[Bug 196570] Review Request: mirage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: mirage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196570
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 03:15 EST ---
* %{_datadir}/%{name} is unowned
* %doc files are duplicated in %{_datadir}/%{name}, but not used
at run-time
As your package uses .so files. You can add subpackage -devel.
No, surely not in this case. This is a C shared library Python
extension module. Moving it into a -devel package would be wrong
and would break the Python application.
add %post %postun sections with call to ldconfig as
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
Negative. The package does NOT store any shared libs in dynamic
linker's search paths, but only in Python sitearch.
Further, -p /sbin/ldconfig would not work when the scriptlet
contained a body which to execute in a shell. Option -p specifies
the scriptlet interpreter explicitly (default is -p /bin/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 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clement-2.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 04:45 EST --- Sorry for the long silence I've been busy with other Fedora stuff. As discussed by email I'll review this package and if that goes well I'll sponsor you. This isn't a Full Review yet, but this should give you enough for now to work on: * rpmlint gives: E: clement non-standard-gid /etc/clement-2.1/clement.conf apache This is intentional and can be ignored. Are you sure though you want apache to be able to write to this file, I guess this is for the clement webinterface, but is this safe? * During build on FC5-i386 rpm says: warning: File listed twice: /etc/clement-2.1/clement.conf warning: File listed twice: /etc/clement-2.1/clement.conf warning: File listed twice: /var/www/clement-2.1/clembase.php These must be fixed * All the files under /var/www are owned by mail, this doesn't seem right * The files under /var/lib/clement-2.1/ do not seem very variable (except for maybe dummy-cert?), please find a better place for these. * The remove.sh script called form %preun is evil EVIL *EVIL*, you cannot assume that rpm scripts will be run from an interactive terminal. I think it is best to just leave these files in place and instead in %preun generate a README-fedora in the clement spool dir which explains that since clement is removed these files _may_ be removed to, but that they could contain valuable data and people should be carefull when removing them. * Remove all comments like this one: #--- #Clement SPEC definition #--- People reading a spec file are supposed to know what a specfile is and what the different sections do, these are not helpfull comments, they are noise. * Put the sections in the specfile in the proper order, see for example the /usr/share/fedora/spectemplate-minimal.spec from the fedora-rpmdevtools package. The proper order is Name Version Release Summary Group %description %setup %build %install %clean %post(un) (and other scripts) %files %changelog -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 186817] Review Request: kshutdown
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: kshutdown
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186817
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 04:59 EST ---
This is not an official review:
- MUST: rpmlint gives warnings, which should be corrected.
W: kshutdown hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/apps/kshutdown/extras/multimedia/.directory
The file or directory is hidden. You should see if this is normal,
and delete it from the package if not.
W: kshutdown dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/de/kshutdown/common
/usr/share/doc/HTML/de/common
The symbolic link points nowhere.
W: kshutdown symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/doc/HTML/de/kshutdown/common
/usr/share/doc/HTML/de/common
W: kshutdown hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/apps/kshutdown/extras/shutdown/.directory
The file or directory is hidden. You should see if this is normal,
and delete it from the package if not.
W: kshutdown hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/apps/kshutdown/extras/system/.directory
The file or directory is hidden. You should see if this is normal,
and delete it from the package if not.
W: kshutdown dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/kshutdown/common
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
The symbolic link points nowhere.
W: kshutdown symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/kshutdown/common
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name matches the format %{name}.spec
- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package is under the GPL license.
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- MUST: The source package does not include the text of the license(s) in its
own file, then the file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package
does not need to be included in %doc.
- MUST: The spec file is written in American English.
- MUST: The spec file for the package is legible.
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms at
least on i386.
Though there are
+ make -j3
Makefile:849: warning: overriding commands for target `clean-bcheck'
Makefile:812: warning: ignoring old commands for target `clean-bcheck'
Makefile:854: warning: overriding commands for target `bcheck-am'
Makefile:817: warning: ignoring old commands for target `bcheck-am'
make all-recursive
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/BUILD/kshutdown-0.8.2'
Makefile:849: warning: overriding commands for target `clean-bcheck'
Makefile:812: warning: ignoring old commands for target `clean-bcheck'
Makefile:854: warning: overriding commands for target `bcheck-am'
Makefile:817: warning: ignoring old commands for target `bcheck-am'
I have also encountered the above, I don't know whether this should be ignored
or not.
- MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires
- MUST: The spec file handles locales properly.
- MUST: A package owns all directories that it creates.
- MUST: A package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
- MUST: Permissions on files has been set properly.
- MUST: Each package haq a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
You should use macros on the %files section.
and you can even use %{_docdir} instead of %{_datadir}/doc/
- MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content.
But the sounds folder contains *.ogg fils which are copyrighted (C) Caryn
Hellchick Law
- MUST: No Large documentation files, hence no need for a -doc subpackage.
- MUST: The package does not include %doc
for this package, you can use
%doc AUTHORS COPYING NEWS README TODO VERSION
- MUST: The Package containing GUI application includes a %{name}.desktop file.
SHOULD Items:
- SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream
you SHOULD query upstream to include 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 196591] Review Request: bitlbee
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: bitlbee
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196591
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 07:07 EST ---
The gcc warnings because of dereferencing type-punned pointer have to be
handled
by upstream and IIRC they are even OpenSSL not BitlBee related. Most Extras and
Core packages are having such warnings, because the world is using older gccs.
