[Bug 195645] Review Request: rasqal - RDF query 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: rasqal - RDF query library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195645
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 02:15 EST ---
Builds fine on x86_64 development. rpmlint has this to say:
W: rasqal invalid-license LGPL or Apache 2.0
W: rasqal-debuginfo invalid-license LGPL or Apache 2.0
W: rasqal-devel invalid-license LGPL or Apache 2.0
rpmlint likes to see "Apache License" but still doesn't know what to do with the
version; I would suggest using "LGPL or Apache License 2.0".
W: rasqal no-version-in-last-changelog
W: rasqal-debuginfo no-version-in-last-changelog
W: rasqal-devel no-version-in-last-changelog
The accepted changelog format includes "version-release" after the email
address.
E: rasqal binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/roqet ['/usr/lib64']
You should eliminate the use of rpath if at all possible. You can do this by
adding BuildRequires: libtool, then adding "LIBTOOL=/usr/bin/libtool" on the
make line, and deleting any *.a files when you delete the *.la files. I've
verified that this works but you should retest the package to make sure nothing
has broken.
Additional comments about the specfile:
%makeinstall should not be used. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#MakeInstall
Consider adding %{?_smp_mflags} to the make line. In addition, your passing of
OPTIMIZE doesn't seem to have any effect; gcc is still called with the
appropriate options even after deleting it.
You use %{__make}, but don't use %{__rm} or %{__install}. Macro use should be
consistent; it is up to you to use the style you prefer, but you should not mix
styles.
These are all pretty minor, and fixing them up doesn't seem to harm anything,
but you should still test things out.
Also, there seems to be an extensive test suite included. I added a quick
%check section and it seems there are some off failures and such all over. I'm
not sure if that's expected behavior or not.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194479] Review Request: php-idn
Please 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-idn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194479 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 02:02 EST --- MUST: = * rpmlint output is clean * Package and spec file named appropriately * Packaged according to packaging guidelines * License (GPL) ok, license file included * spec file is legible and in Am. English. * Source matches upstream * Compiles and builds on FC5-i386 * BR: ok * No locales * No shared libraries (its a plugin) * 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 * no -devel package needed, no libs / .la files. * no gui -> no .desktop file required MUST fix: = The use of php-config before the php-devel BR is resolved, see above. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194479] Review Request: php-idn
Please 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-idn
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194479
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 01:50 EST ---
Ok,
I've found the following "hack" for this, add at the top of your specfile:
# Useful defaults when building in chroots on systems where PHP is unavailable
# during the get BR step of the build
%define default_apiver 20041225
%define php_apiver %((echo %{default_apiver}; php -i 2>/dev/null | sed -n 's/^P
And then change the Requires line to:
Requires: php-api = %{php_apiver}
The same should be done for php-magickwand btw.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194479] Review Request: php-idn
Please 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-idn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194479 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 01:46 EST --- On my current testing system I get this: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpmbuild -ba /usr/src/redhat/SPECS/php-idn.spec sh: php-config: command not found awk: cmd. line:1: fatal: cannot open file `/main/php.h' for reading (No such file or directory) error: line 12: Version required: Requires: php-api = This is because php-devel isn't installed yet, its BuildRequired, but rpmbuild first fully parses the spec before checking BR, so this fails. Some discussion on the mailinglist about a similar problem with python on FC-4 has lead me to believe that the same will happen on the buildsys when building under mock. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177580] Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177580 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 01:04 EST --- Ok, Paul Howarth, can you do one more iteration using the _libdir thingie for (hopefully) future consistency with other mono packages? Then I'll take a second look and approve it assuming nothing is wrong. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 Bug 193807 depends on bug 193806, which changed state. Bug 193806 Summary: Review Request: libsvg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193806 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 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 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 Bug 192432 depends on bug 193807, which changed state. Bug 193807 Summary: Review Request: libsvg-cairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193807 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 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 177584] Review Request: zaptel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zaptel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177584 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 21:26 EST --- Hey Jeff. I am looking at this next since I started reviewing zaptel-kmod... Do you have an updated srpm/spec to review? Any chance of a patch to allow you to use 'make install'? Any udev changes to do diffrent things vs diffrent udev versions? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177583] Review Request: zaptel-kmod
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: zaptel-kmod
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177583
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 21:18 EST ---
ok, finally found some time to reboot my main asterisk box to the
latest fc5 kernel so I could try this out. Everythings working fine
with your:
asterisk-zaptel-1.2.9.1-1.fc5
asterisk-zaptel-1.2.9.1-1.fc5
asterisk-sounds-default-1.2.9.1-1.fc5
asterisk-1.2.9.1-1.fc5
zaptel-1.2.6-3.fc5
kmod-zaptel-smp-1.2.6-6.2.6.16_1.2133_FC5
So, time to start in on some reviews. :)
OK - Package name
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
N/A - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
c6058b74f43ae12a29e486cf1e919562 zaptel-1.2.6.tar.gz
c6058b74f43ae12a29e486cf1e919562 zaptel-1.2.6.tar.gz.1
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
N/A - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
N/A - Spec handles locales/find_lang
N/A - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
N/A - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
N/A - -doc subpackage needed/used.
N/A - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
N/A - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
N/A - .pc files in -devel subpackage.
N/A - .so files in -devel subpackage.
N/A - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
N/A - .la files are removed.
N/A - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
See below - No rpmlint output.
Issues:
1. Still need the "A publishable explanation from the author(s) why
the module is not merged with the mainline kernel yet and when it's
planed to get merged. You of course can ask the author to explain
it directly in the bug report." and approval from
FESCo at the next meeting.
