[Bug 189322] Review Request: rosegarden4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rosegarden4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-18 02:40 EST --- Alright, shiny new package update: http://www.haxxed.com/rpms/rosegarden4-1.2.3-2.src.rpm http://www.haxxed.com/rpms/rosegarden4.spec - Removed which from Buildrequires, mock needing it is confirmed to be a bug. - Use find_lang macro. - Look for ladspa plugins in the correct place on x86_64. - Build against liblo, jack, dssi, lirc. - Salvage the upstream desktop file, rather than using our own. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195666] 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.
Summary: Review Request: mod_fcgid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195666
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-18 01:57 EST ---
NEEDSWORK (but not much)
Review for release 8.fc5:
* RPM name is OK
* Source mod_fcgid.1.09.tar.gz is the same as upstream
* Works OK (some of my scripts aren't ready for it though. :-))
* Builds OK in mock (Core 5, i386 and x86_64)
Needs work:
* Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros
(wiki: QAChecklist item 7)
Note from me: Your spec uses a lot of %{_rm} style expansions (rather
than plain ol' whatever-"rm"-is-in-$PATH) so this may confuse rpmlint
et. al. I personally don't have an issue with it as long as it's
readable and consistent.
* The BuildRoot must be cleaned at the beginning of %install
Notes:
* I got the following barf to console when removing the package via
rpm -e (FC5, up-to-date targeted policy)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mfleming]# rpm -e mod_fcgid
/usr/sbin/semodule: SELinux policy is not managed or store cannot be
accessed.
/usr/sbin/semodule: SELinux policy is not managed or store cannot be
accessed.
libsepol.sepol_genbools_array: boolean
allow_httpd_fastcgi_script_anon_write no longer in policy
I do like having the policy there, mind you. I should probably do something
similar for mlmmj (which can be tricky with targeted policy out of the box)
* Would it be possible/useful to scrape the upstream documentation,
primarily for the extra directives info?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177080] Review Request: metisse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: metisse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177080 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|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 186811] Review Request: libnfnetlink - Netfilter netlink userspace 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: libnfnetlink - Netfilter netlink userspace library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186811 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|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 190845] Review Request: sblim
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sblim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190845 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 | nThis|| -- 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 191088] Review Request: mlsutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mlsutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191088 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|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 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-18 00:08 EST --- - Name looks good - Source matches upstream - Builds fine in mock against devel - rpmlint: SRPM: E: kdeartwork unknown-key GPG#ff6382fa kdeartwork: CLEAN kdeartwork-icons: W: kdeartwork-icons no-documentation E: kdeartwork-icons standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/icons One thing. right now this package owns /usr/share/icons/ Aparently it's not alone. rpm -qf /usr/share/icons My box shows 6 packages owning that directory. The guidelines state that your package must own all directories it creates and must not own any directories that another package creates. My suggestion is to go ahead and take out ownership of that directory and file a bugzilla for the filesystem package. If they refuse with a valid reason then I say go ahead and own it. I'll wait for your response (and others) before I approve the package but aside from the ownership issue this package is ready to go, that is of course depending on what you decide to do for #195480 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194481] Review Request: eggdrop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eggdrop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194481 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 23:29 EST --- I don't see a release 4 making use of the patch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195764] Review Request: tcpick
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tcpick https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195764 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 22:48 EST --- versions of FC prior to developmnet/FC6 you have to BuildRequires: libpcap beacuse in all versions prior. the libpcap package had the development files included. to see a sample of how to handle this look at the snort spec file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195764] Review Request: tcpick
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tcpick https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195764 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 20:58 EST --- An alternative would be just to require /usr/include/pcap.h which is independent of the libpcap-devel split in Rawhide - but I see, what the problem is... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195764] Review Request: tcpick
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tcpick https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195764 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 20:52 EST --- libpcap-devel is currently only in Rawhide (and yes it's fixed in Core CVS): core/development/i386/os/Fedora/RPMS/libpcap-devel-0.9.4-7.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 195797] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-ast
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-ast https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195797 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 20:49 EST --- Sure, works for me. What's an ASPEED? -- 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 195764] Review Request: tcpick
