[Bug 187828] Review Request: log4net - A tool to output log statements to a variety of output targets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: log4net - A tool to output log statements to a variety of output targets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187828 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 01:31 EST --- Build failed: dos2unix: command not found Is that log4net.key file a key you generated? I think that should be commented in the spec, where it came from. The %_libdir macro isn't going to work. I have not got to that part of the build yet but I am reasonably sure it'll install to /usr/lib on x86_64 and fail. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187818] Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187818 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 00:36 EST --- Roland, did you get your account set up? I recall from another open ticket that John Mahowald was going to sponsor you, but I didn't see your request cross the account 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 191350] Review Request: perl-Spreadsheet-ParseExcel
Please 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-Spreadsheet-ParseExcel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191350 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 23:55 EST --- rpmlint complains: E: perl-Spreadsheet-ParseExcel no-binary Unfortunately the package can't be noarch because of the map file, so this is acceptable. BuildRequires: perl is not necessary (not a blocker). The documentation is over half of the size of the package, but the total package size is small so I don't think it's necessary to place it in a subpackage. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. * source files match upstream: 6ee6257d4b66cb9e147a0b50603d1387 Spreadsheet-ParseExcel-0.2603.tar.gz 6ee6257d4b66cb9e147a0b50603d1387 Spreadsheet-ParseExcel-0.2603.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. O BuildRequires are proper (BR: perl is unnecessary). * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). O rpmlint has only ignorable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel) = 0.2603 perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel::Cell) perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel::Dump) perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel::FmtDefault) = 0.05 perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel::FmtJapan) = 0.05 perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel::FmtJapan2) = 0.05 perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel::FmtUnicode) = 0.05 perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel::Font) perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel::Format) perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel::SaveParser) = 0.01 perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel::SaveParser::Workbook) = 0.06 perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel::SaveParser::Worksheet) perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel::Utility) perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel::Workbook) perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel::Worksheet) perl-Spreadsheet-ParseExcel = 0.2603-1.fc6 - perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Exporter) perl(Jcode) perl(OLE::Storage_Lite) perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel) perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel::FmtDefault) perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel::FmtJapan) perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel::Utility) perl(Spreadsheet::WriteExcel) perl(Unicode::Map) perl(constant) perl(overload) perl(strict) perl(vars) * 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 the single test passes: PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-Iblib/lib" "-Iblib/arch" test.pl 1..1 ok 1 * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. O documentation is relatively 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 193787] Review Request: scite - Scintilla based text 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: scite - Scintilla based text editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193787 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 23:43 EST --- For what it's worth: I'm currently a Fedora Ambassador for Colombia. I know Extras and Ambassadors are separate projects, but I became a Fedora Ambassador precisely because I want to be involved with Fedora and help in anyway possible. Anyway, I'll try yo get more involved in RRs discussions :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193929] Review Request: knetstats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: knetstats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193929 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||163776 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 193787] Review Request: scite - Scintilla based text 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: scite - Scintilla based text editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193787 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 23:10 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) (dynamically linking scintilla) > It can surely be done, but it would require a lot of work and I don't think > it's > worth it. I can understand that; I was merely curious as to its feasibility since it seems cleaner. But if it's not intended to work that way then there's not much point. > I see your point, but I'm very sorry to hear this. Though I haven't made any > comments on other RRs I've been following the discussions for a while > (fedora-extras-list included). Well, you can always go ahead and make a review comments. (You can't assign bugs to yourself or change their status but you can make comments.) We're really just trying to establish two things: that you understand the packaging guidelines and you're willing to commit to maintaining your packages in the long term. We can guage the former by looking at review comments and the quality of packages you've submitted, but it's hard to guage the latter so we have to look at depth of community involvement. Your quick response to comments is encouraging, and if you have anything you'd like to point me at that would help to reassure me, I'd be happy to take a look. The package itself is fine, although I'd still have to do a full review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189892] Review Request: dssi - Disposable Soft Synth Interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dssi - Disposable Soft Synth Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189892 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 22:19 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) > He told me in IRC the BSD license is in fact the MIT license according to the > OSI, which looks about right to me: Fixed... Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/dssi.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/dssi-0.9.1-6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193787] Review Request: scite - Scintilla based text 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: scite - Scintilla based text editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193787
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 22:10 EST ---
Hi Jason,
I've updated the spec file and SRPM:
Spec URL: http://calle255.org/scite/scite.spec
SRPM URL: http://calle255.org/scite/scite-1.69-2.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #2)
> The license seems to me to be equivalent to the MIT license
> (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php); that's what I'd use in
the License: field.
I've changed the license to MIT. Like you said both licenses are functionally
equivalent (it is also what Wikipedia says). Now rpmlint doesn't give any
warnings.
> You don't seem to use %{optflags};
Fixed.
>
> It seems that scintilla is built separately and then statically linked in. Is
> it reasonable at all to build in a separate package and then dynamically link
it in?
It can surely be done, but it would require a lot of work and I don't think it's
worth it. Upstream isn't very interested on making scintilla a shared-library
and their recommendation has always been to static-link software using it.
Also, scite and scintilla are released together so I'm pretty sure using
different versions of scite/scintilla together will break things. The only
distro I know of that made scite/scintilla independent packages (making scite
dynamically linked) is PLD and it seems they are not doing it anymore.
Nevertheless, if you feel this is a major issue I'll try to fix it ;)
> Finally, I just wanted to make sure you understand that sponsorship is
> generally
> granted only after you've demonstrated familiarity with the packaging
> guidelines; generally you do this by commenting on other packages up for
> review.
> I personally am reluctant to sponsor someone after looking at just a single
> submitted package.
I see your point, but I'm very sorry to hear this. Though I haven't made any
comments on other RRs I've been following the discussions for a while
(fedora-extras-list included).
This isn't my first RPM but it's my first package for Extras so I'm doing my
best to get it right. If you think I'm not following any of the
PackagingGuidelines please let me know.
