[Bug 194420] Review Request: mlton, an optimizing compiler for Standard ML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mlton, an optimizing compiler for Standard ML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194420 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 02:29 EST --- Disagreement with comment 12. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-22 02:32 EST --- Documentation subpackages should be named -doc, not -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 196177] Review Request: kdmtheme manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdmtheme manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196177 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 04:34 EST --- Yes, Im ignoring on Rex's advice: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-June/msg00911.html Hans, can you do the official 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 191745] Review Request: sysprof-kmod - kernel module for the sysprof profiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sysprof-kmod - kernel module for the sysprof profiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191745 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 04:46 EST --- Here I am again. I updated to 1.0.3 and silenced the first warning. Permissions on kmodtool seems to be the same as other kmod packages, so I think I will leave it alone. The error is a false positive, since I completely skip configure (see comment in the spec) for the kmod build. Spec URL: http://giallu.interfree.it/fedora/sysprof-kmod.spec SRPM URL: http://giallu.interfree.it/fedora/sysprof-kmod-1.0.3-1.2.6.16_1.2133_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 191743] Review Request: sysprof - a sampling CPU profiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sysprof - a sampling CPU profiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191743 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 04:47 EST --- I fixed the rpmlint error by using the %configure macro and also updated the package to version 1.0.3 Spec URL: http://giallu.interfree.it/fedora/sysprof.spec SRPM URL: http://giallu.interfree.it/fedora/sysprof-1.0.3-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185531] Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 05:06 EST --- It seems to me that nobody want fcron in 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 185531] Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185531 [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 196120] Review Request: gresistor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gresistor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196120 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 05:20 EST --- Fixed and Updated. Spec URL: http://beta.glwb.info/gresistor/gresistor.spec SRPM URL: http://beta.glwb.info/gresistor/gresistor-0.0.1-2.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 196262] New: Review Request: katapult
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=196262 Summary: Review Request: katapult Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://beta.glwb.info/katapult/katapult.spec SRPM URL: http://beta.glwb.info/katapult/katapult-0.3.1.3-1.src.rpm Description: Katapult is an application for KDE, designed to allow faster access to applications, bookmarks, and other items. It is plugin-based, so it can launch anything that is has a plugin for. Its display is driven by plugins as well, so its appearance is completely customizable. It was inspired by Quicksilver for OS X. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193216] Review Request: qcwebcam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qcwebcam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193216 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 05:30 EST --- Bugfix in Contorls window and new version is at http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/Qcwebcam/qcwebcam-1.2.2-1.fc5.src.rpm And its SPEC file is at http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/Qcwebcam/qcwebcam.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189783] Review Request: e17: The enlightenment DR17 window manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: e17: The enlightenment DR17 window manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189783 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 05:31 EST --- Any movement on 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 196120] Review Request: gresistor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gresistor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196120
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 05:54 EST ---
Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored
Mock build for i386 development gave
/var/tmp/gresistor-0.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/share/applications/gresistor.desktop:
key Categories string list not semicolon-terminated, fixing
You Need to add semicolon at end of Categories string list
MUST Items:
- MUST: rpmlint shows no error
- MUST: dist tag is present
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name matching the base package gresistor, in the
format gresistor.spec
- MUST: This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license
GPL.
- MUST: The License field in the package gresistor.spec file did NOT match
any file 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 did NOT 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
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
- MUST: This package used macros.
- MUST: Document files are included like README.
- MUST: This Package include a gresistor.desktop file, and that file is
installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section successfully.
- MUST: Package is calling ldconfig on postun post successfully.
* Source URL is present.
* BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* BuildRequires is correct
* Able to see Desktop icon along with its icon
You need to
* Add license file in tarball
* Make package belong to /usr/share/gresistor under %files as
%dir %{python_sitelib}/gresistor
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185531] Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 06:16 EST --- Indeed. Maybe the right thing would be to ask again for a possible choice between cron+anacron and fcron at install time the next time there is a 'call for features in next fedora core release'. In the meantime I have tested that (in a typical setup) nothing depends on anacron/vixie-cron so installing crontabs+fcron and doing what is in the README.Fedora should be enough to replace anacron/vixie-cron. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196262] Review Request: katapult
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: katapult https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196262 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 06:21 EST --- 404 not found... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185531] Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185531
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 06:39 EST ---
I've juste noticed that fcron installs the bitstring.3.gz
man page, this is wrong. In the spec file there could be
%{__rm} %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/fr/man3/bitstring.3*
%{__rm} %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man3/bitstring.3*
Notice that I removed the -f, such that it fails if the man
page isn't present and I added a wildcard.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196176] Review Request: crystal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: crystal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196176 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 06:51 EST --- This one's relatively simple, I can do 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 196176] Review Request: crystal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: crystal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196176 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 06:53 EST --- Thanks, Rex. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196176] Review Request: crystal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: crystal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196176 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 07:00 EST --- Offhand, looks pretty good, but... * you can omit %doc INSTALL * SOURCE Url doesn't work for me, but this does: http://www.kde-look.org/content/files/13969-crystal-1.0.0.tar.bz2 and it matches your source (md5sum-wise) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
Please 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-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 07:07 EST --- Part of the problem is that the PHP packaging guidelines are still not finalized, IMHO that PHP packaging guidelines mean the packaging of some PHP code (+ pear, pecl etc.), not the binary plugins for the main php engine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196176] Review Request: crystal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: crystal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196176 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 07:13 EST --- Updated: Spec URL: http://beta.glwb.info/crystal/crystal.spec SRPM URL: http://beta.glwb.info/crystal/crystal-1.0.0-2.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 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|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 185531] Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 07:40 EST --- %changelog * Thu Jun 26 2006 Alain Portal aportal[AT]univ-montp2[DOT]fr 3.0.1-12 - Remove bitstring.3 man page. No build cause buildsys is down. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196281] New: Review Request: php-manual-en - English language PHP manual