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tcpick https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195764 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED], ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] BugsThisDependsOn||193189 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 20:46 EST --- rpmbuild -v -ba tcpick.spec (on FC4) error: Failed build dependencies: libpcap-devel is needed by tcpick-0.2.1-8.i386 found libpcap-devel-0.9.3-2.i686.rpm on rpm.pbone.net which trigger a huge chain of dependency, obviously this is not the way to go. Where can I find libpcap-devel within extra devel tree? (Bug 193189 say "fixed in 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 194481] Review Request: eggdrop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eggdrop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194481 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 20:19 EST --- Package was updated... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-06-17 19:45 EST --- Missed this part too. > Remember that a package can be installed without the docs This one has a little more proper patch that includes the clips.hlp file as well as treating the clips.hlp file as data rather than docs. Spec URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/clips.spec SRPM URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/fedora/5/srpms/clips-6.24-3.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 194481] Review Request: eggdrop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eggdrop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194481 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 19:20 EST --- I am happy for that patch to be used, it should not create any issues. Not sure if upstream will go for it, but there is no harm in trying :) If you want to package it up again, I will do a final review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194481] Review Request: eggdrop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eggdrop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194481 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 19:15 EST --- Unfortunately the language path is hardcoded, the issue could be resolved this way (when accepted). Simultaneously I could open an upstream bug report to get something like a lang-path directive... --- eggdrop1.6.17/src/eggdrop.h 2004-07-25 13:17:34.0 +0200 +++ eggdrop1.6.17/src/eggdrop.h.rsc 2006-06-18 01:19:23.0 +0200 @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ /* Language stuff */ -#define LANGDIR "./language" /* language file directory */ +#define LANGDIR "/usr/share/eggdrop/language" /* language file directory */ #define BASELANG "english"/* language which always gets loaded before all other languages. You do not want to change 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 194481] Review Request: eggdrop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eggdrop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194481 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 18:56 EST --- Yepp, you're right. But I'll have a look into this, maybe a default directory can be specified in the configuration 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 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 18:56 EST --- Closing until Mono guidelines are finalized. Once they are, I'll submit again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190502] Review Request: sportstracker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sportstracker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190502 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|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 190502] Review Request: sportstracker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sportstracker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190502 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 18:55 EST --- Closing until Mono guidelines are finalized. Once they are, I'll submit again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194481] Review Request: eggdrop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eggdrop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194481 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 18:54 EST --- OK, you are probably going to need to have a wrapper script for executing eggdrop itself, as this needs to be done: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ EGG_LANGDIR=/usr/share/eggdrop/language eggdrop To get eggdrop to start working as expected. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194481] Review Request: eggdrop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eggdrop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194481 [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 18:46 EST --- Builds fine on i386 development with mock and its minimal build. Review for release 3: * RPM name is OK * Source eggdrop1.6.17.tar.gz is the same as upstream * This is the latest version * Builds fine in mock * rpmlint looks OK * File list looks OK However.. I installed it try and use it, now I might be a complete nub, but I get this error: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ eggdrop -m eggdrop.conf [10:52] LANG: No lang files found for section core. Eggdrop v1.6.17 (C) 1997 Robey Pointer (C) 2004 Eggheads [10:52] --- Loading eggdrop v1.6.17 (Sun Jun 18 2006) [10:52] * Please make sure you edit your config file completely. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ I have, addlang "English", in my config. so I am not sure if this is a broken package or a broken config. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 18:04 EST --- Thanks for the review. Would you do imlib as well? Its a depend of gdk-pixbuf 1 - done 2 - done 3 - done 4 - done 5 - done 6 - I don't know. Is there any harm in them being there? 7 - fixed New srpm and spec: Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/gdk-pixbuf.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0-25.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 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] 2006-06-17 17:48 EST ---
> * you can now change
> "Cflags: -I${includedir}/clips-6.24"
> to
> "Cflags: -I${includedir}"
Ahh... missed that one.
As for the help file, I was testing directory expansion in autoconf and missed
putting clips.hlp on the end of the string. I put handling of the location of
clips.hlp into configure.in, and used the clips standard file usrsetup.h to
define the autoconf location. That way autoconf can move the help file around
and still handle it in a way that the clips source likes.
These files have a proper pkgconfig entry as well as the fixed help file define.