2. Fair pile of rpmlint output, most of which can be ignored I think:
This would need to be fixed in kmodtool:
W: kmod-zaptel summary-not-capitalized zaptel kernel module(s)
W: kmod-zaptel unstripped-binary-or-object
/lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/wctdm.ko
(repeats for each .ko in each subpackage.)
I think this one is due to the name of the package vs the postin...
the scriptlet has the right kernel name, the package has a extra _
in place of a -
E: kmod-zaptel postin-with-wrong-depmod
/lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/zaptel.ko
(repeats for each .ko in each subpackage.)
Can be ignored:
W: kmod-zaptel no-documentation
If you are not applying these, perhaps they should be dropped:
W: zaptel-kmod patch-not-applied Patch0: zaptel-config.patch
W: zaptel-kmod patch-not-applied Patch2: zaptel-optflags.patch
3. "Reviewers of kernel modules should diff the proposed kernel module
packages against the template. Only the names and the way the modules
itself are build should differ. There shouldn't be other differences
without a good reason."
I can't seem to get the current template from the wiki. The link seems to
be:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/KernelModules?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=kmod-template.spec
which doesn't work.
4. Finally: (Although we aren't at approval yet)
"Everyone can review such a package, but after is was set to
APPROVED by the reviewer a Fedora Extras Sponsor or someone
experienced with kernel modules has to take a quick look at
the package and post an additional approved notice before
it is allowed to import the package into CVS."
It would be great if one of the experenced kernel module folks
could look over this once we reach approval.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187609] Review Request: tre - POSIX compatible regexp library with approximate matching
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tre - POSIX compatible regexp library with approximate matching https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187609 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 18:56 EST --- Still here, sorry for the long silence. I'll try to update all of my requests over the weekend. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187609] Review Request: tre - POSIX compatible regexp library with approximate matching
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tre - POSIX compatible regexp library with approximate matching https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187609 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 18:32 EST --- Ping Dominik: Are you still interested in packaging this? If I don't hear back from you in a bit more, I will close this review request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193479] Review Request: xwrits
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xwrits https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193479 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 18:26 EST --- I would be happy to review this and potentially sponsor you... you might want to take a look at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored Look for a review coming sometime this weekend... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195735] Review Request: Evolution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Evolution https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195735 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Component|Package Review |evolution -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195735] Review Request: Evolution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Evolution https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195735 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Core Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG Component|Package Review |Package Review OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 17:53 EST --- this is not a request for review of a new package in extras plase file a bug against evolution In Fedora Core. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195735] Review Request: Evolution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Evolution https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195735 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: Evolution |Review Request: Evolution Version|devel |fc5 Severity|normal |low -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195735] New: Review Request: Evolution
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=195735 Summary: Review Request: Evolution Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: SRPM URL: Description: Removing Evolution also removes Gnome. Very annoying. Fix by reinstall Gnome-session, Gnome-panel, etc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177580] Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177580 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 17:30 EST --- #37 - the packaging guidelines are being discussed on IRC quite a bit. spot and I gave them a good thrashing the other night and more or less, the things up on the wiki are fine (for now). The only bit missing is the info I've added on this bug for noarch That said, it is supposed to be going before the ratification people for packaging sometime soon, so something should be coming out nicely from that. For now, keep with the libdir hack (until rpmbuild is fixed), change to noarch and I can't see any real reason why this can't be approved - it certainly fits the mono criteria as it stands (for what it's worth - I'm just some guy you know ;-p) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193479] Review Request: xwrits
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xwrits https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193479 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 17:26 EST --- Re-adding comment in that was lost from bugzilla crash: --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 09:41 EST --- Sorry for the delay. The current spec/src.rpm were the new ones, but you're correct that I should have bumped the release number. I've done that and uploaded new versions: http://people.redhat.com/jlayton/xwrits/xwrits.spec http://people.redhat.com/jlayton/xwrits/xwrits-2.22-2.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 192430] Review Request: python-kiwi - Framework for Python GUI applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-kiwi - Framework for Python GUI applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192430 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 17:22 EST --- http://blues.mcgill.ca/~icon/fe/python-kiwi.spec http://blues.mcgill.ca/~icon/fe/python-kiwi-1.9.8-0.3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194353] Review Request: gdk-pixbuf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gdk-pixbuf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194353
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 17:21 EST ---
Since I need this for xosd, here's a review:
The URL's in comment #1 aren't right, I assume you meant:
http://people.redhat.com/mclasen/review/gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0-24.src.rpm
http://people.redhat.com/mclasen/review/gdk-pixbuf.spec
OK - Package name
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (LGPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
05fcb68ceaa338614ab650c775efc2f2 gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0.tar.bz2
05fcb68ceaa338614ab650c775efc2f2 gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0.tar.bz2.1
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
N/A - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
N/A - Spec handles locales/find_lang
OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
N/A - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
N/A - -doc subpackage needed/used.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
N/A - .pc files in -devel subpackage.
OK - .so files in -devel subpackage.
OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
See Below - .la files are removed.
N/A - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
See below - No rpmlint output.
Issues:
1. Source: line is wrong, should be:
ftp://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/%{name}/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
2. URL: line is generic www.gnome.org. Is there a home URL?
Possibly: http://developer.gnome.org/arch/imaging/gdkpixbuf.html ?
3. Should 'build_gnome' be always 0 on fedora? Perhaps remove the conditional
entirely. (since this is gnome1, right?)
4. Perhaps remove the old AS21 automake cruft conditionals?
5. .la files should be removed always, should just remove the flags controlling
that.