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=196281 Summary: Review Request: php-manual-en - English language PHP manual 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.timj.co.uk/linux/specs/php-manual-en.spec SRPM URL: http://www.timj.co.uk/linux/srpms/php-manual-en-20060527-1.src.rpm Description: A documentation-only package containing the English language version of the PHP manual, split into a file per chapter. See thread starting: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-May/msg00237.html for a discussion of a number of issues relating to this package. A few quick points: - rpmlint says: W: php-manual-en invalid-license Open Publication License v1.0 I think this is OK, since the above string is the correct and most accurate description of the package license - Arguably the package should be php-manual-en-us, since in theory there might be an en_GB manual at some point, but I wonder whether this is going too far with the whole abstraction - the Source URL is not really right for two reasons: a) it has to have a silly /mirror/rubbish/junk on the end b) it doesn't include the version in it but this is an upstream problem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195836] Review Request: php-pecl-apc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pecl-apc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195836 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: php-apc |Review Request: php-pecl-apc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196281] Review Request: php-manual-en - English language PHP manual
Please 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-manual-en - English language PHP manual https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196281 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 09:34 EST --- (In reply to comment #0) W: php-manual-en invalid-license Open Publication License v1.0 Just OPL would be better? - Arguably the package should be php-manual-en-us, since in theory there might be an en_GB manual at some point, but I wonder whether this is going too far with the whole abstraction Some other languages really requires the xx_YY naming... The package could contain php manuals from other languages too, don't you think? A source package could crate some packages, one for each language. About the en vs. en-us, I think you should follow upstream on this. So only 'en' is IMO the right thing. - the Source URL is not really right for two reasons: a) it has to have a silly /mirror/rubbish/junk on the end b) it doesn't include the version in it but this is an upstream problem. You should download and get the exact URL, for example: http://us2.php.net/distributions/manual/php_manual_en.tar.gz -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196120] Review Request: gresistor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gresistor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196120 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 09:57 EST --- The gtk+ package that you require in the -2 version is GTK+ v1.2.10. The installation of this package works because the gtk+ packages in Fedora have an epoch set, so rpm/yum is really comparing the 1:1.2.0 epoch/version of the gtk+ package vs the 0:2.2 epoch/version of the requires line in the gresistor package. In any case, we do not want to pull in GTK+ 1.x when it's GTK+ 2.x that is really needed. Just drop the gtk+ dependency, the pygtk2-libglade dependency should be sufficient. Also, the licensing should be cleared up. The only evidence of a license that I could find was a license = 'GPL' setting in setup.py. Also, the SimpleGladeApp.py file seems to be licensed LGPL by a separate author. A minor nit, but resistor was misspelled in the description. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194420] Review Request: mlton, an optimizing compiler for Standard ML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mlton, an optimizing compiler for Standard ML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194420 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 10:01 EST --- Shall I see about enabling debug info then? A little more makefile hacking won't hurt at this point. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187818] Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187818 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 10:31 EST --- If this is closed, why is is still blocking both FE-NEW and FE-NEEDSPONSOR? Blocking FE-ACCEPT instead. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174021] Review Request: aplus-fsf - Advanced APL Interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aplus-fsf - Advanced APL Interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174021 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 10:41 EST --- Any comment on the review? This package is pretty close; just a few minor issues to fix. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187818] Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187818 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 10:56 EST --- One problem here (correct me if I'm missing it), but I see no official Reviewer nor an official APPROVED. Now my comment #12 I'd say this is approve-worthy (or very close to it). may have been misconstrued as such, and if so, my apologies. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 Bug 185951 depends on bug 193853, which changed state. Bug 193853 Summary: avoid using abbreviated sub-commands https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193853 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||ERRATA 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 165899] Review Request: pam_pkcs11 : PKCS #11 PAM login module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pam_pkcs11 : PKCS #11 PAM login module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165899 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 11:51 EST --- I'm patching both. I patch the .am file, then I run automake (carefully using the same version of automake as the original source) to generate the .in file, then patching both. This means builds can be made without automake, but someone can take the source rpm, make their own changes to .am and run automake themselves. bob -- 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 196057] Review Request: libhugetlbfs - easy access to huge pages of memory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libhugetlbfs - easy access to huge pages of memory https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196057 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 11:52 EST --- http://flooterbu.net/fedora/libhugetlbfs.spec http://flooterbu.net/fedora/libhugetlbfs-0.20060622-1.src.rpm Per our IRC discussion, LDSCRIPTDIR has been moved to /usr/lib/libhugetlbfs/ldscripts. I've used %exclude for now as it's simpler than hacking the Makefile. I'll work with Adam on changing this long term. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 179940] Review Request: ruby-http-access2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-http-access2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179940 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG OtherBugsDependingO|163778 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 12:02 EST --- I'm going to go ahead and close this; if someone else wants to re-submit this package I'll be happy to review 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 191549] Review Request: hping3 - TCP/IP stack auditing and much more
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hping3 - TCP/IP stack auditing and much more https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191549 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 12:05 EST --- If I don't hear back soon, I'm going to close this bug and let someone else re-submit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187325] Review Request: jaws
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jaws https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187325 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 12:06 EST --- If I don't hear back soon, I'm going to go ahead and close this ticket. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187325] Review Request: jaws
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jaws https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187325 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 12:09 EST --- I do require sponsership. I will get the package cleaned up and repost the spec 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 187325] Review Request: jaws
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jaws https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187325 [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 196003] Review Request: Kmenu-gnome