Spec URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/clips.spec
SRPM URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/fedora/5/srpms/clips-6.24-2.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 195797] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-ast
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-ast https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195797 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 17:43 EST --- *** Bug 195756 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195797] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-ast
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-ast https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195797 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 17:41 EST --- I went ahead and added it to bugzilla as well. -- 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 195797] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-ast
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-ast https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195797 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 17:38 EST --- http://mharris.ca/fedora/core/xorg-x11-drv-ast/xorg-x11-drv-ast.spec http://mharris.ca/fedora/core/xorg-x11-drv-ast/xorg-x11-drv-ast-0.81.0-2.src.rpm -- 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 195797] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-ast
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-ast https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195797 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|188265 |188268 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 17:37 EST --- Package meets guidelines, builds on appropriate arches, and passes rpmlint. Approving. Also adding to dist, assuming Bill would say yes (: -- 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 189263] Review Request: rsibreak
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rsibreak https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189263 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 17:28 EST --- I have already applied for sponsorship, but as stated in Bug 187818, my account role status is described as "in progress", the Sponsor field says "unneeded", and I can't add myself to the cvsextras group. I will post here again as soon as this problem is 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 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||195480 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195797] New: Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-ast
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=195797 Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-ast 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: cvs co xorg-x11-drv-ast ; cd devel SRPM URL: cvs co xorg-x11-drv-ast ; cd devel ; make srpm Description: New video driver rpm package for "ASPEED Technologies" video hardware. This video driver is new to the X11R7.1 release, and supports a single new video card produced by ASPEED. The rpm package I have prepared was created by copying the existing Fedora Core "mga" driver package, and doing search and replace s/mga/ast/ on it. Rationale for including this package, is to be able to provide the complete set of all video drivers supplied by X.Org for the architectures we support. Testing: We do not have any ASPEED video hardware, and are relying on the testing performed by ASPEED themselves, X.Org as part of the X11R7.1 release, and the users who are already using the driver from downloading and building it themselves. I have filed a tracking bug for this as well: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195756 -- 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 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] 2006-06-17 16:11 EST ---
A few issues
* you can now change
"Cflags: -I${includedir}/clips-6.24"
to
"Cflags: -I${includedir}"
* "(help)" does not yet work. It seems that it tries to open
"/usr/share/doc/clips-6.24" instead of "/usr/share/doc/clips-6.24/clisp.hlp"
* I know it is annoying, but clisp.hlp must go to /usr/share/clisp/clisp.hlp,
since it is part of the correct functioning of the program. Remember that
a package can be installed without the docs.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-17 15:30 EST --- Looks like there's a new 6.24 release of CLIPS. Here's a new spec and srpm for the new release that incorporates Gérard's feedback and adds the XCLIPS color utility built as xclips-color. Spec URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/clips.spec SRPM URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/fedora/5/srpms/clips-6.24-1.src.rpm Here's the changes: - New release 6.24 - Changed desktop entry name from xclips to XCLIPS - New autotools struture builds clips and xclips in separate directories - Moved bpg.pdf to clips main package - Added examples from AllExamples.tar.Z - Moved clips.hlp to clips main package - Remove xclips.desktop source and moved it into autotools patch - Added build for xclips color utility as xclips-color - Devel headers now install /usr/include/clips - Autotools patch adds defines to find clips.hlp 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 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|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195678] 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. Summary: Review Request: redland-bindings - bindings for the redland RDF library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195678 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 15:24 EST --- Due to review of rasqal, I've made some additional changes to this package. New src.rpm up at http://thomas.apestaart.org/download/pkg/fedora-5-i386-extras/redland-bindings-1.0.4.1-2.fc5/redland-bindings-1.0.4.1-2.fc5.