Jorge.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189892] Review Request: dssi - Disposable Soft Synth Interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dssi - Disposable Soft Synth Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189892 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 22:07 EST --- Alright, tibbs was going to post here, but then that's when BZ went down. He told me in IRC the BSD license is in fact the MIT license according to the OSI, which looks about right to me: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php He also said the license tag should accurately describe package's license, if rpmlint complains then its a bug in rpmlint. So the main package should probably be "MIT/Public Domain". Though I suppose public domain is "convertible" to any other license by definition... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189375] Re-Review Request: Maelstrom: space combat game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Re-Review Request: Maelstrom: space combat game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189375
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 22:06 EST ---
> E: Maelstrom standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/icons
>
> - Change the %files line to %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/*
>
> W: Maelstrom buildprereq-use SDL-devel, SDL_net-devel
> E: Maelstrom broken-syntax-in-scriptlet-requires BuildPrereq: SDL-devel,
> SDL_net-devel
>
> - Change BuildPrereq: to BuildRequires:
Both fixed.
> MUSTFIX
> ===
> * See rpmlint notes above
> * BR: SDL-devel is redundant. It's picked up by SDL_net-devel
> * License is GPL, not LGPL
> * License file is included in upstream tarball, but not in %doc
> * Makefile and Makefile.in should not be included in
> /usr/share/Maelstrom/Images or %{_docdir}/Docs
All fixed.
> * There is a questionable clause in the COPYING file:
>"The artwork and sounds used by Maelstrom are copyright Ambrosia Software
>(http://www.ambrosiasw.com) and may not be redistributed separately from
>the Maelstrom public GPL release."
Upstream queried.
> SHOULD
> ==
> * The following is a nice shell trick, but would be more readable if each
>file were removed individually, one per line.
>
>rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/{Maelstrom-netd,macres,playwave,snd2wav}
>
>...change to...
>
>rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/Maelstrom-netd
>rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/macres
>(and so on)
A. Don't ever read the filesystem spec file. :)
> * The BuildRoot tag is almost there. From
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines:
>%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Fixed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189374] Re-Review Request: jed: an editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Re-Review Request: jed: an editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189374
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 21:53 EST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Just did a quick mock build (development, x86_64). rpmlint is unhappy:
>
> W: jed prereq-use /sbin/install-info
* Tue May 4 2004 Bill Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0.99.16-4
- remove info page (#115826)
Oops.
> W: jed buildprereq-use slang-devel >= 2.0, autoconf, libselinux-devel
>
> BuildRequires: should be used instead.
Syntax changed.
> W: jed hardcoded-path-in-buildroot-tag
> /var/tmp/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root
>
> Please use %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> as the buildroot.
Fixed.
> W: jed patch-not-applied Patch3: jed-multilib.patch
>
> I assume you have reasons for not applying patch3.
Didn't apply, forgot to remove it from the spec.
> E: jed obsolete-not-provided jed-common
> E: jed obsolete-not-provided jed-xjed
>
> You should provide these so that upgrades work and so that any packages which
> might depend on them don't break.
These were obsoleted in 2002. Nothing should require them. (And, technically,
it doens't really obsolete xjed - we just stopped building it because it's
a bad idea.)
> E: jed binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/jed ['/usr/lib64']
>
> rpath is bad and should be removed if at all possible. I'll dig into this
> further if necessary.
Nah, I'll dig it out. Probably bad autoconf somewhere.
> W: jed doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/jed-0.99.18/doc/tm/rtl/tm-sort.sl
> /usr/bin/env
> W: jed doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/jed-0.99.18/doc/tm/rtl/whatelse.sl
> /usr/bin/env
>
> Documentation should not be executable.
Fixed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190664] Review Request: keyutils - Kernel key management userspace utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: keyutils - Kernel key management userspace utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190664 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 21:52 EST --- David, do you have an updated SRPM? Ralf never committed to a review but from from reading this ticket it looks like the package should be fine. I'll be happy to do a formal review if I have the final SRPM to work with. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193480] Review Request: sunifdef
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: sunifdef
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193480
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 21:43 EST ---
Please put the "make check" into a %check section
--- sunifdef.spec~ 2006-06-03 03:30:41.0 +0200
+++ sunifdef.spec 2006-06-03 03:30:41.0 +0200
@@ -33,6 +33,8 @@
%build
%configure
make %{?_smp_mflags}
+
+%check
make check
%install
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177512] Review Request: mysql-connector-net
Please 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-connector-net https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177512 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 21:40 EST --- Is this actually under review? It's assigned, but still blocking FE-NEW instead of FE-REVIEW. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193470] Review Request: renrot - A program to rename and rotate files according to EXIF tags
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: renrot - A program to rename and rotate files according to EXIF tags https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193470 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 21:37 EST --- rpmlint complains: E: renrot non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/renrot 0555 Should be 755. The only other issue is minor; BuildRequires: perl is not required. This is not a blocker. Since the only real issue is fixed up by a quick chmod, I'll go ahead and approve this and you can fix it when you check in. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. * source files match upstream: b3261caa8ed7a6c87add693310feb9b9 renrot-0.20.tar.gz b3261caa8ed7a6c87add693310feb9b9 renrot-0.20.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. O BuildRequires are proper (BR: perl is redundant) * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). X rpmlint complains about mode 555 file. * final provides and requires are sane: config(renrot) = 0.20-1.fc6 renrot = 0.20-1.fc6 - /usr/bin/perl config(renrot) = 0.20-1.fc6 libjpeg >= 6b perl >= 0:5.006 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(Image::ExifTool) perl(Time::Local) perl(Time::localtime) perl(strict) * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. X file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * 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, provided you fix the permissions on /usr/bin/renrot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193470] Review Request: renrot - A program to rename and rotate files according to EXIF tags
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: renrot - A program to rename and rotate files according to EXIF tags https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193470 [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 187846] Review Request: pam_keyring
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pam_keyring https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187846 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 21:04 EST --- A quick look; builds on in mock on x86_64, development. rpmlint says: E: pam_keyring zero-length /usr/share/doc/pam_keyring-0.0.7/FAQ W: pam_keyring non-standard-dir-in-usr libexec FAQ shouldn't be shipped. The libexec warning is bogus. This looks good enough that I might as well do a full review. In fact, since the only issue is the empty FAQ I'll go ahead and approve this and you can fix it when you check in. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * source files match upstream: b50ff42708c0f49bc10d6cd16d182b39 pam_keyring-0.0.7.tar.gz b50ff42708c0f49bc10d6cd16d182b39 pam_keyring-0.0.7.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). X rpmlint has one valid complaint * final provides and requires are sane: pam_keyring.so()(64bit) pam_keyring = 0.0.7-1 - gnome-keyring >= 0.4.8 gnome-session >= 2.10.0 libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgnome-keyring.so.0()(64bit) pam >= 0.99.3 pam_keyring.so()(64bit) * shared libraries are present but internal to pam * 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 not present; no test suite upstream. * 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; just don't package the empty FAQ file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193933] New: Review Request: freepops - free webmails to pop3 daemon