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Kmenu-gnome https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196003 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 12:29 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) I've gotta say this one does some absolutely nasty stuff in %post, including symlinking icons, and patching xdg menu files, (almost?) all of which could be implemented via an alternate icon theme and making a proper xdg menu and using $XDG_CONFIG_DIRS. IMO, definitely a MUSTFIX. Symlinking the icons is not essential so I don't mind removing it from kmenu-gnome.spec but I don't see how symlinking _these specific icons_ would be harmful. It is unlikely that they would ever be included in Bluecurve or Crystal SVG. However, patching xdg merge files like /etc/xdg/menus/system-settings.menu is a must if you put anything into /etc/xdg/menus/applications-merged to suppress a bug caused by a harmful piece of code found in (almost?) all of the xdg merge files installed with redhat-menus. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196275 for details. The patch in %post temporarily fixes the bug caused by redhat-menus while the patch in %preun is a reverse patch to undo what the patch in %post did. As for making a proper xdg menu and using $XDG_CONFIG_DIRS, I don't understand how one could do it less intrusively than kmenu-gnome does. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196003] Review Request: Kmenu-gnome
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Kmenu-gnome https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196003 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 12:37 EST --- I don't see how symlinking _these specific icons_ would be harmful. symlinking icons in %post will make unowned files - bad. Making symlinks in %install, and having the rpm *own* them is ok. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196003] Review Request: Kmenu-gnome
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Kmenu-gnome https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196003 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 12:40 EST --- As for making a proper xdg menu and using $XDG_CONFIG_DIRS, I don't understand how one could do it less intrusively than kmenu-gnome does. See bug #178320 for one example (of how kde uses a different menu than gnome) using $XDG_CONFIG_DIRS -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187818] Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187818 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 12:52 EST --- Hm, then I misunderstood something: if I need a sponsor for each package than I missed it. The consequence is that the built package (listed above) is not allowed to be in fedora extras. The Fedora Extras package submission process requires that new package submitters be sponsored before they are granted the access necessary to check in their packages. http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored I understood this as there is only one sponsor needed. Additionally, http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors gives the impression that the whole process is only necessary once. Sorry for the problems I caused, how do I delete the at least not legal packages now in the extras and devel tree? Should I just remove both branches in the cvs or the complete package? Or is there manual action necessary to delete the package from the main mirror? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196176] Review Request: crystal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: crystal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196176 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 12:54 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) Hans, can you do the official review ? Nope sorry I'm rather busy at the moment. Besides that now that you're sponsored any FE contributer can do a review for you and its sortoff up to you to get yor packages reviewed. The best way to get your packages reviewed is to exchange reviews with someone. For example I see that Rex is reviewing this one for you, so you should review one of his packages in return. In the end you should review as many packages as you submit, even everybody only submits packages and doesn't review the system will bog down very quickly. Also now that you are sponsored you don't need to put me in the CC-list for every review request you submit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187818] Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187818 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 13:08 EST --- So, you were sponsored, but you missed the review/APPROVED process. Your sponsor, John Mahowald, was/is supposed to that part. You only need to be sponsored once, yes, and it is your sponsor who needs-to(should?) be the one to officially review (and APPROVE) your first submission. See http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors: Get Sponsored When the package is APPROVED by the reviewer, that person will then sponsor you Now, once you're sponsored and have your first submission APPROVED, you are now free to submit other packages for review. These additional packages can be reviewed by *anyone*, but these submissions still need to be APPROVED by a reviewer before they can be imported/built for Extras. Does that help? If you have more questions regarding the process, direct them to your Sponsor (that's what Sponsors are for)... (: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-22 13:09 EST --- SPEC FILE : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/hardinfo/hardinfo.spec SRPM FILE : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/hardinfo/hardinfo-0.4.1-1.fc6.src.rpm - Upgrade to 0.4.1 version - Add glux-utils xorg-x11-utils in BR - Frst point about shared object is fixed in this release -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187818] Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187818 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 13:10 EST --- It occured to me that there's a chance that ktorrent *was* reviewed/APPROVED by John, but that it may have been lost in the recent bugzilla crash/dataloss that occurred recently. If that is the case, please ignore my rambling. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-22 13:27 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) SPEC FILE : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/hardinfo/hardinfo.spec SRPM FILE : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/hardinfo/hardinfo-0.4.1-1.fc6.src.rpm - Upgrade to 0.4.1 version - Add glux-utils xorg-x11-utils in BR You probably misread, you still need: Requires: glx-utils, xorg-x11-utils, 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 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] 2006-06-22 13:41 EST --- Hoops, ok it's 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 187818] Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187818 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Keywords||Reopened Resolution|NEXTRELEASE | OtherBugsDependingO|163779 |163776 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 14:03 EST --- I checked back through my archive and indeed I don't see how this was ever even reviewed. I will change the blocker back to FE-NEW and reopen. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187818] Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187818 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 14:10 EST --- The problem for me was that my second submission, rsibreak, was approved and sponsored - together with the feeling that this ktorrent submission is also approved (although, as it turned now out that wasn't so) I submitted it to build. However, now we have one unapproved package which is in extras, how can I delete it? Is it deleted automatically if I delete the package in cvs? And, again: where do I find information about approving of packages? If only my sponsor is the one who is allowed to do that how can I make sure that he sees this submission? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187818] Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187818 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 14:28 EST --- I will ask an admin to delete the package. When you are not sponsored, a sponsor must do your first review. Once that's done, you are sponsored and FE-NEEDSPONSOR will be removed from all of your package review tickets. At that point and from then on, any of the fedora extras package owners (besides yourself) can review and approve your packages. Anyone at all can comment on your packages, of course. You must not check in a package until it has been approved. You will know this when a reviewer indicates that the package has been APPROVED and the blocker is moved to FE-ACCEPT. If this is not done, the package is not approved and must not be checked in. The process is listed step-by-step in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187818] Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187818 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 14:31 EST --- Roland, I'll review this one (what's currently in cvs), and hopefully we can get this mess sorted out quickly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187818] Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187818
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 14:40 EST ---
NEEDSWORK:
* %{_datadir}/apps/ktorrent unowned
* including pkg name, KTorrent, in Summary is redundant.