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195647] 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. Summary: Review Request: redland https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195647 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 15:24 EST --- Due to review of rasqal, I've made some additional changes to this package. Latst src.rpm: http://thomas.apestaart.org/download/pkg/fedora-5-i386-extras/redland-1.0.4-2.fc5/redland-1.0.4-2.fc5.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 14:57 EST --- Brian, As shown by the long rpm -qf list posted by Paul, there are many packages who are owning these dirs, simply because having multiple owned dirs is concidered less bad then having unowned dirs. Actually many of those packages are owned by me. The real problem is that there should be some kinda base package, be it gnome-libs, or maybe gnome-filesystem, which should provide these dirs, but there isn't. Further discussion really doesnot belong here, as this is not specific to this package / review. Please take this discussion to f-e-l, where it has been done once already with no outcome, or directly to FESco. While you are at it also include the /use/share/icons/hicolor hierachy in the discussion because that whole hierarchy has directory ownership issues too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 14:40 EST --- (In reply to comment #49) > This package does depend on Gnome, since it depends on gtk-sharp2 (which > requires libgnomeui, libgnomecanvas, gnome-vfs2, etc. This sorta defeats your > reasoning for owning the directories. You might think so, but... $ rpm -qf /usr/share/omf gnome-doc-utils-0.6.0-1 bug-buddy-2.14.0-1 glade2-2.12.1-2 gnome-user-docs-2.14.2-1.fc5.1 gnome-system-monitor-2.14.1-1.fc5.1 gnome-utils-2.14.0-4.fc5.2 gnome-media-2.14.2-1 gthumb-2.7.7-1 eog-2.14.2-1.fc5.1 gedit-2.14.3-1 gnome-terminal-2.14.2-1 file-roller-2.14.3-1 $ rpm -qf /usr/share/gnome gnome-doc-utils-0.6.0-1 bug-buddy-2.14.0-1 glade2-2.12.1-2 gnome-user-docs-2.14.2-1.fc5.1 gnome-system-monitor-2.14.1-1.fc5.1 gnome-utils-2.14.0-4.fc5.2 gnome-applets-2.14.2-1.fc5.1 gnome-media-2.14.2-1 gthumb-2.7.7-1 eog-2.14.2-1.fc5.1 gedit-2.14.3-1 gnome-terminal-2.14.2-1 file-roller-2.14.3-1 gnome-games-2.14.2-1 dia-0.95-4.fc5 gnome-session-2.14.2-1.fc5.1 $ rpm -qf /usr/share/gnome/help gnome-doc-utils-0.6.0-1 bug-buddy-2.14.0-1 glade2-2.12.1-2 gnome-user-docs-2.14.2-1.fc5.1 gnome-system-monitor-2.14.1-1.fc5.1 control-center-2.14.2-1 gnome-utils-2.14.0-4.fc5.2 gnome-applets-2.14.2-1.fc5.1 gnome-media-2.14.2-1 gthumb-2.7.7-1 eog-2.14.2-1.fc5.1 gedit-2.14.3-1 gnome-terminal-2.14.2-1 file-roller-2.14.3-1 gnome-games-2.14.2-1 dia-0.95-4.fc5 None of these packages are dependencies, direct or indirect, of lat. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 154392] HelixPlayer should be removed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: HelixPlayer should be removed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=154392 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Component|Package Review |distribution OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |150223 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 14:32 EST --- There was a change lost in the bugzilla crash; let me see if I can find it. Yes, on Jun 12 Warren changed the status of this bug. I'll duplicate his change now. -- 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 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 13:02 EST --- (In reply to comment #48) > > Clearly this package is violating the first sentence there. However, following > the rule of thumb, it is quite possible for this package to be the first one > to > own the directories you have an issue with, if it is installed on a gnome-free > system for example. The guideline goes on to say that the issue can be > discussed > at package review time, and in fact in this case the request to add ownership > of > those directories came from the reviewer rather than from me (though I agreed > that it was the right thing to do). > This package does depend on Gnome, since it depends on gtk-sharp2 (which requires libgnomeui, libgnomecanvas, gnome-vfs2, etc. This sorta defeats your reasoning for owning the directories. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 12:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #47) > (In reply to comment #46) > > (In reply to comment #45) > >http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-review/2006-June/msg01049.html > > > > > > I disagree with this suggestion. This hasn't been common practice, and > > > should > > > be forwarded to FESCO or whoever is in charge of the Packaging Guidelines (spot, > > > I believe) before implementing. > > > > Not owning the directory can result in the directory being left behind at > > package erase time, since none of the dependencies of this package own it. > > > > On the other hand, having multiple packages owning directories can cause > > issues > > with path-based dependencies. > > > > So there's no clear "winner" about which is the correct approach. As for > > precedents, a majority of (for example) perl module packages in Extras share > > ownership of directories under /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8 (FC5) > > > > Regardless, this should be to be discussed by FESCO or the Packaging Guideline > group before implementing, since this has not been the common practice. Was > this something that the Perl SIG came up with? It's been common practice for perl modules for a long time, and it's not really perl-specific (perl modules just provide a good set of examples). Another good example is to look at the ownership of /usr/share/pixmaps. What the guidelines say is: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. Clearly this package is violating the first sentence there. However, following the rule of thumb, it is quite possible for this package to be the first one to own the directories you have an issue with, if it is installed on a gnome-free system for example. The guideline goes on to say that the issue can be discussed at package review time, and in fact in this case the request to add ownership of those directories came from the reviewer rather than from me (though I agreed that it was the right thing to do). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 12:06 EST --- (In reply to comment #46) > (In reply to comment #45) >http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-review/2006-June/msg01049.html > > > > I disagree with this suggestion. This hasn't been common practice, and > > should > > be forwarded to FESCO or whoever is in charge of the Packaging Guidelines > > (spot, > > I believe) before implementing. > > Not owning the directory can result in the directory being left behind at > package erase time, since none of the dependencies of this package own it. > > On the other hand, having multiple packages owning directories can cause > issues > with path-based dependencies. > > So there's no clear "winner" about which is the correct approach. As for > precedents, a majority of (for example) perl module packages in Extras share > ownership of directories under /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8 (FC5) > Regardless, this should be to be discussed by FESCO or the Packaging Guideline group before implementing, since this has not been the common practice. Was this something that the Perl SIG came up with? > > > What other directory ownership problems have you noticed? > > > > > > > Monodoc, where your taking ownership of directories (/usr/lib/mono & > > /usr/lib/mono/gac) which are owned by mono-core. > > monodoc is not one of my packages. > Your right, wrong Paul. Since this was a mono app, I assumed you were Paul Johnson. My bad. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 11:28 EST ---
(In reply to comment #45)
> (In reply to comment #44)
> > Not necessary (which should be evident from the fact that the package built
> > successfully on the buildsystem). The dep chain is:
> >
> > gtk-sharp2 -> gnome-panel -> gnome-menus -> redhat-menus ->
> > desktop-file-utils
>
> The wiki should be updated then, since this is clearly stated on the Package
> Guidelines as a BR.
It *is* a BR. Not directly, but pulled in implicitly by the BR: gtk-sharp2
> > > Also, your creatation of the directories for '%{_datadir}/gnome/help/' &
> > > '%{_datadir}/omf/' is incorrect, and needs to be fixed. You are taking
> > > ownership of the directories. Run 'rpm -qf /usr/share/mime' &
> > > rpm -qf /usr/share/omf' to verify this yourself.
> >
> > This is deliberate.
> > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-review/2006-June/msg01049.html
>
> I disagree with this suggestion. This hasn't been common practice, and should
> be forwarded to FESCO or whoever is in charge of the Packaging Guidelines
> (spot,
> I believe) before implementing.
Not owning the directory can result in the directory being left behind at
package erase time, since none of the dependencies of this package own it.
On the other hand, having multiple packages owning directories can cause issues
with path-based dependencies.
So there's no clear "winner" about which is the correct approach. As for
precedents, a majority of (for example) perl module packages in Extras share
ownership of directories under /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8 (FC5)
> > > I've noticed that you seem to
> > > have problems with directories ownership, and would suggest working with
> > > your
> > > sponsor or a mentor to prevent this from happening on your future
> > > packages.
> >
> > What other directory ownership problems have you noticed?
> >
>
> Monodoc, where your taking ownership of directories (/usr/lib/mono &
> /usr/lib/mono/gac) which are owned by mono-core.
monodoc is not one of my packages.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 11:13 EST ---
(In reply to comment #44)
> Not necessary (which should be evident from the fact that the package built
> successfully on the buildsystem). The dep chain is:
>
> gtk-sharp2 -> gnome-panel -> gnome-menus -> redhat-menus -> desktop-file-utils
The wiki should be updated then, since this is clearly stated on the Package
Guidelines as a BR.
> > Also, your creatation of the directories for '%{_datadir}/gnome/help/' &
> > '%{_datadir}/omf/' is incorrect, and needs to be fixed. You are taking
> > ownership of the directories. Run 'rpm -qf /usr/share/mime' &
> > rpm -qf /usr/share/omf' to verify this yourself.
>
> This is deliberate.
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-review/2006-June/msg01049.html
I disagree with this suggestion. This hasn't been common practice, and should
be forwarded to FESCO or whoever is in charge of the Packaging Guidelines (spot,
I believe) before implementing.
> > I've noticed that you seem to
> > have problems with directories ownership, and would suggest working with
> > your
> > sponsor or a mentor to prevent this from happening on your future packages.
>
> What other directory ownership problems have you noticed?