6. Is there any need for the .a static libs?
7. rpmlint output:
W: gdk-pixbuf buildprereq-use gnome-libs-devel
W: gdk-pixbuf buildprereq-use audiofile
W: gdk-pixbuf buildprereq-use /usr/bin/automake-1.4
buildprereq-use :
The use of BuildPreReq is deprecated, build dependencies are always required
before a package can be built. Use plain BuildRequires instead.
E: gdk-pixbuf broken-syntax-in-scriptlet-requires BuildPrereq: gnome-libs-devel
E: gdk-pixbuf broken-syntax-in-scriptlet-requires BuildPrereq: audiofile
E: gdk-pixbuf broken-syntax-in-scriptlet-requires BuildPrereq:
/usr/bin/automake-1.4
broken-syntax-in-scriptlet-requires :
Requires(pre,post) is accepted by rpm but leads to strange behaviour.
You should use Requires(pre) and Requires(post) instead.
W: gdk-pixbuf-devel no-documentation
That one can be ignored, but the others should be 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 177580] Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177580 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 17:11 EST --- #35 Yes that may work for other mono packages too, and afaik it doesn't work for ALL mono packages, thats why PFJ came up with the libdir hack, I agree your version is better, but if the uglier version works in all cases then I vote to use the uglier version in all cases for consistency. That will also make it easier to write up some mono packaging guidelines (which we badly need). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177580] Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177580
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 16:57 EST ---
#34, yes, the libdir {_exec_prefix}/lib hack
#35 That should work fine under x86_64 - I'd need to test it though.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 16:50 EST --- All blockers fixed -> Approved! If you create an account in the account system and sign the CLA as described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors Then I'll sponsor you, after which you can import the package into CVS as described on the same page. It could be that you already have an account since you contribute to other areas of Fedora, in that case add yourself to the cvsextras group. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177580] Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177580
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 16:47 EST ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> I'm not sure that:
> - Use %%{_prefix}/lib rather than %%{_libdir}, needed for 64-bit builds
>
> Is the proper fix, this might work for lat, because its ./configure
> appearantly
> ignores %libdir, but it won't work for other noarch mono packages, I believe
> the
> libdir hack is the "correct" solution for this. Yes in combination with noarch
> and the %target hack, ain't mono fun to package?
I suspect that many mono packages will completely ignore libdir. To test this
hypothesis, I tried making these changes to PFJ's gtksourceview-sharp package
(Bug #178901):
$ diff -u gtksourceview-sharp.spec.orig gtksourceview-sharp.spec
--- gtksourceview-sharp.spec.orig 2006-06-16 21:28:20.0 +0100
+++ gtksourceview-sharp.spec2006-06-16 21:38:07.0 +0100
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
%define extra 0.10
-%define debug_package %{nil}
+#define debug_package %{nil}
Summary: A C sharp binder for gtksourceview
Name: gtksourceview-sharp
@@ -11,9 +11,16 @@
URL: http://go-mono.com/sources/%{name}-%{version}/
Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildRequires: mono-data, mono-devel, gtk-sharp2, gtksourceview-devel,
gtk-sharp2-gapi, gecko-sharp2, pkgconfig
+BuildRequires: which
Requires: mono-core, gtksourceview
BuildArch: noarch
+# Horrible, horrible, mono hacks
+%define _target_platform sparc86x-%{_vendor}-%{_target_os}%{?_gnu}
+%define monolibdir %{_prefix}/lib
+# To see if any attention is paid to %_libdir
+%define _libdir /opt/lib
+
%description
gtksourceview-sharp is a C sharp binder for gtksourceview
@@ -31,7 +38,7 @@
%build
export MONO_SHARED_DIR=%{_builddir}/%{?buildsubdir}
-%configure --target=sparc86x
+%configure
make %{?_smp_mflags}
%install
@@ -45,12 +52,12 @@
%doc AUTHORS COPYING INSTALL NEWS README
%{_datadir}/gapi-2.0/gtksourceview-api.xml
%{_datadir}/gtksourceview-1.0/language-specs/nemerle.lang
-%{_libdir}/mono/gac/gtksourceview-sharp/*
-%{_libdir}/mono/gtksourceview-sharp-2.0/gtksourceview-sharp.dll
+%{monolibdir}/mono/gac/gtksourceview-sharp/*
+%{monolibdir}/mono/gtksourceview-sharp-2.0/gtksourceview-sharp.dll
%files devel
%defattr (-,root,root,-)
-%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/gtksourceview-sharp-2.0.pc
+%{monolibdir}/pkgconfig/gtksourceview-sharp-2.0.pc
%clean
%{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}
It built OK for me on i386, and since it ignored my change of libdir to
/opt/lib, I believe it would build on x86_64 too. Obviously this is too small a
sample to use as a basis for setting general guidelines, but it does indicate
that lat is not alone in ignoring libdir.