To your first point at the todo list: No, no - never, sorry. You didn't look
into the tarball neither you called ./configure --help by hand. Finally a `grep
-ri libdir bitlbee-1.0.3` returns nothing. For me there is no reason only to
make rpmlint happy by applying unneccessary and even unused parameters.
To your second point at the todo list: I can't aggree with you when reading the
Fedora (Extras) Packaging Guidelines. There is neither a lot of documentation
nor is runtime (when installing/updating/erasing) affected by handling exactly
16 files consuming maximal 150 KB of space.
Waiting for another opinion before changing anything. XML documentation could
be skipped as there is very less similar in /usr/share/doc/*/ of my system.
Doing this would reduce %{_docdir} to 100 KB which would just host AUTHORS,
CHANGES, COPYING, CREDITS, FAQ, README and user-guide.txt. On the other hand, I
can't absolutely see why such basic files (except the 35 KB of user-guide.txt)
should be moved into a -doc subpackage...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196591] Review Request: bitlbee
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bitlbee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196591 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 07:16 EST --- thanks for your comments. anyway i am still learning thru' reviewing other packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196635] Review Request: knetworkmanager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: knetworkmanager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196635
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 07:41 EST ---
Offhand, first thing to fix is to fix Release tag, use instead (something
like):
Release: 0.1.%{svn}%{?dist}
Is there a reason to use a cvs/svn checkout instead of an official release?
If so, please document that as a comment in the specfile.
Also, please document (as comment or whatever) the purpose of of any applied
patches.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196635] Review Request: knetworkmanager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: knetworkmanager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196635 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 07:42 EST --- Nevermind about the official release but, it appears there isn't one (yet), afaict. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196434] Review Request: ren
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ren
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196434
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 08:07 EST ---
What's the reason for using
CFLAGS=-Wall
instead of
CFLAGS=-Wall %{optflags}
?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196669] New: Review Request: filesystem-i18n
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=196669 Summary: Review Request: filesystem-i18n Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/filesystem-i18n.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/filesystem-i18n-2.3.7-1.src.rpm Description: The filesystem-i18n package contains the basic i18n directory layout for a Linux operating system. There are some rpmlint errors and warnings but IMHO they can't be avoided: W: filesystem-i18n no-url-tag W: filesystem-i18n no-documentation E: filesystem-i18n incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/nso/LC_TIME E: filesystem-i18n incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/lug/LC_MESSAGES E: filesystem-i18n incorrect-locale-el /usr/share/locale/gr/LC_MESSAGES This package would resolve bug #191581, an alternative could be to merge its content into the existing filesystem package. -- 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 196591] Review Request: bitlbee
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bitlbee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196591 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 09:34 EST --- Blocker: Package doesn't honor RPM_OPT_FLAGS. Everything is compiled using -O3. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-26 09:40 EST --- New release: Spec URL: http://beta.glwb.info/crystal/crystal.spec SRPM URL: http://beta.glwb.info/crystal/crystal-1.0.1-1.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 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 OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 10:11 EST --- 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 196601] Review Request: vobject - A python library for manipulating vCard and vCalendar files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vobject - A python library for manipulating vCard and vCalendar files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196601 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 10:11 EST --- The package should probably be named python-vobject as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-26 10:20 EST --- Okay, the hugetlbd issue... What normally happens with packages in Fedora when we want both some 32-bit and 64-bit components available on a 64-bit system, is that the package is broken up in such a way that there is no overlap in packages we want to have both variants of. Whenever possible, we only put the 64-bit variants in bin and sbin, and the 32-bit pieces are generally only the libraries and headers. So what I'd suggest in this case is splitting hugetlbd and ld.hugetlbfs off into another sub-packages so the libhugetlbfs and libhugetlbfs-devel 32-bit packages can be cleanly installed concurrently with the 64-bit ones. Whether hugetlbd actually gets built 32-bit or 64-bit doesn't actually matter to the packaging discussion above (it'll still go in an x86_64.rpm on the 64-bit build). However, the general preference is that if it can be built 64-bit, build it 64-bit, and that's the version that'll get installed on 64-bit systems. So long story short, lets throw hugetlbd and ld.hugetlbfs into a -utils or -apps sub-package, and move on from there. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 10:34 EST --- W: php-manual-en invalid-license Open Publication License v1.0 Just OPL would be better? It doesn't include a version. We really ought to specify a version if the package specifies one, because otherwise if there's (say) an OPL v3 in future with different terms, we would be misleading users by implying they could distribute it under the terms of OPL v3 whereas the authors might have only specified OPL v1. We should respect the author's license. Note for example that recent Core php packages have started explicitly mentioning license version. That said, OPL v1.0 is fine by me, but I'm pretty sure rpmlint doesn't know that either and it's less descriptive. - 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... That's ok, they can name it php-manual-pt-br or whatever as necessary. I could maybe make the current package Provide php-manual-en-us, for forward compatibility in case it gets split in future. That would make sense. The package could contain php manuals from other languages too, don't you think? Yes, but see linked thread: I don't want the responsibility of maintaining them. Also if I included every language supplied by PHP then the source RPM would be really huge. Additionally in future it's possible that not all languages would get updated at the same time, so it could in theory mean pushing a big update SRPM even though many sources are unchanged. You should download and get the exact URL, for example: http://us2.php.net/distributions/manual/php_manual_en.tar.gz Thanks, I didn't pick up on that direct URL. Updated files: 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-20060527-2.