[Bug 189705] Review Request: aiccu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: aiccu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189705
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 02:04 EST ---
A few comments:
As in comment #2, Source0 is not a full URL. I suggest using:
Source0: http://www.sixxs.net/archive/sixxs/aiccu/unix/aiccu_%{version}.tar.gz
Builds fine in mock; rpmlint says:
E: aiccu non-readable /etc/aiccu.conf 0600
Understandable since this includes password information.
W: aiccu service-default-enabled /etc/init.d/aiccu
The init script has:
# chkconfig: 345 15 85
So the service will start enabled in runlevels 3, 4, and 5. You should
s/345/-/.
The makefile strips the binary, which breaks -debuginfo generation.
Other than those, things look pretty good although I suspect that once you fix
-debuginfo generation, the fact that many of the source files are executable for
some reason will cause several other warnings.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 175433] Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175433 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 02:11 EST --- [lost in the last bugzilla crash] * Tue Jun 13 2006 Enrico Scholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.1.1.21-0 - updated to 0.1.1.21 http://ensc.de/fedora/tor/ http://ensc.de/fedora/tor/tor.spec http://ensc.de/fedora/tor/tor-0.1.1.21-0.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196622] Review Request: perl-PerlIO-eol - PerlIO layer for normalizing line endings
Please 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-PerlIO-eol - PerlIO layer for normalizing line endings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196622 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 02:15 EST --- Fixed the warning. Spec: http://znark.com/fedora/perl-PerlIO-eol.spec SRPMS: http://znark.com/fedora/perl-PerlIO-eol-0.13-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196619] Review Request: perl-Data-Hierarchy - Handle data in a hierarchical structure
Please 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-Data-Hierarchy - Handle data in a hierarchical structure https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196619 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 02:16 EST --- I fixed the warnings and updated to most recent version. http://znark.com/fedora/perl-Data-Hierarchy.spec http://znark.com/fedora/perl-Data-Hierarchy-0.22-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196624] Review Request: perl-PerlIO-via-symlink - PerlIO layers for creating symlinks
Please 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-PerlIO-via-symlink - PerlIO layers for creating symlinks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196624 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 02:19 EST --- I fixed the rpmlint warnings. http://znark.com/fedora/perl-PerlIO-via-symlink.spec http://znark.com/fedora/perl-PerlIO-via-symlink-0.05-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196621] Review Request: perl-IO-Digest - Perl module to calculate digests while reading or writing
Please 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-IO-Digest - Perl module to calculate digests while reading or writing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196621 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 02:22 EST --- Fixed rpmlint warnings. http://znark.com/fedora/perl-IO-Digest-0.10.spec http://znark.com/fedora/perl-IO-Digest-0.10-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196627] Review Request: perl-SVN-Mirror - Mirror remote repository to local Subversion repository
Please 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-Mirror - Mirror remote repository to local Subversion repository https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196627 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 02:20 EST --- I fixed the rpmlint warnings. http://znark.com/fedora/perl-SVN-Mirror.spec http://znark.com/fedora/perl-SVN-Mirror-0.68-4.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 196617] Review Request: perl-File-chdir - Perl module for local chdir()
Please 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-File-chdir - Perl module for local chdir() https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196617 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 02:23 EST --- I fixed the warnings. http://znark.com/fedora/perl-File-chdir.spec http://znark.com/fedora/perl-File-chdir-0.06-2.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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 02:25 EST --- I fixed the warnings. http://znark.com/fedora/perl-SVN-Simple.spec http://znark.com/fedora/perl-SVN-Simple-0.27-2.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 196620] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-Annotate - represent a series of changes in annotate form
Please 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-Algorithm-Annotate - represent a series of changes in annotate form https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196620 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 02:32 EST --- I fixed the warnings. There are no doc files included beyond the man page. The META.yml specifies a version for Algorithm::Diff so a versioned dependency is proper. Since only a newer version is available, the version probably doesn't matter. http://znark.com/fedora/perl-Algorithm-Annotate.spec http://znark.com/fedora/perl-Algorithm-Annotate-0.10-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196620] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-Annotate - represent a series of changes in annotate form
Please 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-Algorithm-Annotate - represent a series of changes in annotate form https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196620 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 02:37 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) The META.yml specifies a version for Algorithm::Diff so a versioned dependency The actual files contain no versioned dependency. Since only a newer version is available, the version probably doesn't matter. Exactly. That's why I consider it superfluous. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193784] Review Request: linuxdcpp - A port of DC++ to Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: linuxdcpp - A port of DC++ to Linux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193784 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 03:15 EST --- It would be very nice if you push linuxdcpp in Extras. Thanks Andy for yout effort. Cheers mate! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190156] Review Request: php-pear-HTTP