I think that changing libdir is a more horrible hack that what I've done, and
I'd prefer to keep the horribleness level down as low as possible :-)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177580] Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177580 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 16:39 EST --- (In reply to comment #33) > As to this, you *must* statically define libdir - currently rpmbuild is broken > (quite badly by the looks of it for noarch), so this is the only way to ensure > the build works on all architectures. > What do you mean with staticly define, I assume you mean the libdir hack aka: %define _libdir /usr/lib at the top of the spec, right? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177580] Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177580 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 16:25 EST --- I've not seen the reports from last Thursday's FESco meeting and they're not on the wiki yet (latest one on there is the 1st June). As to this, you *must* statically define libdir - currently rpmbuild is broken (quite badly by the looks of it for noarch), so this is the only way to ensure the build works on all architectures. By the looks of it as well .pc files on noarch aren't working either (well, not properly) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192430] Review Request: python-kiwi - Framework for Python GUI applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-kiwi - Framework for Python GUI applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192430 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 16:24 EST --- Hmm.. This is goofier than that. Gazpacho is also noarch, so it never installs in lib64. I'll just modify the specfile to always install in /usr/lib. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194279] Review Request: kdeartwork: Additional artwork (themes, sound themes, ...) for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdeartwork: Additional artwork (themes, sound themes, ...) for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194279 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 15:39 EST --- FYI, see also bug #195480, regarding kdeartwork's dep on xscreensaver. Maybe splitting-out the xsc-dependant bits will be a reasonable option. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Keywords||Reopened Resolution|NEXTRELEASE | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 15:33 EST --- While restoring bugzilla state based on bug emails, I seem to have inadvertently closed this bug as NEXTRELEASE, when it was a dependent bug that had previously been closed. Reopening, and setting to ASSIGNED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185951] Review Request: amsn : msn messenger clone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: amsn : msn messenger clone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185951 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-16 15:08 EST ---
(In reply to comment #18)
Hello,
> MUST fix:
> =
> * Source0 is wrong (my fault) it should be:
> Source0: http://dl.sf.net/sourceforge/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
> * the common symlink is broken now due to your changes it now points to
> common,
> whereas it should point to ../common
>
I've updated it and dropped the knetstats-1.5-kde.patch
Spec URL: http://beta.glwb.info/knetstats/knetstats.spec
SRPM URL: http://beta.glwb.info/knetstats/knetstats-1.5-7.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 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] 2006-06-16 14:19 EST --- > Nope, when you install a package while running gnome and it doesn't properly > call gtk-update-icon-cache the icon doesnot show in the menu, atleast not > during that session. I've made that mistake myself enough times to > know this. Sounds more like a gtk2 bug that it doesn't validate it's icon cache. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 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 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hardinfo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 14:14 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) > - Fix BR, add wich, pciutils-devel You need BR pciutils for /sbin/lspci (checked for by configure) What about the other points from comment #1? Also needed runtime requires: xdpyinfo (glx-utils) glxinfo (xorg-x11-utils) lspci (pciutils) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-16 14:12 EST ---
MUST:
=
* rpmlint output is clean
* Package and spec file named appropriately
* Packaged according to packaging guidelines
* License (GPL) ok, license file included
* spec file is legible and in Am. English.
* Source matches upstream
* Compiles and builds on devel-x86_64
* BR: ok
* ocales properly handled
* No 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
* no -devel package needed, no libs / .la files.
* .desktop file as required and properly installed
MUST fix:
=
* Source0 is wrong (my fault) it should be:
Source0: http://dl.sf.net/sourceforge/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
* the common symlink is broken now due to your changes it now points to common,
whereas it should point to ../common
(In reply to comment #17)
> Re: comment #15
> > And yes you need the gtk-update-icon-cache for KDE-apps too, because
> >you want the icon to show properly in the gnome applications menu.
>
> FYI, only the 'touch' is strictly required for proper function (and adherance
> to
> the fdo icon spec). gtk-update-icon-cache only improves gtk2's icon loading
> performance.
Nope, when you install a package while running gnome and it doesn't properly
call gtk-update-icon-cache the icon doesnot show in the menu, atleast not during
that session. I've made that mistake myself enough times to know this.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185951] Review Request: amsn : msn messenger clone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: amsn : msn messenger clone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185951 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 13:55 EST --- Sorry for the delay in the review. I'll do a full review this weekend. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hardinfo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 13:52 EST --- - Fix BR, add wich, pciutils-devel Spec URL: http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/hardinfo/hardinfo.spec SRPM URL: http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/hardinfo/hardinfo-0.4-2.fc6.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 177580] Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177580
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 13:48 EST ---
Paul Howarth,
I'm not sure that:
- Use %%{_prefix}/lib rather than %%{_libdir}, needed for 64-bit builds
Is the proper fix, this might work for lat, because its ./configure appearantly
ignores %libdir, but it won't work for other noarch mono packages, I believe the
libdir hack is the "correct" solution for this. Yes in combination with noarch
and the %target hack, ain't mono fun to package?