SUGGESTED (feel free to ignore, my personal opinion only)
* drop Requires: desktop-file-utils, not *really* needed.
Either post an updated specfile or update cvs with (at least) NEEDSWORK items
addressed, and I'll mark it APPROVED.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 165899] Review Request: pam_pkcs11 : PKCS #11 PAM login module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pam_pkcs11 : PKCS #11 PAM login module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165899 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163779 |188267 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 14:42 EST --- THis is now under Core review, need to get this review finished so the rest of the smart card stuff can come in. -- 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 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] 2006-06-22 14:45 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #3) - Fix BR, add wich, pciutils-devel You need BR pciutils for /sbin/lspci (checked for by configure) It is indeed BR pciutils and not pciutils-devel that is needed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187818] Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187818 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 14:52 EST --- Jason, I *am* sponsored. But as you can see, FE-NEEDSPONSOR was not removed from this package. But it was removed from the package where I was sponsored and which was APPROVED by the sponsor, rsibreak; see this bug: #189263. About the linked step-by-step guideline - I read that before to create this bug report, but then used http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors to go through the whole process of uploading and the stuff. The other guide is linked there but I missed it somehow. Thanks for deleting and taking care of the problem. Rex, thanks for the comments, I will try to correct that asap. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189553] Review Request: bugs - The Bug Genie
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bugs - The Bug Genie https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189553 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DEFERRED OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 15:04 EST --- Going to put this review on hold. I have approached the developer about a number of problems, so I will await for a new release that fixes them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184000] Review Request: emacs-vm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: emacs-vm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution||NEXTRELEASE
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 15:08 EST ---
Package imported.
Group set as Applications/Internet.
Added a Requires:%{version}-%{release} to the subpackage.
Closing NEXTRELEASE.
Many 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 193820] Review Request: libcm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libcm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193820 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 15:28 EST --- Ping? -- 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 192912] Review Request: paps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: paps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192912 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|188267 |188268 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 15:36 EST --- Other than there being no version in the last changelog, this passes review. We'll need Jeremy's signoff to bring this into Core from Extras, and I'll need to know how this will fit into Comps, how it will get installed on people's machines. -- 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 192958] Review Request: ejabberd - A distributed, fault-tolerant Jabber/XMPP server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ejabberd - A distributed, fault-tolerant Jabber/XMPP server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192958 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 16:06 EST --- I ended up having to redo my mock setup last night, but everything's working fine today. The package builds fine on x86_64, development. Here's what rpmlint has to say: W: ejabberd no-soname /usr/lib64/ejabberd-1.1.1/priv/lib/expat_erl.so W: ejabberd no-soname /usr/lib64/ejabberd-1.1.1/priv/lib/iconv_erl.so W: ejabberd no-soname /usr/lib64/ejabberd-1.1.1/priv/lib/stringprep_drv.so W: ejabberd no-soname /usr/lib64/ejabberd-1.1.1/priv/lib/ejabberd_zlib_drv.so W: ejabberd no-soname /usr/lib64/ejabberd-1.1.1/priv/lib/tls_drv.so I'll accept these as meaningless for private internal libraries. E: ejabberd non-standard-uid /var/log/ejabberd ejabberd E: ejabberd non-standard-uid /etc/ejabberd/ejabberd.cfg ejabberd E: ejabberd non-standard-uid /etc/ejabberd ejabberd E: ejabberd non-standard-uid /var/lib/ejabberd/spool ejabberd E: ejabberd non-standard-uid /etc/ejabberd/inetrc ejabberd E: ejabberd non-standard-uid /var/lib/ejabberd ejabberd E: ejabberd non-standard-gid /var/log/ejabberd ejabberd E: ejabberd non-standard-gid /etc/ejabberd/ejabberd.cfg ejabberd E: ejabberd non-standard-gid /etc/ejabberd ejabberd E: ejabberd non-standard-gid /var/lib/ejabberd/spool ejabberd E: ejabberd non-standard-gid /etc/ejabberd/inetrc ejabberd E: ejabberd non-standard-gid /var/lib/ejabberd ejabberd Expected given that the daemon runs with its own uid/gid. E: ejabberd non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/ejabberd 0750 E: ejabberd non-standard-dir-perm /etc/ejabberd 0750 E: ejabberd non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/ejabberd/spool 0750 E: ejabberd non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/ejabberd 0750 E: ejabberd non-readable /etc/ejabberd/ejabberd.cfg 0640 E: ejabberd non-readable /etc/ejabberd/inetrc 0640 Permissions limited for security reasons. W: ejabberd non-conffile-in-etc /etc/logrotate.d/ejabberd You should mark this as %config in your %files list. This is the only rpmlint issue that I see. Nothing seems to own /usr/lib64/ejabberd-1.1.1. This package should own it. The documentation is about half of the total size of the package. Would you consider splitting the html, pdf and image files off into a separate -doc subpackage? Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * source files match upstream: ef6fae4a3f9c7f807f21e9cd3dae195b ejabberd-1.1.1.tar.gz * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). X rpmlint has many ignorable complaints and one blocker. * final provides and requires are sane: config(ejabberd) = 1.1.1-2.fc6 ejabberd_zlib_drv.so()(64bit) expat_erl.so()(64bit) iconv_erl.so()(64bit) stringprep_drv.so()(64bit) tls_drv.so()(64bit) ejabberd = 1.1.1-2.fc6 = /bin/bash /bin/sh /sbin/chkconfig /sbin/service config(ejabberd) = 1.1.1-2.fc6 erlang fedora-usermgmt libcrypto.so.6()(64bit) libexpat.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) * shared libraries are present, but internal to ejabberd. * package is not relocatable. X owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * scriptlets present and OK (user creation, service installation and shutdown) * code, not content. X documentation not is small. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195485] Review Request: kdegraphics: K Desktop Environment - Graphics 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: kdegraphics: K Desktop Environment - Graphics Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195485 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 16:15 EST --- Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kdegraphics.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.testing/kdegraphics-3.5.3-3.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Jun 21 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 7:3.5.3-3 - extras subpkg, includes kuickshow, OpenEXR kfile plugin -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196378] New: Review Request: kdegraphics-extras: Extras, including kuickshow