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 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 10:40 EST --- OK, everything's looking good. But I did turn up a few issues wieh working through my checklist. First off, the spec says GPL but it doesn't look like it to me. The first file I checked clearly says Mozilla Public License and the FAQ I found with a quick search seems to back this up. So s/GPL/MPL/. In addition, there doesn't seem to be an actual copy of the license included; upstream should be bugged about this but I believe they're listening. Also, there are files like README and QUICKSTART which are marked as %doc but which get installed under /usr/share/bugzilla instead of /usr/share/doc/bugzilla-2.22 as I'd expect. I think that when you mark packages as %doc that are already installed they don't get moved under docdir. I don't think this is a blocker but you might want to have a look. Finally, I'm pretty sure there will be selinux problems with this package. Unfortunately I have no real way to test it at the moment, and I don't think selinux issues are blockers right now. But I do suggest you work with the selinux folks and possibly Paul Howarth, who has been doing a bunch of work on packaging selinux rules. rpmlint says: W: bugzilla-contrib no-documentation W: bugzilla-doc no-documentation both of which are fine. Since the only required change is G-M in the License: tag, I'll go ahead and approve this so we can put it to bed. 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. X license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. * source files match upstream: bbf2f1ec5607978d39855df104231973 bugzilla-2.22.tar.gz * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). O rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane (see full list at end) * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * scriptlets are present and OK (%post script to generate default setup) * code, not content. * large documentation is in a -doc subpackage * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. Full dependency list: bugzilla-2.22-4.fc6.noarch.rpm config(bugzilla) = 2.22-4.fc6 perl(Bugzilla) perl(Bugzilla::Attachment) perl(Bugzilla::Auth) perl(Bugzilla::Auth::Login::WWW) perl(Bugzilla::Auth::Login::WWW::CGI) perl(Bugzilla::Auth::Login::WWW::CGI::Cookie) perl(Bugzilla::Auth::Login::WWW::Env) perl(Bugzilla::Auth::Verify::DB) perl(Bugzilla::Auth::Verify::LDAP) perl(Bugzilla::Bug) perl(Bugzilla::BugMail) perl(Bugzilla::CGI) perl(Bugzilla::Chart) perl(Bugzilla::Classification) perl(Bugzilla::Component) perl(Bugzilla::Config) perl(Bugzilla::Config::Admin) perl(Bugzilla::Config::Attachment) perl(Bugzilla::Config::Auth) perl(Bugzilla::Config::BugChange) perl(Bugzilla::Config::BugFields) perl(Bugzilla::Config::BugMove) perl(Bugzilla::Config::Common) perl(Bugzilla::Config::Core) perl(Bugzilla::Config::DependencyGraph) perl(Bugzilla::Config::GroupSecurity) perl(Bugzilla::Config::L10n) perl(Bugzilla::Config::LDAP) perl(Bugzilla::Config::MTA) perl(Bugzilla::Config::PatchViewer) perl(Bugzilla::Config::Query) perl(Bugzilla::Config::ShadowDB) perl(Bugzilla::Config::UserMatch) perl(Bugzilla::Constants) perl(Bugzilla::DB) perl(Bugzilla::DB::Mysql) perl(Bugzilla::DB::Pg) perl(Bugzilla::DB::Schema) perl(Bugzilla::DB::Schema::Mysql) perl(Bugzilla::DB::Schema::Pg) perl(Bugzilla::Error) perl(Bugzilla::Field) perl(Bugzilla::Flag) perl(Bugzilla::FlagType) perl(Bugzilla::Group) perl(Bugzilla::Milestone) perl(Bugzilla::Product) perl(Bugzilla::Search) perl(Bugzilla::Search::Quicksearch) perl(Bugzilla::Series) perl(Bugzilla::Template) perl(Bugzilla::Template::Plugin::Bugzilla) perl(Bugzilla::Template::Plugin::Hook) perl(Bugzilla::Template::Plugin::User) perl(Bugzilla::Token) perl(Bugzilla::User) perl(Bugzilla::User::Setting) perl(Bugzilla::Util) perl(Bugzilla::Version) perl(Support::Files)
[Bug 196635] Review Request: knetworkmanager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: knetworkmanager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196635 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 10:55 EST --- Need a dot '.' between 0.1 and svn... bits in the Release tag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191014] Review Request: ganymed-ssh2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ganymed-ssh2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191014 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 11:02 EST --- At this point I'm inclined to ignore rpmlint's whining about the Group. A survey of what's currently in Fedora shows most javadoc packages using Development/Documentation, A few using Development/Java and two in Extras using Documentation. (Two more in Extras use Development/Documentation.) The issues I had are fixed. I hope to move on to the other packages which depend on this one soon. 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 196635] Review Request: knetworkmanager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: knetworkmanager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196635 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 11:05 EST --- * Mon Jun 27 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.1-0.2.svn20060626 - add a . to the release SRPM: http://ausil.us/packages/knetworkmanager-0.1-0.2.svn20060625.src.rpm SPEC: http://ausil.us/packages/knetworkmanager.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 196531] Review Request: perl-MP3-Info - Manipulate / fetch info from MP3 audio files
Please 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-MP3-Info - Manipulate / fetch info from MP3 audio files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196531 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 11:12 EST --- Builds fine in mock and rpmlint is silent. Note that BuildRequires: perl is not necessary. I see no blockers; everything looks good. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. * source files match upstream: ffb3427089a6b5f56e35e5b2ab902d29 MP3-Info-1.20.tar.gz * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(MP3::Info) = 1.20 perl-MP3-Info = 1.20-1.fc6 = perl = 0:5.006 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(bytes) perl(overload) perl(strict) perl(vars) * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=4, Tests=246, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.23 cusr + 0.08 csys = 0.31 CPU) * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196591] Review Request: bitlbee
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bitlbee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196591 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 11:15 EST --- Verified and accepted. Worked out a working solution which also should get part of the next BitlBee release. Applying suggested patch from http://bugs.bitlbee. org/bitlbee/ticket/171 for now to resolve the issue until 1.0.4 is available. Pushing -3 now. Further comments, hints and feedback? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196625] Review Request: perl-SVN-Simple - a simple interface to subversion's editor interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-SVN-Simple - a simple interface to subversion's editor interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196625 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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|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 196635] Review Request: knetworkmanager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: knetworkmanager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196635 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 11:38 EST --- As per our IRC chat, patch to use system-config-network instead of (the hard-coded) yast, and then it's looking pretty 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 196635] Review Request: knetworkmanager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: knetworkmanager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196635 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 12:07 EST --- * Mon Jun 27 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.1-0.3.svn20060626 - patch out call to yast and replace with - system-config-network for dialup SRPM: http://ausil.us/packages/knetworkmanager-0.1-0.3.svn20060625.src.rpm SPEC: http://ausil.us/packages/knetworkmanager.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 196710] New: Review Request: coldet - 3D Collision Detection Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196710 Summary: Review Request: coldet - 3D Collision Detection Library Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/coldet.