Paul F. Johnson,
Any opinions on this and has anything been decided on this on last Thursday's
FESco meeting?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 171039] Review Request: geos
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171039 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|fedora-extras- | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | CC||fedora-package- ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC|fedora-package- | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | CC||fedora-extras- ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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 190940] Review Request: tangerine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tangerine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190940 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 13:37 EST --- Spec URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/tangerine/tangerine.spec SRPM URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/tangerine/tangerine-0.2.3-3.src.rpm * Sat Jun 10 2006 Brian Pepple <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 0.2.3-3 - Add requires for pkgconfig on devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 171040] Review Request: postgis
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: postgis https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171040 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 13:36 EST --- More then a week has passed and no reply closing as wontfix. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177413] Review Request: geda-gattrib - attribute editor for gEDA project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda-gattrib - attribute editor for gEDA project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177413 Bug 177413 depends on bug 177109, which changed state. Bug 177109 Summary: Review Request: geda-symbols - symbol repository for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177109 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||WONTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177113] Review Request: geda-gnetlist - netlist generator for gEDA circuit design software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda-gnetlist - netlist generator for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177113 Bug 177113 depends on bug 177109, which changed state. Bug 177109 Summary: Review Request: geda-symbols - symbol repository for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177109 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||WONTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177110] Review Request: geda-gsymcheck - symbol checker for gEDA circuit design software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda-gsymcheck - symbol checker for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177110 Bug 177110 depends on bug 177109, which changed state. Bug 177109 Summary: Review Request: geda-symbols - symbol repository for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177109 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||WONTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177115] Review Request: geda-utils - utilities for gEDA circuit design software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda-utils - utilities for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177115 Bug 177115 depends on bug 177109, which changed state. Bug 177109 Summary: Review Request: geda-symbols - symbol repository for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177109 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||WONTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177109] Review Request: geda-symbols - symbol repository for gEDA circuit design software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda-symbols - symbol repository for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177109 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 13:35 EST --- Closing as won't fix because of non repsonsiveness of the submitter see bug 177106 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177414] Review Request: geda - project manager for gEDA project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda - project manager for gEDA project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177414 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 13:33 EST --- Closing as won't fix because of non repsonsiveness of the submitter see bug 177106 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177415] Review Request: geda-docs - documentation for gEDA project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda-docs - documentation for gEDA project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177415 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 13:32 EST --- Closing as won't fix because of non repsonsiveness of the submitter see bug 177106 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177416] Review Request: geda-examples - some examples for gEDA project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda-examples - some examples for gEDA project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177416 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 13:32 EST --- Closing as won't fix because of non repsonsiveness of the submitter see bug 177106 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 180205] Review Request: gnome-menu-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: gnome-menu-editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180205 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|CANTFIX |WONTFIX OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 13:32 EST --- Hmm, how did this end up as can'tfix anyways properly closing as wontfix since more then a week has passed and removing the FE-NEW and FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker bugs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177413] Review Request: geda-gattrib - attribute editor for gEDA project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda-gattrib - attribute editor for gEDA project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177413 Bug 177413 depends on bug 177107, which changed state. Bug 177107 Summary: Review Request: libgeda - library for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177107 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||WONTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177115] Review Request: geda-utils - utilities for gEDA circuit design software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda-utils - utilities for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177115 Bug 177115 depends on bug 177107, which changed state. Bug 177107 Summary: Review Request: libgeda - library for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177107 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||WONTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177110] Review Request: geda-gsymcheck - symbol checker for gEDA circuit design software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda-gsymcheck - symbol checker for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177110 Bug 177110 depends on bug 177107, which changed state. Bug 177107 Summary: Review Request: libgeda - library for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177107 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||WONTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177106] Review Request: libgdgeda - graphical library for gEDA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libgdgeda - graphical library for gEDA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177106 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177107 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 177113] Review Request: geda-gnetlist - netlist generator for gEDA circuit design software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda-gnetlist - netlist generator for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177113 Bug 177113 depends on bug 177107, which changed state. Bug 177107 Summary: Review Request: libgeda - library for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177107 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||WONTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177108] Review Request: geda-gschem - schematic editor for gEDA circuit design software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda-gschem - schematic editor for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177108 Bug 177108 depends on bug 177107, which changed state. Bug 177107 Summary: Review Request: libgeda - library for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177107 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||WONTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177107] Review Request: libgeda - library for gEDA circuit design software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libgeda - library for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177107 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] BugsThisDependsOn||177106 OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 13:29 EST --- Closing as won't fix because of non repsonsiveness of the submitter see bug 177106 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177107] Review Request: libgeda - library for gEDA circuit design