approach for the dependency handling I
concider the other approach somewhat ugly. If a third part package causes things
to break we will handle that the. If rpm doesn't mind different timestamps on
the README I'm happy with things as they are too. Summarazing, could you attach
a new spec with the %{_libdir} approach, then I'll review it,
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 177818] Review Request: adplug
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: adplug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177818 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 15:50 EST --- Upstream finally released a version including our fixes: Spec Name or Url: http://www.df.lth.se/~triad/krad/fc/adplug.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.df.lth.se/~triad/krad/fc/adplug-2.0-1.src.rpm (Bug 6 months+ hrm... Need to think of this. Perhaps nobody wants 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 177865] Review Request: adplay
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: adplay https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177865 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 15:52 EST --- New release from upstream: Spec Name or Url: http://www.df.lth.se/~triad/krad/fc/adplay.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.df.lth.se/~triad/krad/fc/adplay-1.5-1.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 178360] Review Request: xmms-adplug
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-adplug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178360 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 15:53 EST --- New release from upstream: Spec Name or Url: http://www.df.lth.se/~triad/krad/fc/xmms-adplug.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.df.lth.se/~triad/krad/fc/xmms-adplug-1.2-1.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 177865] Review Request: adplay
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: adplay https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177865 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189268] Review Request: xscreensaver
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: xscreensaver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189268 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 16:02 EST --- For version 5, I repackaged rpms as version 4.99.2.4-0.4 (put on the same URL). rpmlint results are: rpmlint log for xscreensaver-base-4.99.2.4-0.4.fc6.i386.rpm W: xscreensaver-base non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/xscreensaver rpmlint log for xscreensaver-debuginfo-4.99.2.4-0.4.fc6.i386.rpm rpmlint log for xscreensaver-extras-4.99.2.4-0.4.fc6.i386.rpm W: xscreensaver-extras non-standard-dir-in-usr libexec rpmlint log for xscreensaver-gl-extras-4.99.2.4-0.4.fc6.i386.rpm W: xscreensaver-gl-extras non-standard-dir-in-usr libexec Rpm spec file is cleaned up to remove annoying complexity, and some patches are removed for the request of Jamie. The rest patches are now under discussion with Jamie and me. Currently, I removed version 4 rpm for extras: I will use xscreensaver-4.24-2 for a moment. -- 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 189824] Review Request: lasi - C++ library for creating Postscript documents
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: lasi - C++ library for creating Postscript documents https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189824 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 16:11 EST --- One small issue: the summary of lasi-devel should end with a period. Another issue which is probably a mistake by upstream: pkg-config --libs lasi returns the empty string instead of -lLASi Looking at the examples, -lLASi is always explicitly included in the compile command. Also, the policy of FE is to omit static libraries, see Static Libraries in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines -- 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 190911] Review Request: ctapi-common - Common infrastructure for CT-API modules
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-common - Common infrastructure for CT-API modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190911
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 16:34 EST ---
Ok, let's try that out. I thought it'd be a good idea to include a license file
so I split README out anyway while at it. Hopefully I can assign the copyright
to the Fedora Project...?
http://cachalot.mine.nu/5/SRPMS/ctapi-common-1.0-2.src.rpm
* Sat May 6 2006 Ville Skyttä ville.skytta at iki.fi - 1.0-2
- Encourage dir based dependency on %{_libdir}/ctapi in packages (#190911).
- Split contents of README into a separate file.
- Change license to MIT, include license text.
- Add URL.