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/coldet-1.1-1.src.rpm Description: This library is an effort to provide a free collision detection library for generic polyhedra. Its purpose is mainly for 3D games where accurate detection is needed between two non-simple objects. Features: * Works on any model, even polygon soups. * Uses bounding box hierarchies for fast detection. * Uses additional triangle intersection tests for 100% accuracy. * Provides (upon request) exact point of collision, plus the pair of triangles that collided. * Supports timeout setting, to limit detection time. * Model-Model collision test. * Ray-Model collision test. * Segment-Model collision test. * Sphere-Model collision test. * Ray-Sphere and Sphere-Sphere primitive collision tests. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 171289] Review Request: dirmngr: Client for Managing/Downloading CRLs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dirmngr: Client for Managing/Downloading CRLs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171289 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 12:29 EST --- Now we have W: dirmngr non-conffile-in-etc /etc/logrotate.d/dirmngr so just mark it as %config and we still have: W: dirmngr file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/dirmngr.info.gz Everything else does look good now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 171289] Review Request: dirmngr: Client for Managing/Downloading CRLs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dirmngr: Client for Managing/Downloading CRLs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171289 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 12:37 EST --- and we still have: W: dirmngr file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/dirmngr.info.gz My rpmlint doesn't say that. ?? ah, I'm (still) using rpmlint-0.70 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 171289] Review Request: dirmngr: Client for Managing/Downloading CRLs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dirmngr: Client for Managing/Downloading CRLs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171289 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 12:46 EST --- Hmm, I can't get iconv to cooperate. I always get: iconv: illegal input sequence when trying to work on either dirmngr.texi or dirmngr.info. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196710] Review Request: coldet - 3D Collision Detection 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: coldet - 3D Collision Detection Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196710 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 12:46 EST --- The *-devel packages installs its headers to /usr/include, resulting into this: /usr/include/coldet.h /usr/include/math3d.h To me, /usr/include/math3d.h is too general to justify installing it there[1]. I strongly recommend to install the headers into /usr/include/coldet instead. Also, the package suffers from quite an amount of rather serious GCC warnings (esp. punned pointers), which are not unlikely to break its functionality. [1] I am working on 3d simulations myself and have several packages providing /usr/include/*/math3d.h installed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 171289] Review Request: dirmngr: Client for Managing/Downloading CRLs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dirmngr: Client for Managing/Downloading CRLs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171289 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 12:47 EST --- I guess I'll just use: iconv -c -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190040] Review Request: hydrogen - Advanced drum machine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hydrogen - Advanced drum machine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190040 Bug 190040 depends on bug 183912, which changed state. Bug 183912 Summary: Review Request: jack-audio-connection-kit - The Jack Audio Connection Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183912 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 12:50 EST --- So, is this going to be included any time soon? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 171289] Review Request: dirmngr: Client for Managing/Downloading CRLs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dirmngr: Client for Managing/Downloading CRLs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171289 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 12:53 EST --- Spec Name or Url http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/dirmngr.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/dirmngr-0.9.4-2.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Jun 26 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 0.9.4-2 - remove non-ASCII chars from dirmngr.info - %%config %%_sysconfdir/logrotate.d/dirmngr -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO_REPORTER -- 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 194551] Review Request: ifd-egate
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ifd-egate https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194551 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO_REPORTER --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 13:08 EST --- Waiting for build into rawhide. -- 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 195311] Review Request: coolkey
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: coolkey https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195311 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO_REPORTER --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 13:08 EST --- Waiting for build into rawhide. -- 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 184450] Review Request: wcstools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wcstools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184450 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 13:10 EST --- Review: - no defective rpmlint output - package name OK - spec file name OK, is in English and is legible - package meets the Packaging Guidelines - licenses OK (GPL/LGPL) and are included - source matches upstream - compiles and builds at least on i386 - no BuildRequires needed - no localized files - has a shared lib and uses ldconfig as scriptlet shell - creates and owns a directory and does not conflict with existing dirs - no duplicates files, permissions are set properly, uses %defattr - has %clean section - consistent use of macros - contains code - no large docs, %doc is not required during runtime - has devel subpackage, no pkgconfig file - no .la libtool archives - not a GUI application 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 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 Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO_REPORTER --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 13:16 EST --- I've added it to dist-fc6 with owner of tagoh. Please let me know when you've fixed cups and I'll block h2ps and bg5ps from the distro. It doesn't seem like anything else is using it. -- 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 171289] Review Request: dirmngr: Client for Managing/Downloading CRLs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dirmngr: Client for Managing/Downloading CRLs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171289 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 13:21 EST --- iconv -f iso-8859-1 -t utf-8 works fine here. Stripping non-ASCII messes up the name of the copyright holder, which is not nice at all. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191015] Review Request: javasvn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: javasvn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191015 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 13:21 EST --- Note that 1.0.6 is out, and I can no longer fetch 1.0.4 from upstream. I looked at the license and it seems acceptable to me, but it also doesn't correspond to anything rpnlint already knows about. I suggest just leaving things as-is and ignoring the rpmlint complaint. I also suggest ignoring the non-standard-group warning on the javadoc subpackage. W: javasvn invalid-license TMate License W: javasvn-debuginfo invalid-license TMate License W: javasvn-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: javasvn-javadoc invalid-license TMate License Other than that it does build fine in mock (with ganymed-ssh2 in a local repo) and looks OK. If you update to 1.0.6 I'll do a full review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196601] Review Request: vobject - A python library for manipulating vCard and vCalendar files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vobject - A python library for manipulating vCard and vCalendar files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196601 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 13:22 EST --- Updated locations: Spec URL: http://www.dangerouslyinc.com/~bowes/fe/python-vobject.spec SRPM URL: http://www.dangerouslyinc.com/~bowes/fe/python-vobject-0.3.0-1.src.rpm Thanks for the feedback, guys! I've: * Renamed the package to python-vobject * Removed the python-abi requires * Removed the unused python-sitearch macro * Removed some comments left over from the template I didn't add in the license file, since the released version does not package it in the tarball. However, the current sources in svn do have a LICENSE file, so it should be in the next 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 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] 2006-06-26 13:39 EST --- http://cachalot.mine.nu/5/SRPMS/em8300-kmod-0.15.3-5.2.6.17_1.2139_FC5.src.rpm * Mon Jun 26 2006 Ville Skyttä ville.skytta at iki.fi - 0.15.3-5 - Apply upstream patch to fix build with kernel 2.6.17, rediff WSS 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 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 13:48 EST --- Changes made, imported, sync requested. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 14:03 EST --- Created an attachment (id=131555) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=131555action=view) SELinux file contexts for bugzilla -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 14:04 EST --- Created an attachment (id=131556) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=131556action=view) SELinux interface definitions for bugzilla -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 178360] Review Request: xmms-adplug
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xmms-adplug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178360 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 14:04 EST --- Grabbing this per IRC discussion with Warren. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 14:05 EST --- Created an attachment (id=131557) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=131557action=view) SELinux policy rules for bugzilla -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 14:09 EST --- The attachments in comments 46 to 48 should be named as follows: Comment #46: bugzilla.fc Comment #47: bugzilla.if Comment #48: bugzilla.te See Comment #45 for how to use 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 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 14:16 EST --- Pretty neat; thanks. A couple of questions: Have things been worked out so that these declarations can go into the bugzilla package, or do they still have to be pushed into the core policy? Is anything special needed for the config files under /etc/bugzilla? Will Postres support require additional rules, or do the mysql rules cover it? (Note that I write rules because I don't know the proper terms for the various selinux bits.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190040] Review Request: hydrogen - Advanced drum machine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hydrogen - Advanced drum machine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190040 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 14:22 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) So, is this going to be included any time soon? I'll work on it this week. Thanks for the reminder. I forgot that I had received feedback. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 171289] Review Request: dirmngr: Client for Managing/Downloading CRLs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dirmngr: Client for Managing/Downloading CRLs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171289 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 14:27 EST --- Spec Name or Url http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/dirmngr.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/dirmngr-0.9.4-3.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Jun 26 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 0.9.4-3 - use 'iconv -f iso-8859-1 -t utf-8' to avoid dropping characters -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 178360] Review Request: xmms-adplug
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xmms-adplug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178360 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 14:35 EST --- Builds fine in mock and rpmlint is silent. * 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: 293808d1520d9d04c7909d4acb187943 adplug-xmms-1.2.tar.bz2 * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: libadplugxmms.so()(64bit) xmms-adplug = 1.2-1.fc6 = libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXi.so.6()(64bit) libadplug-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libbinio.so.1()(64bit) libgdk-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libglib-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libxmms.so.1()(64bit) * shared libraries are present, internal to xmms. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. _libdir/xmms/Input is provided by xmms-libs, which is a dependency via libxmms.so.1 * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 14:38 EST --- Updated files: http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/libreadline-java-0.8.0-10jpp_3fc.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/libreadline-java.spec I've moved the unversioned .so file into a -devel package, and also changed the Group for the -javadoc package to be Development/Libraries instead of Development/Java. The only remaining problem seems to be the no-soname error, which I'm not sure what to do about. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191015] Review Request: javasvn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: javasvn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191015 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 14:43 EST --- Thanks... updated to 1.0.6 http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/javasvn-1.0.6-1.src.rpm http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/javasvn.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 187610] Review Request: crm114 - CRM114 Bayesian Spam Detector
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: crm114 - CRM114 Bayesian Spam Detector https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187610 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 14:51 EST --- Taking ownership of this after a LUG member noted it wasn't in Fedora. Review is pending resolution of bug #187609; reporter explained current situation to me via IRC. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 171289] Review Request: dirmngr: Client for Managing/Downloading CRLs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dirmngr: Client for Managing/Downloading CRLs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171289 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 14:56 EST --- Im of a mind to allow a local admin to keep their local changes, so I'll mark it %config(noreplace) before requesting builds. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-26 15:15 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) Thanks for your review, but for the moment, I would like to know if the package works fine, I'll add pciutils in the require later. The package should at least build in mock, then we can go into the 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 196710] Review Request: coldet - 3D Collision Detection 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: coldet - 3D Collision Detection Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196710 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 15:38 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) The *-devel packages installs its headers to /usr/include, resulting into this: /usr/include/coldet.h /usr/include/math3d.h To me, /usr/include/math3d.h is too general to justify installing it there[1]. I strongly recommend to install the headers into /usr/include/coldet instead. I was thinking this at first too, then I though it would be ok and that if it wouldn't be ok I would hear so during the review :) Also, the package suffers from quite an amount of rather serious GCC warnings (esp. punned pointers), which are not unlikely to break its functionality. Huh, quite an amount? on x86_64 devel I count 3 dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules warnings. I've once spend a days fixing all those warnings in Glide3. But I've given up there are simple to many of these warnings and 99.9% is not a problem. I know howto fix these, but I don't see how this package is any different from all the other packages we have with these kind of warnings. Here is a new version soon moving the headers to /usr/include/coldet: Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/coldet.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/coldet-1.1-2.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 191015] Review Request: javasvn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: javasvn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191015 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 15:42 EST --- There's no reason to BuildReqires: coreutils; it's in the default buildroot. It would be pretty foolish to have a spec without cp and rm. rpmlint says: W: javasvn invalid-license TMate License W: javasvn-debuginfo invalid-license TMate License W: javasvn-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: javasvn-javadoc invalid-license TMate License All of which are OK. So no blockers. 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: fcb8db8a61cde8b5191ff6b1b87c5977 org.tmatesoft.svn_1.0.6.src.zip * latest version is being packaged. O BuildRequires are proper (redundant BR: coreutils) * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). O rpmlint has ignorable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: javasvn-1.0.6-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm javasvn-1.0.6.jar.so()(64bit) javasvn = 1.0.6-1.fc6 = /usr/bin/rebuild-gcj-db ganymed-ssh2 = 209 java-gcj-compat = 1.0.33 libgcj.so.7()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) javasvn-javadoc-1.0.6-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm javasvn-javadoc = 1.0.6-1.fc6 = (nothing) * shared libraries are present, internal to gcj; rebuild-gcj-db is called properly) * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; not test suite upstream. * scriptlets present are OK (rebuild-gcj-db) * code, not content. * javadoc documentation split off to -javadoc subpackage. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 16:28 EST --- I had to add --username guest in order to checkout the upstream source. The result, however, was not the same as what you're shipping in the spec. No idea what's going on there. Need to head home now; more when I get there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196744] New: Review Request: chess - 3D chess game
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=196744 Summary: Review Request: chess - 3D chess game Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/chess.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/chess-1.0-1.src.rpm Description: Beautifull 3D rendered chess game using Ogre. Notice that this needs a powerful 3D card to be playable on a radeon 92xx or intel 9xx integrated graphics this is not playable! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196744] Review Request: chess - 3D chess game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: chess - 3D chess game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196744 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||196710, 196740 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196740] Review Request: ogre - Object-Oriented Graphics Rendering Engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ogre - Object-Oriented Graphics Rendering Engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196740 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||196744 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 196710] Review Request: coldet - 3D Collision Detection 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: coldet - 3D Collision Detection Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196710 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||196744 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 196740] Review Request: ogre - Object-Oriented Graphics Rendering Engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ogre - Object-Oriented Graphics Rendering Engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196740 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 16:34 EST --- I have packaged the current versions of Ogre for my internal needs using the same basis (Xavier Decoret) ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196740] Review Request: ogre - Object-Oriented Graphics Rendering Engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ogre - Object-Oriented Graphics Rendering Engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196740 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 16:36 EST --- May I advise you to swithc to my version then, it fixes a bug with fonts with relative sizes not showing, which was causing fonts for me to disappear in chess, caused me ages to find. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196740] Review Request: ogre - Object-Oriented Graphics Rendering Engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ogre - Object-Oriented Graphics Rendering Engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196740 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 16:48 EST --- Sure, I will use it. I have now some troubles when building Ogre with cegui from Extras in FC4. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194481] Review Request: eggdrop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eggdrop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194481 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 16:56 EST --- 11618 (eggdrop): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. 11617 (eggdrop): Build on target fedora-5-extras succeeded. 11616 (eggdrop): Build on target fedora-4-extras succeeded. as per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors I'll close this bug report with NEXTRELEASE now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193493] Review Request: iksemel - An XML parser library designed for Jabber 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: iksemel - An XML parser library designed for Jabber applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193493 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 17:07 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) (In reply to comment #5) The %check section is skipped on non-i386 architectures because one of the tests fail. Perhaps that indicates that this package doesn't actually work on x86_64. Have you consulted upstream? The failed test is testing iksemel's own SHA1 has implementation, which obviously has some 64-bit unclean code. As long as you avoid using the internal SHA1 code you're good to go. (I actually use iksemel on a x86_64 box.) I also decided to stick with re-running autotools because BR'ing libtool would pull in autoconf and automake anyway, although setting LIBTOOL=/usr/bin/libtool worked to remove the rpath. It's not about pulling them in; it's about running them in the first place. You really shouldn't re-autotool a package unless you simply have no other choice. In this case there is a perfectly good and well-accepted alternative. Spec: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/5/SRPMS/iksemel-1.2-4.fc5.spec SRPM: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/5/SRPMS/iksemel-1.2-4.fc5.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Jun 26 2006 Jeffrey C. Ollie [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1.2-4 - Don't re-run autotools, fix rpath in a different way. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196748] New: Review Request: setroubleshoot - automatic diagnosis of SELinux problems