software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libgeda - library for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177107 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] BugsThisDependsOn||177106 OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 13:29 EST --- Closing as won't fix because of non repsonsiveness of the submitter see bug 177106 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177413] Review Request: geda-gattrib - attribute editor for gEDA project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda-gattrib - attribute editor for gEDA project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177413 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 13:29 EST --- Closing as won't fix because of non repsonsiveness of the submitter see bug 177106 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177115] Review Request: geda-utils - utilities for gEDA circuit design software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda-utils - utilities for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177115 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 13:28 EST --- Closing as won't fix because of non repsonsiveness of the submitter see bug 177106 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177113] Review Request: geda-gnetlist - netlist generator for gEDA circuit design software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda-gnetlist - netlist generator for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 13:28 EST --- Closing as won't fix because of non repsonsiveness of the submitter see bug 177106 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177110] Review Request: geda-gsymcheck - symbol checker for gEDA circuit design software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda-gsymcheck - symbol checker for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177110 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 13:28 EST --- Closing as won't fix because of non repsonsiveness of the submitter see bug 177106 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177108] Review Request: geda-gschem - schematic editor for gEDA circuit design software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda-gschem - schematic editor for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 13:27 EST --- Closing as won't fix because of non repsonsiveness of the submitter see bug 177106 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177107] Review Request: libgeda - library for gEDA circuit design software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libgeda - library for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177107 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|177106 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177106] Review Request: libgdgeda - graphical library for gEDA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libgdgeda - graphical library for gEDA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177106 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX OtherBugsDependingO|163778, 177107, 177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 13:26 EST --- Agreed closing as won't fix. A student at my daytime job (I'm an electronics teacher at a university) uses geda for some projects. I'm stimulating him to become an FE contributer and for starters to pick geda. So I hope we will get geda into FE in a reasonable timeframe through him. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194279] Review Request: kdeartwork: Additional artwork (themes, sound themes, ...) for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdeartwork: Additional artwork (themes, sound themes, ...) for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194279 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 13:02 EST --- Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kdeartwork.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/kdeartwork-3.5.3-5.src.rpm %changelog * Fri Jun 16 2006 Rex Dieter 3.5.3-5 - patch for kdeclassic missing Inherits= (even though it *should* already implicity Inherits=hicolor ?) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195692] Review Request: guichan - Portable C++ GUI library for games using Allegro, SDL and OpenGL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: guichan - Portable C++ GUI library for games using Allegro, SDL and OpenGL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195692 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 12:53 EST --- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 00:44 EST --- MUST * name matches upstream * BSD license ok, license file included * Spec file legible and in Am. English * Sources match upstream: f68b6c603c4fb3d70a8737f916214a35 guichan-0.4.0-src.tar.gz * No excessive BR: * Owns all directories that it creates * No duplicate %files * file permissions look ok * Not relocatable * ldconfig called where needed * macro use consistent * headers and unversioned .so files in -devel package * RPM_BUILD_ROOT cleaned where needed * No .la files * no -doc subpackage needed * devel require base using fully versioned dependency * No .desktop file needed * Compiles and builds on: FC4-i386, FC4-x86_64, FC5-i386, FC5-x86_64 MUSTFIX === * Remove the leading 'A' from the summary * Remove the empty Requires: line * Add the following in %prep to prevent the trigger of calls to autoxxx: touch aclocal.m4 Makefile.in */Makefile.in */*/Makefile.in */*/*/Makefile.in touch include/config.hpp.in QUESTIONS = * why the 'cp -a' in %prep? Just use %doc docs/html/* to pick up all of the files. - Doesn't compile on FC-6 due to missing autoxxx. The 'touch' commands above should fix that. --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 12:19 EST --- Package Updated: Spec URL: http://www.devin.com.br/eitch/rpm/fedora/SPECS/guichan.spec SRPM URL: http://www.devin.com.br/eitch/rpm/fedora/5/SRPMS/guichan-0.4.0-2.src.rpm Changes: - Using libGL-devel instead of mesa-libGL-devel in BuildRequires - Put documentation under -devel instead of a whole -doc - Touch "autoxxx" files to take out autoxxx commands use in devel - Add proper location do doc files (/usr/share/doc/xxx/html) Notes: Took out the cp -a command and get a %doc docs/html intead of docs/html/*. This should put documentation in proper place. --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 21:35 EST --- All MUSTFIX items fixed. I learned another trick on f-e-l to fix the autoxxx issue. Instead of touching all of the Makefiles, you can restore the original timestamps on configure/configure.in with: touch -r configure configure.stamp touch -r configure.in configure.in.stamp %patch -p1 touch -r configure.stamp configure touch -r configure.in.stamp configure.in No need to change this before checking in, but's it's good to know for future reference. APPROVED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 22:43 EST --- Package imported and built into devel. Closing. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195692] New: Review Request: guichan - Portable C++ GUI library for games using Allegro, SDL and OpenGL
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=195692 Summary: Review Request: guichan - Portable C++ GUI library for games using Allegro, SDL and OpenGL 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 NOTE: Re-doing the bug entry because of the bugzilla outage. Spec URL: http://www.devin.com.br/eitch/rpm/fedora/SPECS/guichan.spec SRPM URL: http://www.devin.com.br/eitch/rpm/fedora/5/SRPMS/guichan-0.4.0-1.src.rpm Description: Guichan is a small, efficient C++ GUI library designed for games. It comes with a standard set of widgets and can use several different objects for displaying graphics and grabbing user input. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 180205] Review Request: gnome-menu-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: gnome-menu-editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180205 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195303] Review Request: perl-POE
Please 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-POE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 12:05 EST --- Wait -- ok, something weird is happening. I see in the latest repoclosure reports that perl-POE is failing with an unsatisfied requires: Summary of broken packages in fedora-extras-5-i386: -- perl-POE-0.3501-2.fc5.noarch requires perl(POE::Resource::Controls) Yet perl-POE clearly provides perl(POE::Resources::Controls) = 1903. What's going on here? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195303] Review Request: perl-POE
Please 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-POE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 11:49 EST --- Ok, sounds like they should be filtered. (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > (In reply to comment #5) > > > Are you saying that an unversioned Provides: A will satisfy Requires: A > > > >= 99? > > > > Yes. > > It'll also satisfy Requires: A < 99 at the same time :-) > > An unversioned provide is like providing all possible versions; it's like a > wildcard version. How is this not a bug in rpm 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 193110] Review Request: python-sexy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-sexy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193110 [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 195683] New: Review Request: smarteiffel - The GNU Eiffel Compiler and Libraries