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=196378 Summary: Review Request: kdegraphics-extras: Extras, including kuickshow Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kdegraphics-extras.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.testing/kdegraphics-extras-3.5.3-3.src.rpm Description: Extra graphics applications for the K Desktop Environment, including: * kuickshow (quick picture viewer) * OpenEXR kfile plugin -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196378] Review Request: kdegraphics-extras: Extras, including kuickshow
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdegraphics-extras: Extras, including kuickshow https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196378 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 16:17 EST --- This is targetted for fc6+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 16:24 EST --- sorry, it looks like there is one more Requires needed -- /usr/share/themes winds up unowned unless you have redhat-artwork installed Other than that, looks 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 196379] Review Request: kdeartwork-extras: Artwork Extras, including xscreensaver-based screensavers
Please 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-extras: Artwork Extras, including xscreensaver-based screensavers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196379 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 16:24 EST --- Targetted for fc6+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-22 16:24 EST --- See also kdeartwork-extras review, bug #196379 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192912] Review Request: paps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: paps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192912 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 16:32 EST --- For comps, I would expect we at least want it in place of where we currently have h2ps and bg5ps. We might actually want to just have cups depending on it by default so that people always have it if it's not large (I wouldn't think it is) Beyond that, I'm okay with this going in for now to replace h2ps and bg5ps but with the understanding that it may be superceded again shortly. And that having a nice u2ps as in comment #11 would be a big positive thing. -- 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 165899] Review Request: pam_pkcs11 : PKCS #11 PAM login module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pam_pkcs11 : PKCS #11 PAM login module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165899 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 16:42 EST --- The packages are looking pretty good to me. Let's get them in. Bill what do you think? -- 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 196057] Review Request: libhugetlbfs - easy access to huge pages of memory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libhugetlbfs - easy access to huge pages of memory https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196057 [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 192958] Review Request: ejabberd - A distributed, fault-tolerant Jabber/XMPP server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ejabberd - A distributed, fault-tolerant Jabber/XMPP server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192958 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 17:10 EST --- Oops... forgot to remove a patch that i was testing with: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/5/SRPMS/ejabberd-1.1.1-7.fc5.spec http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/5/SRPMS/ejabberd-1.1.1-7.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 183953] Review Request: bit (A bit-oriented data stream parser and gtkmm widget set)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bit (A bit-oriented data stream parser and gtkmm widget set) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183953 [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 196392] New: Review Request: main package name here
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=196392 Summary: Review Request: main package name here Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/directory/svrcore/releases/4.0.2/svrcore.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/directory/svrcore/releases/4.0.2/svrcore-devel-4.0.2-1.src.rpm Description: svrcore is a library which provides applications that use NSS a standard way to allow PIN input from a file or from the terminal. There is also a PIN handler that caches the PIN in memory after encrypting it with a key on a device (such as a Fortezza card). This allowed a server to restart without having to reenter the PIN. However since the PIN is encrypted, a core dump would not expose it. In addition, removing the device would also make the PIN inaccessible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196393] New: Review Request: svrcore-devel
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=196393 Summary: Review Request: svrcore-devel Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/directory/svrcore/releases/4.0.2/svrcore.