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=193933 Summary: Review Request: freepops - free webmails to pop3 daemon 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://rpm.landshark.net/LSN-i386/RPMS.lsn-fc5-extras/SRPMS/freepops.spec SRPM URL:http://rpm.landshark.net/LSN-i386/RPMS.lsn-fc5-extras/SRPMS/freepops-0.0.98-3.fc5.lsn.src.rpm Description: FreePOPs is a daemon that acts as a local pop3 server, translating local pop3 requests to remote http requests to supported webmails. Notes: - This is my first Fedora Extras submission, and needs to be sponsored -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193929] Review Request: knetstats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: knetstats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193929 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 20:03 EST --- Hello, there is my first package to fedora extras :) I have 2 issues with it though: 1. how can I add a link to the menu ? 2. I can't compile it with QA_RPATHS=$[ 0x0001|0x0010 ]. Any Workaround ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193929] Review Request: knetstats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: knetstats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193929 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |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 193929] New: Review Request: knetstats
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=193929 Summary: Review Request: knetstats 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://beta.glwb.info/knetstats/knetstats.spec SRPM URL: http://beta.glwb.info/knetstats/knetstats-1.5-1.src.rpm Description: A simple KDE network monitor that show rx/tx LEDs or numeric information about the transfer rate of any network interface in a system tray icon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192043] Review Request: ucblogo - An interpreter for the Logo programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ucblogo - An interpreter for the Logo programming language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192043 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 19:41 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) > Would it be ok to BR: /usr/bin/tex? Then this doesn't have to change in > the spec-file between FC5 and FC6. The current texinfo package in FC4 and FC5 provides texinfo-tex, so there should be no need for a separate spec for those releases. > I can move them to site-lisp if you want. I don't think it makes much difference either way, but if it's easy then it would be more consistent to do it that way. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189322] Review Request: rosegarden4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rosegarden4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 18:33 EST --- Actually the updated package I'm sitting on uses %find_lang. Today I plan to finish up my dssi review, which is the last remaining soft-dependency for this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193783] Review Request: mesa-mangled - Mangled Mesa graphics libraries for off-screen rendering
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mesa-mangled - Mangled Mesa graphics libraries for off-screen rendering https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193783 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 17:15 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) > Not a Review but some comments on SRC package > rpmlint gives > W: mesa-mangled invalid-license MIT/X11 Well, this is what the mesa package in core is, not that is an excuse. In fact it looks more complicated than that: Mesa Component Licenses Component Location Primary Author License Main Mesa codesrc/mesa/ Brian Paul Mesa (MIT) Device driverssrc/mesa/drivers/* See drivers See drivers Ext headers include/GL/glext.h SGI SGI Free B include/GL/glxext.h SGI GLU library src/glu/sgi/ SGI SGI Free B So, perhaps "Distributable" is better? Suggestions anyone? > W: mesa-mangled strange-permission redhat-mesa-target 0755 These are scripts executed during package build. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193884] Review Request: tolua++ - A tool to integrate C/C++ code with Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tolua++ - A tool to integrate C/C++ code with Lua https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193884 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 17:02 EST --- Thanks a lot, this should fix all those issues. Spec URL: http://dribble.org.uk/tolua++.spec SRPM URL: http://dribble.org.uk/tolua++-1.0.92-2.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 192043] Review Request: ucblogo - An interpreter for the Logo programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ucblogo - An interpreter for the Logo programming language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192043 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 16:38 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) > The SRPM link seems wrong; I found > http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/ucblogo-5.5-2.src.rpm which > I > hope is correct. Yes, it is. > The build fails due tue to lack of /usr/bin/tex; I think this is part of the > texinfo-tex thing. I changed to BR: texinfo-tex and things seem to build > fine. Would it be ok to BR: /usr/bin/tex? Then this doesn't have to change in the spec-file between FC5 and FC6. > > I wonder if it's a good idea to just drop a file into > /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/site-start.d/ without owning that directory. I > checked what other packages do and the examples I found seem to own it. Ok. > Most > also seem to drop the .el files into /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp instead of > keeping them with the package as ucblogo does, but I don't think this is a problem. I can move them to site-lisp if you want. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192432] Review Request: compiz
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: compiz https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192432 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 16:34 EST --- I have never see this spec file, and find this kind of practice really bad! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184582] Review Request: xchm - A GUI front-end to CHMlib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xchm - A GUI front-end to CHMlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184582 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 16:06 EST --- New version here: http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/xchm-1.8-1.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 184582] Review Request: xchm - A GUI front-end to CHMlib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xchm - A GUI front-end to CHMlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184582 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 16:05 EST --- New version here: http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/xchm-1.8.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 193480] Review Request: sunifdef
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sunifdef https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193480 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 16:02 EST --- Updated spec and SRPM reflecting all of Ralf's comments: Spec URL: http://physics.open.ac.uk/~ju83/sunifdef.spec SRPM URL: http://physics.open.ac.uk/~ju83/sunifdef-1.0-2.src.rpm Regarding the warnings - the package author has got back to me saying he's fixed them and will make a release soon, at which point I'll update the source. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-02 16:01 EST --- (In reply to comment #24) > In reply to comment #22) > > > > Jerks "stopping by and dropping a Review bomb" don't help anybody. They > > > should > > > be sanctioned. > > > > > > If Fedora doesn't have a policy on this, it should be implemented. > > > > > #21 > > well then instead of posting in tons of review requests id suggest to work > > on > > getting a policy out that doesent hurt progress. > > > i dont see it as review bomb. > I do. Just have a look at the timeline of Silke's responses. There are many > months inbetween any response of hers. Have a look at how many times she had > been asked to respond, ... nothing much since ... > Finally, this is not the first incident of this type with Silke - IIRC, the > same > has happened in Fedora.US. - So, I am not negative, I am drawing conclusions > based on former contacts with her. Yes i can see that. i can also see your point of view. but in the end the really important stuff is to change things in general. so there must be a good solution about this. > > As it seems to me, her opinion is, she can "stop by", "drop her spec" and let > others polish it - She should learn she's in error. > > > why not deal with it rather in a manner as with orphaned packages -> > > orphaned > > review request. someone else can take over and can continue to work on the > > existing base. > I am opposed to doing this, because this would encourage people to perform > "drive-by review request bombs". Instead, people should to understand that if > they submit a package for review, it's their baby they are dropping and > they'll > be expected to take care about it in future. > > If that's not acceptable to them, they 'd better stay away from FE. > > > i want progress not wheel reinvention by having someone else starting from > > scratch and having all the stuff repeated over and over. > Well, I am not opposed in somebody else adopting Silke's package. But it won't > be me - I am not her coding-monkey. no one wants to push you into the role of the maintainer. seriously wasnt my intention. > > > gdal is an important key component for various interesting things. > Exactly, that's why I want to see this "damn thing" nailed down. same here. > > Actually, I want > * Silke to wake up and start cooperating > or > * some volunteer to take over her package > or > * somebody closing this RR, giving others the liberty of resubmitting a new > one. like above id still say that there should be some rules nailed down. > > > also e.g. in the case of initng ... > initng and my other very friend elektra are completely different cases. IMO, > these packages are a million miles away off from being ready for public use. but theres fedora specific work to be done. the initng daemon is ready in the next release probably because all