>
Monodoc, where your taking ownership of directories (/usr/lib/mono &
/usr/lib/mono/gac) which are owned by mono-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 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 10:58 EST ---
(In reply to comment #43)
> U, where's your BR on desktop-file-install?
Not necessary (which should be evident from the fact that the package built
successfully on the buildsystem). The dep chain is:
gtk-sharp2 -> gnome-panel -> gnome-menus -> redhat-menus -> desktop-file-utils
> Also, your creatation of the directories for '%{_datadir}/gnome/help/' &
> '%{_datadir}/omf/' is incorrect, and needs to be fixed. You are taking
> ownership of the directories. Run 'rpm -qf /usr/share/mime' &
> rpm -qf /usr/share/omf' to verify this yourself.
This is deliberate.
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-review/2006-June/msg01049.html
> I've noticed that you seem to
> have problems with directories ownership, and would suggest working with your
> sponsor or a mentor to prevent this from happening on your future packages.
What other directory ownership problems have you noticed?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-06-17 10:57 EST --- I got the account (mricchet) and I need you sponsor my request to belong to cvsextras. If I try to check out common following istructions about "Import your package" I get a Permission Denied (publickey, keyboard-interactive). I generated .fedora.cert and installed into root home directory. Then I created home/cvs/ directory and I did "cvs co common". Tell me if I need you approval before check out common and import my package or if I made an error, please. Thx -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195764] New: Review Request: tcpick
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=195764 Summary: Review Request: tcpick 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://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/tcpick.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/tcpick-0.2.1-8.src.rpm Description: tcpick is a textmode sniffer that can track tcp streams and saves the data captured in files or displays them in the terminal. Useful for picking files in a passive way. It can store all connections in different files, or it can display all the stream on the terminal. It is useful to keep track of what users of a network are doing, and is usable with textmode tools like grep, sed and awk. It can handle eth and ppp interfaces. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 10:03 EST ---
U, where's your BR on desktop-file-install?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines?highlight=%28desktop-file-install%29#head-254ddf07aae20a23ced8cecc219d8f73926e9755
Also, your creatation of the directories for '%{_datadir}/gnome/help/' &
'%{_datadir}/omf/' is incorrect, and needs to be fixed. You are taking
ownership of the directories. Run 'rpm -qf /usr/share/mime' &
rpm -qf /usr/share/omf' to verify this yourself. I've noticed that you seem to
have problems with directories ownership, and would suggest working with your
sponsor or a mentor to prevent this from happening on your future packages.
-1 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 154392] HelixPlayer should be removed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: HelixPlayer should be removed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=154392 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 08:58 EST --- Erm, Why is this blocking FE-NEW ? -- 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 193894] Review Request: ant-contrib - A collection of tasks for Ant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ant-contrib - A collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193894 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 08:57 EST --- Igor, Judging from the large list of package review requests you are seriously interestd into becoming an FE contributer. In order to get sponsored you must first understand that things are currently organised in FE in such a way that once you are sponsored you get full CVS access to all packages. Thus I would like to be sure about your packaging skills before sponsoring you. I would like to propose the following: -you choose 3 packages which you prefer to have reviewed. -We work together to get these 3 reviewed and approved -Once these 3 packages are approvable you can create an account and I'll sponsor you. Does that sound like a plan? And if it does which 3 packages would you prefer to get reviewed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191005] Review Request: glob2 - Realtime Strategy game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: glob2 - Realtime Strategy game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191005 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 08:50 EST --- Nikolai, I think this game would make a nice addition to FE, so I'm give you one last chance to respond. If you don't I'll have to close this 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 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|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 193957] Review Request: nant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177580 | 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 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE BugsThisDependsOn|193957 | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 08:45 EST --- Imported, tagged, built. 11138 (lat): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. Build logs may be found at http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/11138-lat-1.0.5-5.fc6/ owners.list updated FC-5 branch requested. Thanks for all the help everyone. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194481] Review Request: eggdrop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eggdrop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194481 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 08:43 EST --- Notice that Robert has been sponsored now, so anyone who wants to see this package into FE can help getting it there be doing a (full) review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193960] Review Request: perl-Net-LibIDN
Please 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-Net-LibIDN https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193960 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 08:41 EST --- For those reading allong I've sponsored Robert after reviewing -> approving 2 of his other packages. Removing the NEEDSPONSOR blocker. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194470] Review Request: php-magickwand
Please 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-magickwand https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194470 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778, 177841 |163779 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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
OtherBugsDependingO|163778, 177841 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 08:39 EST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> One line from your comment was trunicated, but I found the complete hack in
> php-
> eaccelerator: %((echo %{default_apiver}; php -i 2>/dev/null | sed -n 's/^PHP
> API
> => //p') | tail -1) - it is applied very similar as suggested.