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/directory/svrcore/releases/4.0.2/svrcore-devel-4.0.2-1.src.rpm Description: svrcore-devel is a library which provides applications that use NSS a standard way to allow PIN input from a file or from the terminal. There is also a PIN handler that caches the PIN in memory after encrypting it with a key on a device (such as a Fortezza card). This allowed a server to restart without having to reenter the PIN. However since the PIN is encrypted, a core dump would not expose it. In addition, removing the device would also make the PIN inaccessible. It's only a devel package, containing only a static library and a header file. It is currently only used by the Mozilla LDAP C SDK, but may find a wider audience since NSS is now part of Fedora Core and svrcore is very useful for some applications which use NSS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193896] Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 17:56 EST --- Since Hans has offered to sponsor you once a few of your packages are in shape, I thought I'd take a look at one. I can't take this for review until you've been sponsored but I can make some comments. The package builds fine in mock (x86_64, development) with the reduced buildroot.The debuginfo package comes up a bit empty due to the usual rpm bugs with java; adding the following to the end of the %build section helps, but you'll want to macroize it to match the rest of the spec: # Fix debuginfo generation rm -f org test ln -s src/org ln -s src/test rpmlint has this to say: W: libreadline-java non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: libreadline-java no-soname /usr/lib64/libJavaReadline.so.0.8.0 W: libreadline-java devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libJavaReadline.so W: libreadline-java-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Java I'm not sure what's happening with the package groups; Development/Libraries would seem appropriate unless someone has officially added the Java subgroup (which wasn't done for the other languages as far as I know. The unversioned .so file cannot go in the main package; it must go in -devel. I don't know what's causing the no-soname error; it looks like the upstream Makefile doesn't call GCC with -Wl,-soname,blah, but I'm not sure if this is a blocker in this situation. About the spec: The gcj_support thing makes things pretty nasty to read; I wonder if it's really necessary. Don't set Epoch unless you need it to be a nonzero value. No need to use an Epoch on the readline Require. I'm not sure why you need the java_readline and gnu.readline provides. Don't use Distribution or Vendor. You need: Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig instead of Requires: /sbin/ldconfig. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196392] Review Request: main package name here
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: main package name here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196392 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: main |Review Request: main |package name here |package name here Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 18:34 EST --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 196393 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196393] Review Request: svrcore-devel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: svrcore-devel Alias: svrcore-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196393 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 18:34 EST --- *** Bug 196392 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193783] Review Request: mesa-mangled - Mangled Mesa graphics libraries for off-screen rendering
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mesa-mangled - Mangled Mesa graphics libraries for off-screen rendering https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 18:52 EST --- The #1 way to solve this, is to autotool mesa, and get acceptance of that into the Mesa3D project. That'd also be a good time to have libGLU and libGLw split out and autotooled on their own as well. I believe that Brian Paul would be open to the autotooling of Mesa, so long as someone stood up as the maintainer of the autotooling, and actually maintained it. A few people have indicated they might possibly do such a thing at some point in the future, but I know that those same people have very high TODO lists, with many more exciting problems to solve, or issues that are higher in importance/urgency in the grand scheme of things - so it isn't clear when - if ever Mesa might get autotooled and then have a semi-sane buildsystem that avoids problems like this request is attempting to solve. Having said that, as long as Mesa is supplied the way it is now, the correct way to solve this problem is the same way Debian/Ubuntu and other distributions have solved it. By applying some elbow grease to our existing mesa rpm package, and coming up with a conditionalized way to build OSMesa on whatever arch/variant combos we want, in addition to what already is built. Fixing the mesa package to always supply libOSMesa is definitely doable, and is the correct way that it should be done. This will be fixed eventually, when there aren't more pressing issues to attend to, however in the mean time, if someone feels like spending the time to fix the mesa package _properly_, by any combination of patches to Mesa and/or the spec file, etc. - please feel free. I'm vetoing this package request, because it will conflict with our own mesa package, and we do not want things like that to happen in Extras. (Just because something isn't necessarily trivial to fix properly, doesn't mean we should not fix it 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 196401] New: Review Request: mozldap
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=196401 Summary: Review Request: mozldap Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/directory/c-sdk/releases/HEAD/mozldap.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/directory/c-sdk/releases/HEAD/mozldap-5.17-3.src.rpm Description: mozldap is the Mozilla LDAP C SDK (http://www.mozilla.org/directory). This package contains 3 sub-packages: mozldap - the client runtime libraries mozldap-tools - the client command line programs such as ldapsearch, ldapmodify, et. al. mozldap-devel - the headers, examples, etc. Note that this package is not intended to replace the current openldap client libraries included with Fedora Core and RHEL. Instead, the mozilla ldap c sdk is used by mozilla/thunderbird, Fedora Directory Server, Red Hat Directory Server, and Red Hat Certificate System, among others. Those products cannot use openldap and must use mozldap - see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181691 for more details. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196403] New: Review Request: perl-Calendar-Simple - Perl extension to create simple calendars
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=196403 Summary: Review Request: perl-Calendar-Simple - Perl extension to create simple calendars 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: ftp://ftp.uni-erlangen.de/pub/mirrors/packman/fedora/SRPMS/perl-Calendar-Simple.spec SRPM: ftp://ftp.uni-erlangen.de/pub/mirrors/packman/fedora/SRPMS/perl-Calendar-Simple-1.13-1.src.rpm Description: Perl extension to create simple calendarsftp://ftp.uni-erlangen.de/pub/mirrors/packman/fedora/SRPMS This is a prerequisite to upgrade rt to 3.6.0. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 186452] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186452
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 20:40 EST ---
Perhaps I should wait and file a real bug report once this package is approved,
but I couldn't wait to get this up and running
If you have selinux enabled, and tell hcid to use the kbluepin utility (as
bluez-pin doesn't work), selinux keeps kbluepin from running (expert from
audit.log below).