--
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 188176] Review Request: gauche-gtk - Gauche extension module to use GTK
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-gtk - Gauche extension module to use GTK https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188176 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 16:34 EST --- I understand the point. In fact the directory .packages is coded in the file package.scm of gauche. The problem is that .packages is hardcoded in the makefiles of the gtk and gl packages. Isn't it just one line in each makefile, though? I don't think it's a blocker, but it's probably easier to change it now than to wait until later when you'd have to coordinate releases of all three packages. BTW, the examples using OpenGL only run when gauche-gl is installed. Probably gauche-gtk should depend on gauche-gl then. Surely not for an example. If you want to be complete, you can add a note in that directory indicating that the -gl package needs to be installed in order for them to work. I'll be working on gauche-gl soon in any case. -- 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
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] 2006-05-06 16:37 EST --- One more thing we might want to consider is to add something like Provides: ctapi-module (versioned using the CT-API spec if appliable?) to all packages shipping CT-API modules so that other packages that require some module being available can use that virtual dependency instead of having to leave it out or to depend on a specific implementation. -- 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 189048] Review Request: perl-CPANPLUS
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-CPANPLUS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189048 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 16:48 EST --- I literally had to filter perl(Your::Module::Here). Hilarious. Sorry I missed that. That's auto-generated during rpmbuild, so I think we can ignore that. Yes, you don't include it. I see no point in filtering it as it seems to be an RPM buglet. Fixed in -2. Thanks. 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 190935] Review Request: perl-Module-ScanDeps
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-Module-ScanDeps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190935 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 17:31 EST --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 190582 *** -- 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 190937] New: Review Request: perl-Module-Install
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=190937 Summary: Review Request: perl-Module-Install 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://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Module-Install/perl-Module-Install.spec SRPM URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Module-Install-0.62-1.src.rpm Description: Module::Install is a package for writing installers for CPAN (or CPAN-like) distributions that are clean, simple, minimalist, act in a strictly correct manner with both the ExtUtils::MakeMaker and Module::Build build systems, and will run on any Perl installation version 5.004 or newer. -- 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 190502] Review Request: sportstracker
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: sportstracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190502
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 17:49 EST ---
Spec URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/sportstracker/sportstracker.spec
SRPM URL:
http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/sportstracker/sportstracker-1.2.1-2.src.rpm
* Sat May 6 2006 Brian Pepple [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1.2.1-2
- Use %%{prefix}/lib.
- Drop unnecessary Requires.
--
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 190939] New: Review Request: daap-sharp
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=190939 Summary: Review Request: daap-sharp 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://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/tangerine/daap-sharp.spec SRPM URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/tangerine/daap-sharp-0.3.3-1.src.rpm Description: daap-sharp is a DAAP (Digial Audio Access Protocol) implementation. It is used by Apple's iTunes software to share music. -- 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 190940] New: Review Request: tangerine
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=190940 Summary: Review Request: tangerine 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://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/tangerine/tangerine.spec SRPM URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/tangerine/tangerine-0.2.3-1.src.rpm Description: Tangerine is a DAAP server. You can use it to listen to music remotely though a number of applications, including iTunes, Banshee, and Rhythmbox. -- 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 190939] Review Request: daap-sharp
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: daap-sharp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190939 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||190940 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 190937] Review Request: perl-Module-Install
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-Module-Install https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190937 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||190935 -- 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 190705] Review Request: perl-Test-Base
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-Test-Base https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190705 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||190937 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 18:07 EST --- OK, the stack was smaller than I thought (one module). Review away. :-) -- 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 190937] Review Request: perl-Module-Install
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-Module-Install https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190937 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||190705 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 187913] Review Request: mysql-query-browser
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: mysql-query-browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187913 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 18:22 EST --- Pretty close, under buildrequires you need to add desktop-file-utils. Without it this package will fail to build 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 190213] 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. Summary: Review Request: gq - Graphical LDAP directory browser and editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190213 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 18:25 EST --- A-ha, I forgot: I need a sponsor. -- 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 190935] Review Request: perl-Module-ScanDeps
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-Module-ScanDeps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190935 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|190937 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 18:34 EST --- Steven, This ticket is a duplicated of 190582. Moving the blocking information there. -- 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 190937] Review Request: perl-Module-Install