buildwarnings been fixed and it also works on x86_64 pretty well already. the scripts have to be tweaked in a fedora special way at times so theres a good point to start off the work. i can see your point of view that this is development work... but thats life... with a project like replacing the init system you cant just go there alone and fix it up in a day. i think that the bugzilla thread helped alot in getting a dedicated place to get the right things together to fix all open issues that arise or are brought up in this and future release to block it from inclusion into extras. thats the point of a review. i use initng on 2 fedora boxes personally. a thinkpad r51 and a x86_64 desktop box. having the thread really fired up lots of work that might not have happened without it. i wouldnt have looked at it either and also submitted a few small patches upstream already. > > In case of gdal the situation different: This simply is a case of a submitter > being non-responsive for reasons I can only speculate on. yeah but in both cases my conclusion is the same. there needs to be a pinned down rules what is supposed to happen and not. e.g. in this case asking for someone to takeover i think is a better thing. like on the mailinglist. elektra is again completly different because initng offers undoubtfully features certain interest groups are missing yet and theres no comparable other stab at it currently. elektra though is something that requires changes in alot other packages to be useful unless... someone goes and makes bindings to all scripting languages with swig. then people could just use it for some projects if they fill its nice. its there anyways. some people are interested in it enough to maintain a package. I am also not yet sure though if it would be my taste > > > hope you dont take the response as offensive.. its not meant to
[Bug 193071] Review Request: ruby-sqlite3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-sqlite3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193071 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 15:59 EST --- A couple of comments: The guidelines (which I think you wrote) use ruby_sitearchdir instead of ruby_sitearch. Not a big deal but I suppose we should try for consistency since these first few packages will stand as examples. You don't require a specific Ruby version. You manually strip the .so, which is a bad idea because it breaks the debuginfo package. (It ends up empty.) Everything is fine if you delete the call to strip. I'm guessing you saw an rpmlint warning about an unstripped binary; making it executable is sufficient it fix that. I wonder if we're any closer to getting fixed Ruby packages so that we can get the guidelines ratified. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-02 15:46 EST --- (In reply to comment #25) > Regarding gdal, I'd be happy to finish this one off if there are no other > volunteers. It's a bit of a beast due to the dependencies and testing whether > the package is working right is also time consuming. But, as Rudolf noted, > this > package is key to getting the open-source GIS packages into Fedora (QGIS, > Grass, This and the key to next generation game development. i just finished off doing basic packaging of delta3d and all its dependencies... some require a ton of selfwritten patches. i am just about to get stuff upstream and polish everything. i have a full blown gdal package btw... builds on fc5 with all deps dynamically that are important and free. i might put up the yet in extras missing stuff into a special repository on newrpms. some things require more work. and i wont be able to maintain it all. i am just interested in delta3d itsself. if you take over the package we could get in further contact and id be happy to pass you my current work so you can merge stuff you want in. id be also willing to help you with all issues i can help with. > etc) and until its approved, Fedora won't have any GIS applications in the > extras repository. > > I had a package ready last fall but then saw that this submission was already > in > progress. I exchanged emails with Silke back in January to see if she wanted > any > help getting this finished off, but haven't pushed to get closure. > > My vote is to declare this an orphan package and let someone else take it over > and finish it off (either by starting fresh or fixing up what exists). > -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192958] Review Request: ejabberd - A distributed, fault-tolerant Jabber/XMPP server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ejabberd - A distributed, fault-tolerant Jabber/XMPP server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192958 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 15:41 EST --- Just took a quick look at this and I'm having trouble figuring out these rpmlint complaints: W: ejabberd no-soname /usr/lib64/ejabberd-1.1.1/priv/lib/expat_erl.so W: ejabberd no-soname /usr/lib64/ejabberd-1.1.1/priv/lib/iconv_erl.so W: ejabberd no-soname /usr/lib64/ejabberd-1.1.1/priv/lib/stringprep_drv.so W: ejabberd no-soname /usr/lib64/ejabberd-1.1.1/priv/lib/ejabberd_zlib_drv.so W: ejabberd no-soname /usr/lib64/ejabberd-1.1.1/priv/lib/tls_drv.so "rpmlint -i" is no help, but inspecting the rpmlint source shows that it's calling objdump --headers --private-headers and grepping for "SONAME". Indeed, those libraries don't show one. Unfortuantely I've no idea how problematic this is or how you'd go about fixing it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193889] Review Request: ht2html - The www.python.org Web site generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ht2html - The www.python.org Web site generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193889 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||193898 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 193896] Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline 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: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||193898 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 193897] Review Request: mysql-connector-java - Official JDBC driver for MySQL
Please 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-connector-java - Official JDBC driver for MySQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193897 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||193898 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 193898] Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193898 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||193889, 193896, 193897 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 15:28 EST --- Adding bug dependencies for all the packages that Jython depends on: * mysql-connector-java * ht2html * libreadline-java -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193898] Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193898 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 193898] New: Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter
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=193898 Summary: Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter 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/ifoox/extras/jython.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/jython-2.2-0.a0.2jpp_1fc.src.rpm Description: Jython is an implementation of the high-level, dynamic, object-oriented language Python seamlessly integrated with the Java platform. The predecessor to Jython, JPython, is certified as 100% Pure Java. Jython is freely available for both commercial and non-commercial use and is distributed with source code. Jython is complementary to Java and is especially suited for the following tasks: Embedded scripting - Java programmers can add the Jython libraries to their system to allow end users to write simple or complicated scripts that add functionality to the application. Interactive experimentation - Jython provides an interactive interpreter that can be used to interact with Java packages or with running Java applications. This allows programmers to experiment and debug any Java system using Jython. Rapid application development - Python programs are typically 2-10X shorter than the equivalent Java program. This translates directly to increased programmer productivity. The seamless interaction between Python and Java allows developers to freely mix the two languages both during development and in shipping products. I am submitting this package with several other packages (5 in total), and these are my first packages for Extras, so they may 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 193897] Review Request: mysql-connector-java - Official JDBC driver for MySQL
Please 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-connector-java - Official JDBC driver for MySQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193897 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||193894 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 15:21 EST --- Adding dependency on the ant-contrib package review bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193894] Review Request: ant-contrib - A collection of tasks for Ant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ant-contrib - A collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193894 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||193897 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 193884] Review Request: tolua++ - A tool to integrate C/C++ code with Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: tolua++ - A tool to integrate C/C++ code with Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193884
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 15:19 EST ---
MUST:
=
* rpmlint output is:
W: tolua++ no-soname /usr/lib64/libtolua++-5.1.so
W: tolua++-devel no-documentation
The no-soname warning must be fixed (see below) the other one is no problem
* Package and spec file named appropriately
* Packaged according to packaging guidelines
* License (Freeware) ok, license file included (but see should fix)
* spec file is legible and in Am. English.