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=195683 Summary: Review Request: smarteiffel - The GNU Eiffel Compiler and Libraries 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://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/spec/smarteiffel.spec SRPM URL: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/smarteiffel-2.2-3.src.rpm Description: SmartEiffel is a small, portable implementation of the Eiffel OO programming language. Eiffel cleanly implements all the important concepts of OO programming, including: multiple inheritance, genericity, polymorphism, and encapsulation. Eiffels unique feature is Design By Contract, which increases the reusability and reliability of program modules. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193059] Review Request: ibmasm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ibmasm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193059 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 11:24 EST --- FYI: I tested the ibmasm-3.0-5 on a fresh FC5 install with selinux=0 and the package 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 195678] New: Review Request: redland-bindings - bindings for the redland RDF 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=195678 Summary: Review Request: redland-bindings - bindings for the redland RDF 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: https://apestaart.org/thomas/trac/browser/pkg/fedora.extras/redland-bindings/redland-bindings.spec SRPM URL: http://thomas.apestaart.org/download/pkg/fedora-5-i386-extras/redland-bindings-1.0.4.1-1.fc5/redland-bindings-1.0.4.1-1.fc5.src.rpm Description: Redland is a library that provides a high-level interface for RDF (Resource Description Framework) implemented in an object-based API. It is modular and supports different RDF/XML parsers, storage mechanisms and other elements. Redland is designed for applications developers to provide RDF support in their applications as well as for RDF developers to experiment with the technology. This module adds bindings for perl, python and ruby -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193059] Review Request: ibmasm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ibmasm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193059 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 11:06 EST --- Created an attachment (id=131048) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=131048&action=view) Dmesg output after installing ibmasm under FC5 - SELinux label error SELinux does not have ibmasmfs labelled. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177106] Review Request: libgdgeda - graphical library for gEDA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libgdgeda - graphical library for gEDA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177106 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 10:54 EST --- It's not looking good. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193059] Review Request: ibmasm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ibmasm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193059 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 10:48 EST --- Update: Registration is pending on sourceforge. Once that is up, I will re-do the package to have the right Source. In the meantime, I updated the spec with comments, patched it a bit to compile it cleanly under FC5 (had some warnings) Spec URL: http://www.darnok.org/ibmasm/3.0-5/SRPMS/ibmasm.spec SRPM URL: http://www.darnok.org/ibmasm/3.0-5/i386/ibmasm-3.0-5.i386.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 195292] Review Request: Openbox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Openbox https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||195412 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 195412] Review Request: obconf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: obconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195412 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||195292 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 10:34 EST --- Adding bug dependency on Openbox's review request, as this uses its -devel subpackage as a build requirement. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195659] Review Request: qt4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qt4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195659 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 10:09 EST --- See also qt4 Extras review, bug #188180 -- 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 195666] New: Review Request: mod_fcgid
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=195666 Summary: Review Request: mod_fcgid Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/mod_fcgid/mod_fcgid.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/mod_fcgid/mod_fcgid-1.09-8.fc5.src.rpm Description: mod_fcgid is a binary-compatible alternative to the Apache module mod_fastcgi. mod_fcgid has a new process management strategy, which concentrates on reducing the number of fastcgi servers, and kicking out corrupt fastcgi servers as soon as possible. This package contains a loadable SELinux policy module to support its operation when built on FC5 or later. Hopefully the review process for this package will help to find any SELinux-related issues, and also reveal if there are any issues with the SELinux-related scriptlets for systems using different policies, or even with SELinux disabled. The long-term plan is to submit this policy for inclusion in the SELinux reference policy and remove it from 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 195659] Review Request: qt4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qt4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195659 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 09:54 EST --- I can't view your submission, nor bug #191134, but I'd suggest you start with qt4 already Extras. -- 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 195659] Review Request: qt4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qt4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195659 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 09:43 EST --- there still exists an Qt4 packe for FC4/5/devel -- 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 195659] Review Request: qt4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qt4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195659 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 09:30 EST --- please take a log at #191134 -- 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 195659] New: Review Request: qt4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195659 Summary: Review Request: qt4 Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: porkchop:/home/devel/than/qt4.spec SRPM URL: porkchop:/home/devel/than/qt4-4.1.3-1.src.rpm Description: Qt is a GUI software toolkit which simplifies the task of writing and maintaining GUI (Graphical User Interface) applications for the X Window System. Qt is written in C++ and is fully object-oriented. This package contains the shared library needed to run qt applications, as well as the README files for qt. -- 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 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] 2006-06-16 09:02 EST --- Re: comment #15 > And yes you need the gtk-update-icon-cache for KDE-apps too, because >you want the icon to show properly in the gnome applications menu. FYI, only the 'touch' is strictly required for proper function (and adherance to the fdo icon spec). gtk-update-icon-cache only improves gtk2's icon loading performance. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195647] New: Review Request: redland
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=195647 Summary: Review Request: redland 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: https://apestaart.org/thomas/trac/browser/pkg/fedora.extras/redland/redland.spec SRPM URL: http://thomas.apestaart.org/download/pkg/fedora-5-i386-extras/redland-1.0.4-1.fc5/redland-1.0.4-1.fc5.src.rpm Description: Redland is a library that provides a high-level interface for RDF (Resource Description Framework) implemented in an object-based API. It is modular and supports different RDF/XML parsers, storage mechanisms and other elements. Redland is designed for applications developers to provide RDF support in their applications as well as for RDF developers to experiment with the technology. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195645] New: Review Request: rasqal - RDF query 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=195645 Summary: Review Request: rasqal - RDF query 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: https://apestaart.org/thomas/trac/browser/pkg/fedora.extras/rasqal/rasqal.spec SRPM URL: http://thomas.apestaart.org/download/pkg/fedora-5-i386-extras/rasqal-0.9.12-1.fc5/rasqal-0.9.12-1.fc5.src.rpm Description: Rasqal is a library providing full support for querying Resource Description Framework (RDF) including parsing query syntaxes, constructing the queries, executing them and returning result formats. It currently handles the RDF Data Query Language (RDQL) and SPARQL Query language. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195303] Review Request: perl-POE