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=196748 Summary: Review Request: setroubleshoot - automatic diagnosis of SELinux problems Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: ftp://people.redhat.com/jdennis/setroubleshoot.spec SRPM URL: ftp://people.redhat.com/jdennis/setroubleshoot-0.2-1.src.rpm Description: Provides tools to help diagnose SELinux problems. When AVC messages are generated an alert can be generated that will give information about the problem and help track its resolution. Alerts can be configured to user preference. The same tools can be run on existing log files. -- 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 193960] Review Request: perl-Net-LibIDN
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Net-LibIDN https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193960 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 17:15 EST --- 11624 (perl-Net-LibIDN): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. 11623 (perl-Net-LibIDN): Build on target fedora-5-extras succeeded. 11622 (perl-Net-LibIDN): Build on target fedora-4-extras succeeded. as per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors I'll close this bug report with NEXTRELEASE now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196749] New: Review Request: php-pecl-xdebug - PECL package for debugging PHP scripts
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=196749 Summary: Review Request: php-pecl-xdebug - PECL package for debugging PHP scripts 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://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pecl-xdebug.spec SRPM URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pecl-xdebug-2.0.0-beta5.1.src.rpm Description: The Xdebug extension helps you debugging your script by providing a lot of valuable debug information. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-26 17:34 EST --- HELP! I have the build failed on fc4 x86_64 and devel (fc6) x86_64 - Job failed on arch x86_64 Build logs may be found at http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-4-extras/11631-crystal-1.0.1-1.fc4/ - checking for size_t... yes checking size of size_t... 8 checking for unsigned long... yes checking size of unsigned long... 8 checking sizeof size_t == sizeof unsigned long... yes checking crt_externs.h usability... no checking crt_externs.h presence... no checking for crt_externs.h... no checking for _NSGetEnviron... no checking for vsnprintf... yes checking for snprintf... yes checking for X... libraries /usr/X11R6/lib64, headers /usr/X11R6/include checking for IceConnectionNumber in -lICE... yes checking for libXext... yes checking for pthread_create in -lpthread... yes checking for extra includes... no checking for extra libs... no checking for libz... -lz checking for libpng... -lpng -lz -lm checking for libjpeg6b... no checking for libjpeg... -ljpeg checking for perl... /usr/bin/perl checking for Qt... configure: error: Qt (= Qt 3.3) (library qt-mt) not found. Please check your installation! For more details about this problem, look at the end of config.log. Make sure that you have compiled Qt with thread support! error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.5419 (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.5419 (%build) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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|CLOSED |NEW Keywords||Reopened 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 196748] Review Request: setroubleshoot - automatic diagnosis of SELinux problems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: setroubleshoot - automatic diagnosis of SELinux problems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196748 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 17:35 EST --- Should the package own these: /var/log/setroubleshoot/ /var/log/setroubleshoot/setroubleshoot.log c.f.: sudo /sbin/service setroubleshoot start Starting setroubleshootd: Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/sbin/setroubleshootd, line 20, in ? from setroubleshoot.config import cfg File /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/setroubleshoot/__init__.py, line 23, in ? LogInit() File /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/setroubleshoot/log.py, line 39, in LogInit filemode='a') File /usr/lib/python2.4/logging/__init__.py, line 1218, in basicConfig hdlr = FileHandler(filename, mode) File /usr/lib/python2.4/logging/__init__.py, line 757, in __init__ stream = open(filename, mode) IOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/var/log/setroubleshoot/setroubleshoot.log' [FAILED] -- 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 196635] Review Request: knetworkmanager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: knetworkmanager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196635 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 17:49 EST --- imported branch requested all built and awaiting push Closing -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-06-26 17:51 EST --- - Fix all executable bits on modules.conf uidefs.xml benchmark.data - Add %post and %postun section - Add License file in %file section SPEC URL : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/hardinfo/hardinfo.spec SRPMS URL : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/hardinfo/hardinfo-0.4.1-3.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 17:58 EST --- It might be nice if you included a quick script which fetches and builds the tarball you use. This is commonly done for packages which must remove something (like mp3 support) from the upstream tarball. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184008] Review Request: paco
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: paco https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 165689] Review Request: SquidGuard: filter, redirector and access controller plugin for squid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: SquidGuard: filter, redirector and access controller plugin for squid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165689 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 188611 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 18:24 EST --- If the original submitter is not interested in continuing with this package, this ticket should be closed. If someone else wants to submit SquidGuard then they can open a new ticket. I'll go ahead and close this now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-06-26 19:02 EST --- How often does upstream release packages that only have the icons changed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196601] Review Request: python-vobject - A python library for manipulating vCard and vCalendar files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-vobject - A python library for manipulating vCard and vCalendar files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196601 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: vobject - A|Review Request: python- |python library for |vobject - A python library |manipulating vCard and |for manipulating vCard and |vCalendar files |vCalendar 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 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] 2006-06-26 20:58 EST --- I take it that the fc5/x86_64 build worked? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193479] Review Request: xwrits