* Source matches upstream
* Compiles and builds on devel-x86_64
* BR: ok
* No locales
* ldconfig properly run for shared libraries
* Not relocatable
* Package owns / or requires all dirs
* No duplicate files & Permissions ok
* %clean & macro usage OK
* Contains code only
* %doc does not affect runtime, and isn't large enough to warrent a sub package
* -devel package as needed (see should fix though)
* no gui -> no .desktop file required
MUST fix:
=
* The rpmlint soname warning, you can fix this by adding:
"LINKFLAGS="-Wl,-soname,lib%{solib}.so"
Should fix:
===
* Replace "License: Freeware Style" with just "License: Freeware"
* The tolua++ binary is a parser/compiler only used when building tolua++
using programs as such it belongs in the -devel subpackage IMHO.
Remarks:
* "BuildRequires: lua-devel => 5.1" shouldn't that be:
"BuildRequires: lua-devel >= 5.1" I'm surprised this even works?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193897] Review Request: mysql-connector-java - Official JDBC driver for MySQL
Please 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-connector-java - Official JDBC driver for MySQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193897 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 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 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 193897] New: Review Request: mysql-connector-java - Official JDBC driver for MySQL
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=193897 Summary: Review Request: mysql-connector-java - Official JDBC driver for MySQL 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/ifoox/extras/mysql-connector-java.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/mysql-connector-java-3.1.12-1jpp_1fc.src.rpm Description: MySQL Connector/J is a native Java driver that converts JDBC (Java Database Connectivity) calls into the network protocol used by the MySQL database. It lets developers working with the Java programming language easily build programs and applets that interact with MySQL and connect all corporate data, even in a heterogeneous environment. MySQL Connector/J is a Type IV JDBC driver and has a complete JDBC feature set that supports the capabilities of MySQL. I am submitting this package with several other packages (5 in total), and these are my first packages for Extras, so they may 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 193896] Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline 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: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 193896] New: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library
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=193896 Summary: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library 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/ifoox/extras/libreadline-java.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/libreadline-java-0.8.0-10jpp_1fc.src.rpm Description: Java-Readline is a port of GNU Readline for Java. Or, to be more precise, it is a JNI-wrapper to Readline. It is distributed under the LGPL. I am submitting this package with several other packages (5 in total), and these are my first packages for Extras, so they may 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 193894] Review Request: ant-contrib - A collection of tasks for Ant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ant-contrib - A collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193894 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 193894] New: Review Request: ant-contrib - A collection of tasks for Ant
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=193894 Summary: Review Request: ant-contrib - A collection of tasks for Ant 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/ifoox/extras/ant-contrib.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/ant-contrib-1.0b2-1jpp_1fc.src.rpm Description: The Ant-Contrib project is a collection of tasks (and at one point maybe types and other tools) for Apache Ant. I am submitting this package with several other packages (5 in total), and these are my first packages for Extras, so they may 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 193889] Review Request: ht2html - The www.python.org Web site generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ht2html - The www.python.org Web site generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193889 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 193889] New: Review Request: ht2html - The www.python.org Web site generator
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=193889 Summary: Review Request: ht2html - The www.python.org Web site generator 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/ifoox/extras/ht2html.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/ht2html-2.0-1jpp_1fc.src.rpm Description: This script is called ht2html because it generates .html files from .ht template files. The format of these .ht files is essentially normal HTML, with a set of optional RFC 2822-like headers at the top of the file. These headers specify certain options that ht2html's various classes support. This is my first package submission to Fedora Extras, so 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 191667] Review Request: poker-engine - Python library that implements poker rules
Please 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-engine - Python library that implements poker rules https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191667 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 192119] Review Request: tuxkart - Kids 3D go-kart racing game featuring Tux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tuxkart - Kids 3D go-kart racing game featuring Tux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192119 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 14:28 EST --- I agree that -lXxf86vm should be linked from plib when it provides .so's, not tuxkart. This patch was what I needed to test on FC4 with the current (patched) plib. The updated package looks good. I verified that the only changes in the source tarball, compared to upstream, are the updated image files. I'll set this to block FE-ACCEPT once the plib library is updated and I can verify that tuxkart still works against the new plib. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192257] Review Request: OpenHPI-2.4.1
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: OpenHPI-2.4.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192257 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 14:25 EST --- We are actually asking for a minor version update. 2.2 to 2.4. 2.2 will be a year old in August. -- 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 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 189010] Review Request: pybaz - Python library bindings for the GNU Arch/Bazaar RCS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pybaz - Python library bindings for the GNU Arch/Bazaar RCS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189010 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 14:06 EST --- In order to get the tests to pass I had to update to the latest stable patch release on the 1.4 branch. Unfortunately, that branch triggered some bugs in epydoc and I had to whip up a quick patch to fix that. The new files are at: http://shahms.mesd.k12.or.us/packages/pybaz.spec http://shahms.mesd.k12.or.us/packages/pybaz-1.4-0.1.20060602arch.patch1.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 192119] Review Request: tuxkart - Kids 3D go-kart racing game featuring Tux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tuxkart - Kids 3D go-kart racing game featuring Tux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192119 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 14:04 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) > Created an attachment (id=130415) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=130415&action=view) [edit] > Fix missing -lXxf86vm on FC4 > > This patch adds a missing X library on FC4. It should also work on FC5/devel, > but my FC5/devel box is down right now so I haven't been able to test it. Thanks, I was and still am surprised -lXxf86vm isn't needed on rawhide. I'm afraid though your fix isn't correct though, plib will soon be a bunch of .so files instead of .a files and then the libpw.so file should be linked against -lXxf86vm not tuxkart itself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192119] Review Request: tuxkart - Kids 3D go-kart racing game featuring Tux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tuxkart - Kids 3D go-kart racing game featuring Tux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192119 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 14:01 EST --- Created an attachment (id=130415) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=130415&action=view) Fix missing -lXxf86vm on FC4 This patch adds a missing X library on FC4. It should also work on FC5/devel, but my FC5/devel box is down right now so I haven't been able to test it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189374] Re-Review Request: jed: an editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Re-Review Request: jed: an editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189374