Please 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-POE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 06:32 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > Are you saying that an unversioned Provides: A will satisfy Requires: A >= > > 99? > > Yes. It'll also satisfy Requires: A < 99 at the same time :-) An unversioned provide is like providing all possible versions; it's like a wildcard version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191200] Review Request: lvm2-cluster
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lvm2-cluster https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191200 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 06:28 EST --- (In reply to comment #18) > > E: lvm2-cluster non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/clvmd 0555 > > What's rpmlint complaining about? It's got the executable bits and it can't > be > written to by a non-root user. Some would argue 0111 would be better, but > this > is a distribution so there's little to gain from a security-by-obscurity > argument as it's trivial for a user to get hold of a copy of the binary from > elsewhere. > > - Ignoring. (rpmlint bug?) Using perms 755 would shut rpmlint up. > > E: lvm2-cluster postin-without-ldconfig /usr/lib/liblvm2clusterlock.so.2.02 > > E: lvm2-cluster library-without-ldconfig-postun > /usr/lib/liblvm2clusterlock.so.2.02 > > OK: the packaging installation process doesn't run ldconfig automatically yet > so it has to be included in every spec file that handles shared libraries. > > However, other packages look to have '%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig' and I've > googled and searched the Fedora wiki and the new online book you mentioned, > but > as usual, I can't find documentation for what I need to know, viz. what '-p' > does and whether you're meant to use it if there are other commands to run in > the same section. The -p option specifies the script interpreter to use for the scriplet. "%post -p /sbin/ldconfig" with an empty script is a standard idiom for running a single program in the scriptlet without having to use a shell. > For safety, opted for: > %post > /sbin/chkconfig --add clvmd > /sbin/ldconfig > > %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig That's correct usage, > > E: lvm2-cluster non-standard-executable-perm > /usr/lib/liblvm2clusterlock.so.2.02 0555 > > Puzzling: I thought linux wanted both the read and execute bits to be set these days > on shared objects, not just the read bit (which is all that's required at the kernel > level). > > - Ignoring. (rpmlint bug?) rpmlint is expecting mode 755 as per most other libs in /usr/lib > > W: lvm2-cluster devel-file-in-non-devel-package > > /usr/lib/liblvm2clusterlock.so > > Seems overkill to create a lvm2-cluster-devel package containing just > one symlink? I don't spot other packages with shared libraries doing > that. > > - Ignoring. $ rpm -qlp xorg-x11-drv-i810-devel-1.6.0-4.i386.rpm /usr/lib /usr/lib/libI810XvMC.so (that package should not be owning /usr/ilb) > > W: lvm2-cluster-debuginfo dangling-relative-symlink > /usr/src/debug/LVM2.2.02.06/include/lvm-types.h ../lib/datastruct/lvm-types.h > > W: lvm2-cluster-debuginfo dangling-relative-symlink > /usr/src/debug/LVM2.2.02.06/include/log.h ../lib/log/log.h > > W: lvm2-cluster-debuginfo dangling-relative-symlink > /usr/src/debug/LVM2.2.02.06/include/list.h ../lib/datastruct/list.h > > I've never done anything with debuginfo packages before. > Is this a bug in whatever bit of rpm generates them? Yes. > I've installed the 'lvm2' debuginfo package, and it has a similar problem. > > I don't understand enough about how debuginfo packages are used to know > whether > the problem is the symlink that shouldn't be there, or if it's the file at > the > end of it that shouldn't be missing. I believe it's the latter. > On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 02:27:07PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > A standard executable should have permission set to 0755. If you get > > this > > message, it means that you have a wrong executable permissions in some > > files > > included in your package. > > Oh! So it prefers the owner of the executable to have write permission. > The file is owned by root so owner write is irrelevant, but it's better not > to set it IMHO as that gives out the wrong message, suggesting it's a file > other applications might want to modify: for example, editors will often warn > the file is read-only if you try to modify it even as root. > > I think that 'Error' from rpmlint should be downgraded to 'information', and > it should be inverted - warning if the owner write bit is *set* on an > executable. Fair comment, > The ones I mentioned in the email I'd already put into > lvm2-cluster-2_02_06-1_2. > > Probably still missing the requires for ldconfig though. Perhaps. I can't see the spec file so I don't know. -- 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 182254] Review Request: SS5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: SS5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182254 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 04:25 EST --- Ok, I'm getting the account. What about step regarding client build installation? Is it necessary or can I proceed to CVS? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195401] Review Request: osgcal - Adapts OpenSceneGraph to use Cal3D
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: osgcal - Adapts OpenSceneGraph to use Cal3D
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195401
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 04:19 EST ---
Review for this package:-
MUST Items:
- MUST: rpmlint shows no error
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name matching the base package osgcal, in the format
osgcal.spec
- MUST: This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license
LGPL.
- MUST: The License field in the package osgcal.spec file matches the
actual license file LGPL in tarball.
- MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct.
- MUST: This package owns all directories that it creates.
- MUST: This package did not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
- MUST: This package have a %clean section, which contains %{__rm} -rf
%{buildroot}.
- MUST: This package contains shared library files located in the dynamic
linker's default paths, therefore this package is calling ldconfig in %post and
%postun.
- MUST: This package used macros.
- MUST: Document files are included like README.
- MUST: This pcakge contains devel package also, devel package requires
the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
- MUST: This Package did contained any .la libtool archives
- MUST: libraries are included in a -devel package.
- MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) are in a -devel 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 195420] Review Request: clips - Tools for developing expert systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clips - Tools for developing expert systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195420 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 03:41 EST --- * Doesn't bpg.pdf properly belong to the main package? It doesn't contain anything about the C interface, AFAIK. * Is it really necessary to use /usr/include/clips-6.23/clips instead of just /usr/include/clips. I don't see there is much chance of parallel install of different versions of clips-devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195420] Review Request: clips - Tools for developing expert systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clips - Tools for developing expert systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195420 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 03:34 EST --- * Problem: CLIPS (V6.23 01/31/05) CLIPS> (help) Loading help file entries from /usr/share/clips/clips.hlp. Please wait... [TEXTPRO1] Could not open file "/usr/share/clips/clips.hlp". CLIPS> same with xclips * I would use XCLIPS instead of xclips as the name in the .desktop 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 195420] Review Request: clips - Tools for developing expert systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clips - Tools for developing expert systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195420 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 03:31 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > * xclips should have a .desktop file Ok, sorry, I didn't see 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 195420] Review Request: clips - Tools for developing expert systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clips - Tools for developing expert systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195420 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 03:27 EST --- Ok, builds fine now. * rpmlint is silent on clips, clips-devel and clips-x11 however on clips-debuginfo: E: clips-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/clips-6.23/clipssrc/prntutil.c etc... simply chmod 0644 the sources files (in the %prep section for example) * I used to bundle http://www.ghg.net/clips/download/executables/examples/AllExamples.tar.Z with the package. I think this would be helpful. * xclips should have a .desktop 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