type=AVC msg=audit(1151022663.716:63): avc: denied { execute_no_trans } for
pid=3913 comm=sh name=kbluepin dev=sda3 ino=6324521
scontext=user_u:system_r:bluetooth_t:s0 tcontext=system_u:object_r:lib_t:s0
tclass=file
type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1151022663.716:63): arch=4003 syscall=11 success=no
exit=-13 a0=9ee8840 a1=9ee8a88 a2=9ee8910 a3=9ee8618 items=1 pid=3913 auid=500
uid=0 gid=0 euid=0 suid=0 fsuid=0 egid=0 sgid=0 fsgid=0 comm=sh
exe=/bin/bash
type=AVC_PATH msg=audit(1151022663.716:63):
path=/usr/lib/kdebluetooth/kbluepin
type=CWD msg=audit(1151022663.716:63): cwd=/
type=PATH msg=audit(1151022663.716:63): item=0
name=/usr/lib/kdebluetooth/kbluepin flags=101 inode=6324521 dev=08:03
mode=0100755 ouid=0 ogid=0 rdev=00:00
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196392] Review Request: main package name here
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: main package name here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196392 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mozldap Alias: mozldap https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 21:02 EST --- 181691 is private; we cannot view 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 196401] Review Request: mozldap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mozldap Alias: mozldap https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 21:53 EST --- Sorry. Here is an excerpt that explains the differences between openldap and mozldap: [The reason why we can just replace openldap with mozldap] ... is that there are dozens of apps that require the openldap client libraries. This is a problem for two reasons: 1) the openldap api is different than the mozilla ldap api, in terms of the function parameters, constants, and behavior. In many cases it is only slightly different, and we might be able to mitigate this by either writing a shim layer on top of the mozilla ldap c sdk that makes it look like openldap, or by simply changing the mozilla ldap c sdk to make it like openldap. I prefer the latter. 2) openldap clients expect to be able to use openssl for crypto, while mozilla uses NSS. I don't know of an easy way around this, except perhaps to just automatically import CA certs listed in /etc/openldap/ldap.conf to an NSS cert db. Similarly for clients that use cert based auth, import their keys/certs/password files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-22 22:14 EST --- Here's the latest version. Spec URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/clips.spec SRPM URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/fedora/5/srpms/clips-6.24-7.src.rpm Changes: - Renamed docs subpackage to doc - Changed pkgconfig .pc to use -L libdir -lclips in patch - Added extern C and ifdef __cplusplus to clips.h in 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 195867] Review Request: tetex-IEEEtran Official LaTeX class for IEEE transactions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tetex-IEEEtran Official LaTeX class for IEEE transactions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195867 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 22:22 EST --- The issues I had are fixed; everything looks good. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196057] Review Request: libhugetlbfs - easy access to huge pages of memory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libhugetlbfs - easy access to huge pages of memory https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196057 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 23:28 EST --- A few problems still... 1) The Makefile still puts the ldscripts into /usr/lib/ldscripts, so the mv on x86_64 tries to move them from /usr/lib64/ldscripts and fails. 2) I must have been smoking something, glibc-devel.i386 isn't a valid dependency, so the build fails even with the i386 glibc-devel package installed on my x86_64 box. I've been hacking up the Makefile a bit, and I have it tweaked to only build the 64-bit parts, but there's an issue there too -- it looks like the 64-bit build depends on some 32-bit stuff, because the build fails if I don't also do the 32-bit parts, like so: + make -j3 CC64 obj64/hugeutils.o CC64 obj64/elflink.o CC64 obj64/morecore.o CC64 obj64/debug.o CC64 obj64/hugetlbd.o AR obj64/libhugetlbfs.a LD64 (shared) obj64/libhugetlbfs.so ar: creating obj64/libhugetlbfs.a a - obj64/hugeutils.o a - obj64/elflink.o a - obj64/morecore.o a - obj64/debug.o obj64/hugetlbd.o: In function `reap_files': /build/BUILD/libhugetlbfs-20060622/hugetlbd.c:94: undefined reference to `__hugetlbfs_verbose' obj64/hugetlbd.o: In function `kill_daemon': /build/BUILD/libhugetlbfs-20060622/hugetlbd.c:128: undefined reference to `__hugetlbfs_verbose' obj64/hugetlbd.o: In function `signal_handler': /build/BUILD/libhugetlbfs-20060622/hugetlbd.c:149: undefined reference to `__hugetlbfs_verbose' obj64/hugetlbd.o: In function `sharing_control_loop': /build/BUILD/libhugetlbfs-20060622/hugetlbd.c:587: undefined reference to `__hugetlbfs_verbose' obj64/hugetlbd.o: In function `main': /build/BUILD/libhugetlbfs-20060622/hugetlbd.c:832: undefined reference to `__hugetlbfs_verbose' obj64/hugetlbd.o:/build/BUILD/libhugetlbfs-20060622/hugetlbd.c:840: more undefined references to `__hugetlbfs_verbose' follow obj64/hugetlbd.o: In function `set_path_to_file': /build/BUILD/libhugetlbfs-20060622/hugetlbd.c:217: undefined reference to `hugetlbfs_find_path' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make: *** [obj64/hugetlbd] Error 1 make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs If we can get that resolved, massaging the Makefile really isn't too hard. My current alterations would need a fair amount more work to get things playing nice on all arches, but I suppose another potential interim solution would be a Makefile patch only applied on 64-bit platforms... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192958] Review Request: ejabberd - A distributed, fault-tolerant Jabber/XMPP server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ejabberd - A distributed, fault-tolerant Jabber/XMPP
server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192958
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 23:54 EST ---
Looks like the three issues I had are fixed:
logrotate.d file marked %config.
owns %{_libdir}/ejabberd-1.1.1
-doc package split off.
APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 183953] Review Request: bit (A bit-oriented data stream parser and gtkmm widget set)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bit (A bit-oriented data stream parser and gtkmm widget set) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183953 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-23 00:48 EST --- New files: Spec Name or Url: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/bit.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/fedora/5/srpms/bit-0.2.1-2.src.rpm Changes: - Added AUTHORS and COPYING to bit main package - Changed download dir from prdownloads.sf.net to download.sf.net - Added cppunit to BuildRequires - Removed doxygen and graphviz BuildRequires since docs are now in dist - Changed doc directory to represent new location in dist -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192052] Review Request: bitgtkmm (Gtkmm widgets for the bit 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: bitgtkmm (Gtkmm widgets for the bit library) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192052 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-23 00:54 EST --- Spec URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/bitgtkmm.spec SRPM URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/fedora/5/srpms/bitgtkmm-0.2.1-2.src.rpm Changes: - Added AUTHORS and COPYING to bitgkmm main package - Changed prdownloads.sf.net to download.sf.net -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196393] Review Request: svrcore-devel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: svrcore-devel
Alias: svrcore-devel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196393
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-23 01:04 EST ---
Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored
Mock build for i386 development gave
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.45547: line 42: /usr/bin/pkg-config: No such file or directory
MUST Items:
- MUST: rpmlint shows error
E: svrcore-devel invalid-spec-name svrcore.spec
- MUST: dist tag is NOT present
- MUST: The package is NOT named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name did NOT matching the base package svrcore-devel,
in the format svrcore-devel.spec
- MUST: This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license
GPL.
- MUST: The License field in the package svrcore.spec file did NOT match
any license file in tarball.
- MUST: This package have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
- MUST: This package used macros.
- MUST: No Document files are included in package.
* Source URL is NOT present.
* BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* BuildRequires is NOT correct
You need to do:-
* Add dist tag to release as
Release: 1%{?dist}
* Change SPEC file name to svrcore-devel.spec
* Add license file in upstream tarball
* Source is not URL
* Add pkgconfig in BuildRequires
When i added pkgconfig and check this package in mock still i got some errors
make EXPORTS= RELEASE= REQUIRES= MODULE= IMPORTS= OBJDIR=. INSTALL=true
syntax error at -e line 3, near while
syntax error at -e line 7, near }
Execution of -e aborted due to compilation errors.
I confused here. Can you check whats happening in make that made above error
Though package was built i have not checked in by installing it. First correct
above things and upload new version.
check
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines?highlight=%28packaging%29 for
packaging guidelines
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196379] Review Request: kdeartwork-extras: Artwork Extras, including xscreensaver-based screensavers
Please 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-extras: Artwork Extras, including xscreensaver-based screensavers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196379 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-23 01:18 EST --- Rex i got error in mock build error: unpacking of archive failed on file /builddir/build/SOURCES/kdegraphics-3.5.3.tar.bz2;449b7b15: cpio: read failed - Invalid argument Error installing srpm: kdegraphics-extras-3.5.3-3.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 196378] Review Request: kdegraphics-extras: Extras, including kuickshow
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdegraphics-extras: Extras, including kuickshow https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196378 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-23 01:20 EST --- Rex i got error in mock build error: unpacking of archive failed on file /builddir/build/SOURCES/kdegraphics-3.5.3.tar.bz2;449b7b15: cpio: read failed - Invalid argument Error installing srpm: kdegraphics-extras-3.5.3-3.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 196379] Review Request: kdeartwork-extras: Artwork Extras, including xscreensaver-based screensavers
Please 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-extras: Artwork Extras, including xscreensaver-based screensavers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196379 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-23 01:23 EST --- oops wrong copy/paste anyway i am not able to download SRPM can you check SRPM link -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189400] Review Request: em8300(-kmod) - Hollywood+/DXR3 hardware MPEG decoder drivers and tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: em8300(-kmod) - Hollywood+/DXR3 hardware MPEG decoder drivers and tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189400 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-23 01:41 EST --- http://cachalot.mine.nu/5/SRPMS/em8300-kmod-0.15.3-4.2.6.16_1.2133_FC5.src.rpm * Fri Jun 23 2006 Ville Skyttä ville.skytta at iki.fi - 0.15.3-4 - Invoke kmodtool with bash instead of sh. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196403] Review Request: perl-Calendar-Simple - Perl extension to create simple calendars
Please 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-Calendar-Simple - Perl extension to create simple
calendars
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196403
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-23 01:45 EST ---
Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored
Mock build for i386 development is successfull.
MUST Items:
- MUST: rpmlint shows no error
- MUST: dist tag is present
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name matching the base package perl-Calender-Simple,
in the format perl-Calender-Simple.spec
- MUST: This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license
GPL.
- MUST: The License field in the package perl-Calender-Simple.spec file
matches the actual license file COPYING 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
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
- MUST: This package used macros.
- MUST: Document files are included like README.
* Source URL is Not present.
I need to remove DA from URL. Working Source URL for me
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/D/DAVECROSS/Calendar-Simple-1.13.tar.gz
* BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* BuildRequires is correct
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