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 13:57 EST ---
Just did a quick mock build (development, x86_64). rpmlint is unhappy:
W: jed prereq-use /sbin/install-info
I see the Prereq: but I don't see any calls to install-info. The scriptlets at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets?highlight=%28scriptlets%29#head-117e9450bc166ceb4251bf8d87a9dd4e862442a4
should be used to install info pages; Prereq: should not be used in any case;
Requires(pre): is preferred.
W: jed buildprereq-use slang-devel >= 2.0, autoconf, libselinux-devel
BuildRequires: should be used instead.
E: jed broken-syntax-in-scriptlet-requires BuildPrereq: slang-devel >= 2.0,
autoconf, libselinux-devel
Not sure what's up here; it will probably go away when you switch to
BuildRequires:
W: jed hardcoded-path-in-buildroot-tag
/var/tmp/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root
Please use %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
as the buildroot.
W: jed patch-not-applied Patch3: jed-multilib.patch
I assume you have reasons for not applying patch3.
E: jed obsolete-not-provided jed-common
E: jed obsolete-not-provided jed-xjed
You should provide these so that upgrades work and so that any packages which
might depend on them don't break.
E: jed binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/jed ['/usr/lib64']
rpath is bad and should be removed if at all possible. I'll dig into this
further if necessary.
W: jed doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/jed-0.99.18/doc/tm/rtl/tm-sort.sl
/usr/bin/env
W: jed doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/jed-0.99.18/doc/tm/rtl/whatelse.sl
/usr/bin/env
Documentation should not be executable.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193446] Review Request: GLiv: OpenGL image viewer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: GLiv: OpenGL image viewer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193446 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 13:54 EST --- Hi, I updated the SPEC files and rebuilt the rpm (tested a binary build, works too) with the new spec file. On thing I don't understand is the desktop file get named gnome-gliv.desktop though the word "gnome" is not mentionned in the SPEC file... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193342] Review Request: cegui - Free library providing windowing and widgets for graphics APIs / engines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cegui - Free library providing windowing and widgets for graphics APIs / engines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193342 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: cegui - Free|Review Request: cegui - Free |library providing windowing |library providing windowing |and widgets for graphics|and widgets for graphics |APIs / engines> |APIs / engines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193884] Review Request: tolua++ - A tool to integrate C/C++ code with Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tolua++ - A tool to integrate C/C++ code with Lua https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193884 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||193342 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 193342] Review Request: cegui - Free library providing windowing and widgets for graphics APIs / engines>
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cegui - Free library providing windowing and widgets for graphics APIs / engines> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193342 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||193884 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193884] New: Review Request: tolua++ - A tool to integrate C/C++ code with Lua
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=193884 Summary: Review Request: tolua++ - A tool to integrate C/C++ code with Lua 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://dribble.org.uk/tolua++.spec SRPM URL: http://dribble.org.uk/tolua++-1.0.92-1.iss.src.rpm Description: tolua++ is an extended version of tolua, a tool to integrate C/C++ code with Lua. tolua++ includes new features oriented to c++ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192876] Review Request: V2Strip ID3v2(Mp3 Files) tags remover
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: V2Strip ID3v2(Mp3 Files) tags remover https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192876 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 13:25 EST --- Fixed problems in comment #3 SPEC: http://www.netservers.org/packages/rpm/v2strip.spec SRPMS: http://www.netservers.org/packages/rpm/v2strip-0.2.10-2.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 193806] Review Request: libsvg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libsvg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193806 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 12:57 EST --- Thanks for letting me know, I will look into that. For the time being it can be found at http://www.ece.ucdavis.edu/~ewwork/repo/RPM-GPG-KEY-ework. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-02 12:44 EST --- Regarding gdal, I'd be happy to finish this one off if there are no other volunteers. It's a bit of a beast due to the dependencies and testing whether the package is working right is also time consuming. But, as Rudolf noted, this package is key to getting the open-source GIS packages into Fedora (QGIS, Grass, etc) and until its approved, Fedora won't have any GIS applications in the extras repository. I had a package ready last fall but then saw that this submission was already in progress. I exchanged emails with Silke back in January to see if she wanted any help getting this finished off, but haven't pushed to get closure. My vote is to declare this an orphan package and let someone else take it over and finish it off (either by starting fresh or fixing up what exists). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 176374] Review Request: nagios-plugins
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: nagios-plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176374
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 12:40 EST ---
You have to
-Requires: nagios-plugins = %{version}-${release}
+Requires: nagios-plugins = %{version}-%{release}
in two places