Aai, sorry about that cut and paste error. Glad you found the full hack
yourself.
That fixes the only MUST fix item -> Approved.
And I must say I'm happy with the shown packageing skills sofat and thus I am
willing to sponsor you, go create an account in the account system as described
here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors
And then I'll sponsor you after which you can continue with step described at
the above URL. You need to find another reviewer for you other 2 packages
though, I'm no good in perl and ircbots aren't my thing either :)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 08:22 EST --- (In reply to comment #40) > I've reinstated the _libdir hack but I really think it's the wrong thing to > do. > I dunno it hs the advantage of always working even for mono apps with broken upstream makefiles. Anyways lets wait for some kinda final mono packaging guidelines, if these don't mandate the use of the libdir hack feel free to revert. In the mean time all MUST items are fixed and it looks like this is packaged according to the final mono packaging guidelines, so: Approved! For people missing a Full review one was done but got nuked due to the BZ crash, comment #14 which is the reply to the full review gives a nice overview of all must fix items listed in the destroyed full review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194470] Review Request: php-magickwand
Please 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-magickwand https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194470 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 08:04 EST --- Problem mentioned in bug #194479 is now resolved for php-magickwand, too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 08:02 EST ---
One line from your comment was trunicated, but I found the complete hack in php-
eaccelerator: %((echo %{default_apiver}; php -i 2>/dev/null | sed -n 's/^PHP
API
=> //p') | tail -1) - it is applied very similar as suggested.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-17 06:52 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) > How is this not a bug in rpm itself? If you think it's a rpm bug, report it. (In reply to comment #9) >perl-POE-0.3501-2.fc5.noarch requires perl(POE::Resource::Controls) > Yet perl-POE clearly provides perl(POE::Resources::Controls) = 1903. Note "Resource" vs "Resources". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 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
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-17 06:27 EST ---
Thanks for reviewing, much appreciated !
- changed license, but it still complains. Filed
http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/ticket/22
- re: changelog version; my name + email is rather long, and frequently extends
the width to more than 80 chars if I add version. I filed
http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/ticket/23
and
http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/ticket/24 (with patch)
If this is not critical I would like to keep this as-is for aesthetic reasons.
- got rid of rpath, ugh @ hacks. This will teach me to actually lint on a 64
bit machine - apparently this doesn't cause trouble on a 32 bit one.
- %makeinstall: that wiki entry is factually wrong and lacking any actual
reasons except dogma - I will ask spot about it. In the case of this package,
there is nothing wrong when doing makeinstall. Unless you insist I prefer to
keep it.
- smp_mflags added
- OPTIMIZE removed
- make instead of %{__make} done
- make check added. pinging upstream about test failures - since upstream did
not set it up to actually error out on those errors, and there are few, I'm
assuming for now these are expected or non-critical failures.
New version:
http://thomas.apestaart.org/download/pkg/fedora-5-i386-extras/rasqal-0.9.12-2.fc5/
Thanks again !
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195666] 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. Summary: Review Request: mod_fcgid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195666 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195666] 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. Summary: Review Request: mod_fcgid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195666 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] ||m -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 04:43 EST --- I've reinstated the _libdir hack but I really think it's the wrong thing to do. I looked at the Makefile for this package and it uses a macro called ASSEMBLYlibdir, which is assigned the value $(prefix)/lib/$(ASSEMBLY), where $(ASSEMBLY) is the application name. The regular libdir never comes into it. It would be interesting to see what other applications do, particularly any that do things differently (any for which the libdir hack is actually necessary?). 1.0.5-5 available at http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/lat/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195015] Review Request: xpa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xpa https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195015 [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 04:24 EST --- * RPM name is OK * Source xpa-2.1.6.tar.gz is the same as upstream * This is the latest version * Builds fine in mock * rpmlint of xpa-devel looks OK * rpmlint of xpa looks OK * File list of xpa-devel looks OK * File list of xpa looks OK I would recommend you just add some white space between the %package devel and %description devel. Same again for %install and %clean, just improves the flow and readability of your spec file. If you make those changes, I see no reason why I can't approve 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