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-Module-Install https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190937 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|190935 | -- 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 190582] Review Request: perl-Module-ScanDeps - Recursively scan Perl code for dependencies
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-Module-ScanDeps - Recursively scan Perl code for dependencies https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190582 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||190937 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 190937] Review Request: perl-Module-Install
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-Module-Install https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190937 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||190582 -- 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 190873] Review Request: gnome-ppp - A GNOME 2 WvDial frontend
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: gnome-ppp - A GNOME 2 WvDial frontend https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190873 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 18:53 EST --- Thanks for the review and responding so quickly, Michael. (In reply to comment #1) I no longer have a modem for it to configure, so I have not tested this package. But that is a *should* and not a *must* IMO it should be a MUST and to be honest I haven't thought about that before. I don't have a modem atm ether, so I did not test this package. I rolled this package for my sister who is a complete newby. She manged to setup a connection and is happy with the package, so I guess it must be foolproof. ;) But I'm not sure if modem detection and works properly, so I asked a friend of mine to test this. I'm not going to build or release this, before I receive feedback (because I'm not interested in maintaining a broken piece of software). -- 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
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] 2006-05-06 19:05 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) My only concern now with the current package naming (ghc-gtk2hs) is: what happens if/when one day we want to build/package gtk2hs with another Haskell compiler or interpreter (say nhc98, jhc or hugs)? In that sense using a more generic name for the source package (eg just gtk2hs) might be better after all? (We can still have a ghc-gtk2hs subpackage of course even in this case.) Yes, that would make sense for the source package. I suppose it is not required to have an main RPM matching the name of the SRPM. I thought, maybe better not split the packages into separate packages for gconf, etc... The largest package is gtk anyway. We would have: ghc-gtk2hs ghc642-gtk2hs nhc98-gtk2hs nhc98-118-gtk2hs etc... This would be much simpler. -- 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 190873] Review Request: gnome-ppp - A GNOME 2 WvDial frontend
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: gnome-ppp - A GNOME 2 WvDial frontend https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190873 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 19:15 EST --- It will use /dev/modem by default - I *think* udev will create /dev/modem symlink if hardware is present, so modem detection would only be necessary if fedora itself did not pick it up (or more than one is present). Even if detection fails, /dev/ttySN manually configured should 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 190873] Review Request: gnome-ppp - A GNOME 2 WvDial frontend
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: gnome-ppp - A GNOME 2 WvDial frontend https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190873 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 19:58 EST --- Right, gnome-ppp is just calling wvdialconf anyway, so this doesn't really matter. Imported into CVS, build for devel. Closing. -- 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] 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. Summary: Review Request: gq - Graphical LDAP directory browser and editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190213 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Keywords||Reopened Resolution|NOTABUG | OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 21:08 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) A-ha, I forgot: I need a sponsor. Then you should note close this bug but at it do the FE-NEEDSPONSOR tracker bug ;) Done and reopened. -- 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 190583] Review Request: perl-Test-Differences - Test strings and data structures and show differences if not ok
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-Test-Differences - Test strings and data structures and show differences if not ok https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190583 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 21:52 EST --- Things build OK and the test suite says that it passes, but test 01text_vs_data is really noisy and looks like it should be failing. I'm guessing it's just stray output from the test. * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, uses macros consistently, and follows 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: e4fa76bb11b0d1db2d4213390413f5af Test-Differences-0.47.tar.gz e4fa76bb11b0d1db2d4213390413f5af Test-Differences-0.47.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=7, Tests=23, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.22 cusr + 0.08 csys = 0.30 CPU) * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a 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 190949] New: Review Request: gaim-gaym
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=190949 Summary: Review Request: gaim-gaym 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.comcast.net/~ckweyl/gaim-gaym.spec SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/gaim-gaym-0.96-1.fc5.src.rpm Description: This package provides a protocol plugin for the popular instant messaging program, gaim. If you want to be able to chat on gay.com via gaim, install 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 183912] Review Request: jack-audio-connection-kit - The Jack Audio Connection Kit
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: jack-audio-connection-kit - The Jack Audio Connection Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183912 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 22:49 EST --- I'm sorry I'm late to comment on this thread... too bad I was not made aware of it till today. I have not yet looked at the spec file but I would recommend packaging the clock_fix branch of Jack CVS. Otherwise Jack will not work correctly on machine equipped with Athlon X2 processors - it will use the TSC for internal timing and will (given enough time) spew loads of warning messages as the TSC's of both processors drift apart. That CVS branch takes care of that. Paul (Davis) was going to merge it (with changes) to current CVS a couple of days ago but I don't know if it was done. I'm successfully using (and packaging) the clock_fix branch. -- 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 190582] Review Request: perl-Module-ScanDeps - Recursively scan Perl code for dependencies
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-Module-ScanDeps - Recursively scan Perl code for dependencies https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190582 [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