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libgeotiff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178162 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 12:37 EST --- Seeing the discussions for the gdal issue, its probably time to ping the reviewers and see what the status of this package is. From my point of view, the issues that have been raised have all been answered - the main issue being the licensing of the EPSG data. As noted above, this package, as well as proj, gdal, etc all come from the same upstream author and all contain the EPSG tables. My research showed that there was no intent from the distributors of this data to exclude it from open-source use. These packages are all available in the debian world. Anyways, if someone can rereview this and let me know if there are still outstanding issues, I'd be happy to address them. We can also consider the upgrade to 1.2.3 now or after submission. PS Note that gdal contains an embedded libgeotiff 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 192043] Review Request: ucblogo - An interpreter for the Logo programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ucblogo - An interpreter for the Logo programming language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192043 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 12:32 EST --- The SRPM link seems wrong; I found http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/ucblogo-5.5-2.src.rpm which I hope is correct. The build fails due tue to lack of /usr/bin/tex; I think this is part of the texinfo-tex thing. I changed to BR: texinfo-tex and things seem to build fine. I'll proceed with the review assuming that change is made. I wonder if it's a good idea to just drop a file into /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/site-start.d/ without owning that directory. I checked what other packages do and the examples I found seem to own it. Most also seem to drop the .el files into /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp instead of keeping them with the package as ucblogo does, but I don't think this is a problem. It looks like the documentation is about 25% of the installed size of the package. The whole package is only 4MB total so I don't think it warrants a separate documentation subpackage. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * source files match upstream: caf68577630645718492fd7d10fd4927 ucblogo-5.5.tar.gz caf68577630645718492fd7d10fd4927 ucblogo-5.5.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. O BuildRequires are proper (after changing to texinfo-tex) O package builds in mock (development, x86_64). (after fixing BR:s) * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: ucblogo = 5.5-2.fc6 - /bin/sh /sbin/install-info libtermcap.so.2()(64bit) * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. ? owns the directories it creates (/usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/site-start.d?) * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * scriptlets present are sane. * code, not content. * documentation is not so small, but not so large that it needs to be in a separate package. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * info files are installed * not a GUI app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185359] Review Request: kchm - CHM file viewer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kchm - CHM file viewer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 12:17 EST --- I forgot to push the builds for all the branches after libchmxx was accepted... It is done now, so it should build. The .la are necessary for kde. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193804] Review Request: glitz
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: glitz https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193804 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||163776 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 193806] Review Request: libsvg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libsvg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193806 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 12:03 EST --- Your GPG key 0x6ee49286 cannot be found on pgp.mit.edu and keyserver.net (home pages: http://pgp.mit.edu/ and http://www.keyserver.net ) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193632] Review Request: tkdnd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: tkdnd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193632
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 12:00 EST ---
Almost there...
It seems that there is a hardcoded "../lib/" path in the Makefile that still
breaks on x86_64 during make install. Since this package only really installs 3
files, it's probably easier to just drop all of these install-file sed commands
and install everything by hand. Here's what I did in %install to do this:
%install
cd unix
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/%{name}-%{version}
install -p -m 0755 ../lib/tkdnd/*.so
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/%{name}-%{version}
install -p -m 0644 ../lib/tkdnd/*.tcl
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/%{name}-%{version}
Note that I added %{version} to the installed directory name, just in case you
ever want to have multiple versions installed at the same time. The %files
section will have to be updated accordingly. You can also drop the sed command
on mkIndex.tcl, since it won't be needed anymore.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192418] Review Request: xbae - Xbae widget set
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xbae - Xbae widget set https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192418 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 11:58 EST --- srpm for the new version, with the .m4 file packaged and new summary http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/xbae-4.60.4-1.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 193807] Review Request: libsvg-cairo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libsvg-cairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193807 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||163776 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 193806] Review Request: libsvg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libsvg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193806 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||163776 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 189093] Review Request: mono-debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mono-debugger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189093 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 11:09 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/mono-debugger.spec SRPM URL: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/mono-debugger-0.12-3.src.rpm Change log Fix for glib2-devel (#2) Added devel package 64 bit architecture fix Spec file tweaks Added --disable-static to the configure line and removed the find line in the installer -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193772] Review Request: Xbae - Matrix, Caption, Input widgets for Motif
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Xbae - Matrix,Caption,Input widgets for Motif https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193772 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 10:39 EST --- Strangely this doesnt seems to be that patch which is in your .src.rpm... I can do the same however. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193787] Review Request: scite - Scintilla based text 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: scite - Scintilla based text editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193787
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 10:38 EST ---
The license seems to me to be equivalent to the MIT license
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php); that's what I'd use in the
License: field.
Some other comments:
You don't seem to use %{optflags}; the package is compiled with -Os instead of
the usual Fedora set (which includes FORTIFY_SOURCE and -g so that proper
debuginfo packages can be generated).
It seems that scintilla is built separately and then statically linked in. Is
it reasonable at all to build in a separate package and then dynamically link it
in? (Keep in mind that I know nothing about scintilla. It does seem that most
of the packages that use scintilla seem to just include a copy of the source,
which may be the best way to handle it.)
Finally, I just wanted to make sure you understand that sponsorship is generally
granted only after you've demonstrated familiarity with the packaging
guidelines; generally you do this by commenting on other packages up for review.