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xwrits https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193479 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778, 177841 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 21:21 EST --- All the items in comment #7 are addressed. This package looks good to me now, so it's APPROVED. I am willing to go ahead and sponsor you. You don't have any comments on other review requests, but you have a good history in bugzilla contibuting. ;) You can continue the process by going to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors on the Get a Fedora Account step. Please let me know via email or irc (I'm nirik on #fedora-extras) if you have any questions... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 21:45 EST --- So can I import paps into the tree now? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196823] New: Review Request: php-pear-Log - PEAR: Framework for an abstracted logging system
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=196823 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Log - PEAR: Framework for an abstracted logging system 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://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-Log.spec SRPM URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-Log-1.9.6-1.src.rpm Description: The Log framework provides an abstracted logging system. It supports logging to console, file, syslog, SQL, Sqlite, mail, and mcal targets. It also provides a subject - observer mechanism. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196824] New: Review Request: php-pear-Mail_Mime
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=196824 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Mail_Mime 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://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/php-pear-Mail_Mime.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/php-pear-Mail_Mime-1.3.1-2.src.rpm Description: A Package to enable easy creation of complex multipart emails. If you look for a simple API for creating such emails, then Mail_Mime class will probably suffice. Else you can use Mail_mimePart, which gives you better control about MIME creation. This .spec file is 95% that found in php-pear-Mail by Remi Collet, approved 4 weeks ago. This PEAR module is required by horde, also up for review at bug 189195. Also should be noted, I still need a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-06-26 22:24 EST --- I noticed one final unowned dir and then it should be good: /usr/share/gnome/wm-properties That one I think you should just own -- it looks like each wm that supports Gnome puts files in there, and since none of the Gnome packages appear to create it, each wm will have to own it I'll go ahead and approve, so just fix that before you build -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Openbox https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196827] New: Review Request: php-pear-Image-GraphViz - PEAR: Interface to ATT's GraphViz tools
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=196827 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Image-GraphViz - PEAR: Interface to ATT's GraphViz tools 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://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-Image-GraphViz.spec SRPM URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-Image-GraphViz-1.2.1-1.src.rpm Description: The GraphViz class allows for the creation of and the work with directed and undirected graphs and their visualization with ATT's GraphViz tools. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196601] Review Request: python-vobject - A python library for manipulating vCard and vCalendar files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-vobject - A python library for manipulating vCard and vCalendar files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196601 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 23:25 EST --- APPROVED, based upon the review by Parag AN and the updated package. For furture reference, please bump the release each time you update the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-06-26 23:34 EST --- SPEC looks 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 165689] Review Request: SquidGuard: filter, redirector and access controller plugin for squid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: SquidGuard: filter, redirector and access controller plugin for squid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165689 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Keywords||Reopened Resolution|NOTABUG | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 23:57 EST --- K12LTSP is slowly being merged to become an official part of the Fedora Project, so we eventually need this to be added. Reopening. Anybody else want to be maintainer? If not then I'll have to do it. I at least used this before... -- 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 196748] Review Request: setroubleshoot - automatic diagnosis of SELinux problems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: setroubleshoot - automatic diagnosis of SELinux problems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196748 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-27 00:03 EST --- opps, you're right David the log directory was missing from the %files section, as was a logrotate script. I added both, new version is now setroubleshoot-0.3-1 in the same ftp area. Thank you. -- 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application 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: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||190101, 196824 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-27 00:28 EST --- Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde-3.1.1-9.10.src.rpm I've gone ahead and added php-pear-DB (already in FE) php-pear-Log (bug 190101) and php-pear-Mail_Mime (mine, bug 196824) as dependencies, Thanks David. I've also added a quite verbose message in %post with further instructions on configuring, securing horde. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196824] Review Request: php-pear-Mail_Mime
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Mail_Mime https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196824 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||189195 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 190101] Review Request: php-pear-Log
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Log https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190101 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||189195 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 196837] New: Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit2 - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests
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=196837 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit2 - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests 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://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-PHPUnit2.spec SRPM URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-PHPUnit2-3.0.0-alpha11.1.src.rpm Description: PHPUnit is a family of PEAR packages (PHPUnit2 for PHP 5, PHPUnit for PHP 4) that supports the development of object-oriented PHP applications using the concepts and methods of Agile Software Development, Extreme Programming, Test-Driven Development and Design-by-Contract Development by providing an elegant and robust framework for the creation, execution and analysis of Unit Tests. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190101] Review Request: php-pear-Log
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Log https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190101 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-27 01:03 EST --- Hey guys, I did not know this review request existed. I created a php-pear-MDB2 review request and php-pear-Log review request. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196823 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190101] Review Request: php-pear-Log
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Log https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190101 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-27 01:16 EST --- php-pecl-xdebug request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196749 php-pear-MDB2 reqeust: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196793 NOTE that my php-pear-Log spec file uses these two packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