I personally am reluctant to sponsor someone after looking at just a single
submitted 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 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] 2006-06-02 10:37 EST --- In reply to comment #22) > > Jerks "stopping by and dropping a Review bomb" don't help anybody. They > > should > > be sanctioned. > > > > If Fedora doesn't have a policy on this, it should be implemented. > > > #21 > well then instead of posting in tons of review requests id suggest to work on > getting a policy out that doesent hurt progress. > i dont see it as review bomb. I do. Just have a look at the timeline of Silke's responses. There are many months inbetween any response of hers. Have a look at how many times she had been asked to respond, ... nothing much since ... Finally, this is not the first incident of this type with Silke - IIRC, the same has happened in Fedora.US. - So, I am not negative, I am drawing conclusions based on former contacts with her. As it seems to me, her opinion is, she can "stop by", "drop her spec" and let others polish it - She should learn she's in error. > why not deal with it rather in a manner as with orphaned packages -> orphaned > review request. someone else can take over and can continue to work on the > existing base. I am opposed to doing this, because this would encourage people to perform "drive-by review request bombs". Instead, people should to understand that if they submit a package for review, it's their baby they are dropping and they'll be expected to take care about it in future. If that's not acceptable to them, they 'd better stay away from FE. > i want progress not wheel reinvention by having someone else starting from > scratch and having all the stuff repeated over and over. Well, I am not opposed in somebody else adopting Silke's package. But it won't be me - I am not her coding-monkey. > gdal is an important key component for various interesting things. Exactly, that's why I want to see this "damn thing" nailed down. Actually, I want * Silke to wake up and start cooperating or * some volunteer to take over her package or * somebody closing this RR, giving others the liberty of resubmitting a new one. > also e.g. in the case of initng ... initng and my other very friend elektra are completely different cases. IMO, these packages are a million miles away off from being ready for public use. In case of gdal the situation different: This simply is a case of a submitter being non-responsive for reasons I can only speculate on. > hope you dont take the response as offensive.. its not meant to be. Understood. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-02 10:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #22) > why not deal with it rather in a manner as with orphaned packages -> orphaned > review request. someone else can take over and can continue to work on the > existing base. FWIW, something similar happened with milter-regex. I was reviewing it and found it sufficiently interesting that I started using the package myself. For whatever reason, the original poster lost interest in it and after a few unanswered requests, I resubmitted the package myself and closed the original review request as a duplicate of my new one. Somebody else then reviewed "my" package, and it's now in Extras. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 182320] Review Request: gnome-build
Please 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-build https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182320 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||189685 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 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 BugsThisDependsOn|189324 |182320 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189093] Review Request: mono-debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mono-debugger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189093 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|178904 | 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 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|189093 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904 Bug 178904 depends on bug 178900, which changed state. Bug 178900 Summary: Review Request: monodoc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178900 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 178900] Review Request: monodoc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: monodoc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178900 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 10:04 EST --- Dunno, but it can't have been as bad as some of the beer I was drinking while writing some code... Beer and programming don't mix! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193867] New: Review Request: klamav - Clam Anti-Virus on the KDE Desktop
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=193867 Summary: Review Request: klamav - Clam Anti-Virus on the KDE Desktop 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: ftp://andriy.asplinux.com.ua/pub/people/andy/extras/klamav.spec SRPM URL: ftp://andriy.asplinux.com.ua/pub/people/andy/extras/klamav-0.37-1.src.rpm Description: ClamAV Anti-Virus protection for the KDE desktop. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 178900] Review Request: monodoc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: monodoc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178900 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 09:58 EST --- Geez, I wonder what crack I was smokin' yesterday. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-02 09:58 EST --- (In reply to comment #21) > (In reply to comment #20) > > #19 where can i read up about the time limit policy for review requests? > Nowhere. IMO, Silke is simply AWOL and has left this Review request behind. > > > if something like that doesent exist theres no time limits at all in my > > eyes. > Jerks "stopping by and dropping a Review bomb" don't help anybody. They should > be sanctioned. > > If Fedora doesn't have a policy on this, it should be implemented. > #21 well then instead of posting in tons of review requests id suggest to work on getting a policy out that doesent hurt progress. you see everything from a rather negative side. i dont see it as review bomb. more as work in progress. maybe at some point circumstances dont allow the initial poster to continue. closing the bug though will only make the time invested by anyone involved "wasted time" why not deal with it rather in a manner as with orphaned packages -> orphaned review request. someone else can take over and can continue to work on the existing base. i want progress not wheel reinvention by having someone else starting from scratch and having all the stuff repeated over and over. gdal is an important key component for various interesting things. well its a bit offtopic to discuss that here but "blackmailing" review requests is just not the right approach in my eyes... instead wheres the rfe for enhanced review rules? also e.g. in the case of initng ... if you want software that fits well into fedora, fedora people have to have an organized way to work through the stuff. the more replys the more interest into a package -> the more progress and progress and final output is all that really counts in my eyes. everything else is just a waste of all our time. hope you dont take the response as offensive.. its not meant to be. just my opinion on the 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 178900] Review Request: monodoc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: monodoc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178900
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 09:43 EST ---
> rpm --eval '%{_exec_prefix}' --eval '%{_lib}' --eval '%{_libdir}'
/usr
lib64
/usr/lib64
> uname -a
Linux compute19.math.uh.edu 2.6.16-1.2122_FC5 #1 SMP Sun May 21 15:01:10 EDT
2006 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-02 09:34 EST --- (In reply to comment #20) > #19 where can i read up about the time limit policy for review requests? Nowhere. IMO, Silke is simply AWOL and has left this Review request behind. > if something like that doesent exist theres no time limits at all in my eyes. Jerks "stopping by and dropping a Review bomb" don't help anybody. They should be sanctioned. If Fedora doesn't have a policy on this, it should be implemented. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-02 08:44 EST --- #19 where can i read up about the time limit policy for review requests? if something like that doesent exist theres no time limits at all in my eyes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elektra https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #127781|0 |1 is obsolete|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: elektra
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 08:31 EST ---
Version 0.6.2 is available at:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=117521&package_id=127957
(In reply to comment #31)
> ln -sf ../../%{_lib}/libelektra.so.?
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/libelektra.so
Doesn't work. Globs don't work inside specs.
> Wha do you mean by "They are sort of fake"? I had a look at the code, and
> indeed in keyset.c usleep is used although there is no
> #include
> (maybe conditionalized on HAVE_UNISTD_H, with AC_CHECK_HEADERS(unistd.h))
This is happening already. This bug is being fixed by our build system
specialists.
> As a side note, in case you weren't aware, in the usleep man page,
> there is:
>This function is obsolete. Use nanosleep(2) or setitimer(2) instead.
Will be changed post-0.6.2, just released.
> who accepts the dlopened libs in /lib
Patrice Dumas accepted patch moved dlopened backends to /lib/elektra/
(In reply to comment #32)
> As it ships a .pc file, the elektra-devel package should
> Requires: pkgconfig
Dependency added.
How and where to ask for 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 184582] Review Request: xchm - A GUI front-end to CHMlib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xchm - A GUI front-end to CHMlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184582 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 07:23 EST --- Because the review request is from about 2006-03-10. I'll 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 184582] Review Request: xchm - A GUI front-end to CHMlib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xchm - A GUI front-end to CHMlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184582 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-02 06:47 EST --- Why do you not build last xchm (now is the 1.8)? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