Please 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-HTTP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190156 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 03:52 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) Use of ||: must be explained in spec file or removed The ||: in the scriptlets should stay. In an rpm transaction involving multiple packages (for example, an update of multiple php-pear-* packages), if one of the scriptlets fails, the rpm transaction stops at that point. This can leave the system and its rpm database in a bad state. Supposing five packages were updated and the %postun of the first one failed. The transaction would stop at that point, leaving two copies of the other four packages installed. See also http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets where you'll find many more examples of the use of this idiom. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196865] Review Request: audacious - A GTK2 based media player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: audacious - A GTK2 based media player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196865 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 03:56 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) then IANAL. The PSX plugin does have a bunch of ROM calls thunked to native code. IOW, it doesn't include any ROM code either, correct? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190156] Review Request: php-pear-HTTP
Please 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-HTTP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190156 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 04:02 EST --- Okay, my bad then. Remi: you can ignore my comments about ||: on all my reviews of your 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 191743] Review Request: sysprof - a sampling CPU profiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: sysprof - a sampling CPU profiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191743
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 04:08 EST ---
Thanks. I added a %dir %{_datadir}/sysprof line to the spec, but I prefer to
maintain the explicit list of files, since there are really few of them.
I am waiting a bit for new comments/requests before updating the .spec and
src.rpm 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 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 Alias: php-pear-Mail-Mime https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196824 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||190958 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 05:33 EST --- The Requires Line should read: Requires: php php-pear(PEAR) php-pear(Net_SMTP) Add a dependency on the php-pear-Net-SMTP review. The version requirement for php-pear is not needed in Requires. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190958] Review Request: php-pear-Net-SMTP
Please 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-Net-SMTP Alias: php-pear-Net-SMTP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190958 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||196824 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 190957] Review Request: php-pear-Net-Socket
Please 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-Net-Socket Alias: php-pear-Net-Socket https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190957 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 05:40 EST --- Also, please add php to the Requires as per the PHP packaging guidelines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190956] Review Request: php-pear-Auth-SASL
Please 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-Auth-SASL Alias: php-pear-Auth-SASL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190956 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 05:43 EST --- Also, please add php = 4.0.0 to the Requires to meet PHP packaging guidelines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197048] New: Review Request: pam_script
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=197048 Summary: Review Request: pam_script Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/pam_script.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/pam_script-0.1.7-1.src.rpm Description: pam_script is a module which allows to execute scripts after opening and/or closing a session using PAM. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 Alias: php-pear-Mail-Mime https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196824 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 06:04 EST --- erm I mean php-pear, not pear-php (getting late here, time for sleep) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 Alias: php-pear-Mail-Mime https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196824 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|190958 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190958] Review Request: php-pear-Net-SMTP
Please 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-Net-SMTP Alias: php-pear-Net-SMTP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190958 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|196824 | 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 196865] Review Request: audacious - A GTK2 based media player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: audacious - A GTK2 based media player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196865 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 06:45 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) I have thought about obsoleting bmp. I am not sure we should do this for FC6 for the following reasons: a) there may be additional plugins for bmp in FE that are not ported to audacious yet, so existing users would lose playback ability. I have not checked this yet, so it may be a non-issue. This is a non-issue according to owners.list, the only plugin currently available through FE is bmp-flac2. AFAIK this is included into audacious, right, otherwise we can port it to audacious, make it obsolete bmp-flac2 and release it at the same time. b) obsoleting bmp with audacious leads to a continuity problem from the view of the user. The user who has been using bmp gets (maybe unsuspectingly) a new program which looks similar, behaves simimar, but has forgotten all his settings. Maybe we should come up with a way to import BMP settings on the first startup. Hmm, I see that this is not entirely user friendly, but really you cannot configure that much with bmp / audacious. Many other smaller opensource projects sometimes change there configuration format without providing a conversion tool. Only the real big ones provide conversion tools like firefox and ooo. To me the extra effort of having to maintain 2 programs +plugins versus 1 muich outweighs this disadvantage of obsoleting bmp. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193531] Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 07:05 EST --- This is not an official review: - MUST: rpmlint gives warnings, which should be corrected. chitlesh(i386)[0]$rpmlint -i kicad-2006-04-24-0-4.i386.rpm W: kicad-2006-04-24 incoherent-version-in-changelog 2006-04-24-0-4 0-4 Your last entry in %changelog contains a version that is not coherent with the current version of your package. W: kicad-2006-04-24 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kicad/pt/contents.hhc This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. W: kicad-2006-04-24 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kicad/fr/pcbnew/pcbnew.html This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. W: kicad-2006-04-24 file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/kicad/en/pcbnew/doc_pcbnew.zip The character encoding of this file is not UTF-8. Consider converting it in the specfile for example using iconv(1). W: kicad-2006-04-24 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kicad-2006-04-24-0/author.txt This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. W: kicad-2006-04-24 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kicad/fr/kicad/kicad.html This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. W: kicad-2006-04-24 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kicad/en/cvpcb/cvpcb-en.pdf This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. E: kicad-2006-04-24 script-without-shellbang /usr/share/doc/kicad-2006-04-24-0/gpl.txt This executable text file does not contain a shebang, thus it cannot be properly executed. Often this is a sign of spurious executable bits for a non-script file, but can also be a case of a missing shebang. To fix this error, find out which case of the above it is, and either remove the executable bits or add the shebang. E: kicad-2006-04-24 wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kicad-2006-04-24-0/gpl.txt This script has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It will prevent its execution. W: kicad-2006-04-24 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kicad/en/pcbnew/pcbnew.html This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. E: kicad-2006-04-24 script-without-shellbang /usr/share/doc/kicad-2006-04-24-0/readme.txt This executable text file does not contain a shebang, thus it cannot be properly executed. Often this is a sign of spurious executable bits for a non-script file, but can also be a case of a missing shebang. To fix this error, find out which case of the above it is, and either remove the executable bits or add the shebang. E: kicad-2006-04-24 wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kicad-2006-04-24-0/readme.txt This script has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It will prevent its execution. W: kicad-2006-04-24 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kicad/en/contents.hhc This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. W: kicad-2006-04-24 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kicad-2006-04-24-0/contrib.txt This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. W: kicad-2006-04-24 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kicad/fr/cvpcb/cvpcb.pdf This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. W: kicad-2006-04-24 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kicad/pt/pcbnew/pcbnew.html This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. W: kicad-2006-04-24
[Bug 193531] Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 07:10 EST --- Chitlesh, note you may do official reviews and approve if you want! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192432] Review Request: compiz
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: compiz https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192432 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 07:37 EST --- #21 confirmed as building and working on x86 rawhide as of today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 07:41 EST --- what exactly is required? hw accelerated shaders? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193531] Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 07:42 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) This is not an official review: - MUST: rpmlint gives warnings, which should be corrected. chitlesh(i386)[0]$rpmlint -i kicad-2006-04-24-0-4.i386.rpm This isn't the good package! Last release is 5. The following URL is invalid. Source1: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/kicad-src-extras.tar.bz2 Fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 07:43 EST --- I don't know, something that my radeon 9250 and an intel 945 both lack. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 07:46 EST --- i will take a deeper look on the weekend. a 3d chess game is very nice to have :) i also saw that you submitted ogre. i was also working on it with wart. but your package is quite nice. i had a fix for the rpath problem (hack :) ) but the other fix is indeed nice if it makes the chess game work. nice stuff! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193531] Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 07:50 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) chitlesh(i386)[0]$rpmlint -i kicad-2006-04-24-0-4.i386.rpm This isn't the good package! Last release is 5. pardon ! chitlesh(i386)[0]$rpmlint -i kicad-2006.04.24-5.i386.rpm W: kicad file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/kicad/en/pcbnew/doc_pcbnew.zip The character encoding of this file is not UTF-8. Consider converting it in the specfile for example using iconv(1). file-not-utf8 Indicates that the text encoding of the specified file, usually a documentation file, is not in UTF8. * Usually fixed by running iconv on the uncompressed file before installation. See man page ICONV(1) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193479] Review Request: xwrits
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xwrits https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193479 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 08:01 EST --- Package is in CVS for devel and FC-5. I've done a build and it was successful. Closing BZ. Thanks for the help, Kevin! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193531] Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 08:24 EST --- I don't think rpmlint complains about encoding of included files (HTML files are ASCII) but about the zip file. So, this warning seems to me incoherent. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193531] Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 09:11 EST --- you can just unzipped the zip file :) to the appropriate folder and post your updated spec file and srpm for official review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196865] Review Request: audacious - A GTK2 based media player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: audacious - A GTK2 based media player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196865 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 09:18 EST --- Since I am the maintainer (and upstream) of bmp-flac2, this is mostly a nonissue, right :) I'll look into the configuration thing again. Maybe it is simple to merge in the old bmp configuration. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 09:37 EST --- Thanks for your help, everyone! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185423] Review Request: php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR
Please 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-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR Alias: php-pear-PCP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185423 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 09:41 EST --- Thanks for taking on the package Chris. (In reply to comment #9) When this package is installed, the pear install and uninstall commands are removed and the %post and %postun sections are not executed properly. This wasn't the case previously (and indeed right now I have it quite happily installed here without that problem) so there is something environment-specific about this, but by sheer coincidence I noticed this myself on another machine this morning. Fixed upstream this morning in cvs.php.net so I will build a new version of this RPM when there is a new upstream ver. (In reply to comment #10) Also, please change the License field to say just PHP License this is what rpmlint will expect. I do not think this should happen, for the following reasons: a) The License field is supposed to be what the License is, not what rpmlint thinks it should be. If rpmlint doesn't know it, rpmlint needs fixing - not the package. That's not an argument against consistency, but is an argument for accuracy. See also (b) below. b) The PHP License v3.01 is exactly what the current Core php package uses c) Noting the versioning of licenses is important. I'll rephrase and repeat what I said over in bug #196281, which is: We really ought to specify a version if the package specifies one, because otherwise if there's (say) a PHP License v4 in future with different terms, we would be misleading users by implying they could distribute it under the terms of v4 whereas the authors might have only specified v3. We should respect the author's license. Note for example that recent Core php packages have started explicitly mentioning license version. Now I will hold my hands up (as the upstream maintainer of this package) for not enforcing consistency upstream; all the source files mention 3.01 but the web page says PHP License and links to 2.02. That will also be fixed to be consistent for the upcoming 0.1.2. A copy of the actual license should be included and added to %doc This is against the usual convention and directly conflicts with the advice I was given in bug #176733, the first PEAR package to be added to FE. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191589] Review Request: qsa: Qt Script for 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: qsa: Qt Script for Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191589 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 09:42 EST --- Looks like the ACCEPT got lost in the bugzilla crash, reclosing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189705] Review Request: aiccu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aiccu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189705 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 10:20 EST --- Fixed the above, no further warnings are emitted. Spec URL: http://domsch.com/linux/fedora/extras/aiccu/aiccu.spec SRPM URL: http://domsch.com/linux/fedora/extras/aiccu/aiccu-2005.01.31-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197013] Review Request: perl-RRD-Simple
Please 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-RRD-Simple https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197013 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 10:31 EST --- Thanks for the review! Built for FC-4, 5, and devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-06-28 10:37 EST --- http://flooterbu.net/fedora/libhugetlbfs.spec http://flooterbu.net/fedora/libhugetlbfs-0.20060627-1.src.rpm buildroot and buildrequires fixed. I've patched the Makefile to install those linker scripts 644. The %dir has been added. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185423] Review Request: php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR
Please 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-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR Alias: php-pear-PCP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185423 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 11:02 EST --- Updated files for v0.1.2, fixing the kill pear install problem at: http://www.timj.co.uk/linux/specs/php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging.spec http://www.timj.co.uk/linux/srpms/php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging-0.1.2-1.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 197048] Review Request: pam_script
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pam_script
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197048
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 11:06 EST ---
This fails to build in mock:
+ make
gcc -Wall -pedantic -fPIC -shared -o pam_script.so pam_script.c
pam_script.c:23:34: error: security/_pam_macros.h: No such file or directory
pam_script.c:24:34: error: security/pam_modules.h: No such file or directory
pam_script.c:48: error: expected ')' before '*' token
pam_script.c:83: error: expected ')' before '*' token
pam_script.c:240: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before
'int'
pam_script.c:249: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before
'int'
pam_script.c:259: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before
'int'
pam_script.c:296: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before
'int'
make: *** [pam_script.so] Errror 1
Adding BuildRequires: pam-devel fixes this up; rpmlint is happy with the
resulting package. I'll assume the BR: is there for the purposes of this
review.
The compiler isn't called with the appropriate flags. You need to pass in
${optflags} somehow. This also causes the -debuginfo package to be broken.
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines (pam modules use an underscore).
* 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:
9f1031154718b79d6ee79c9c5231b1d4 pam-script-0.1.7.tar.gz
* latest version is being packaged.
X BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64) (after adding BR: pam-devel)
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
pam_script.so()(64bit)
pam_script = 0.1.7-1.fc6
=
(empty)
* shared libraries are present, internal to pam.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates (doesn't own /lib/security, but I think pam is
a requirement for any running system)
* 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.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191671] Review Request: serpentine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: serpentine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191671 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 11:11 EST --- Sindre, please close you reviews if your package becomes available. 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 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] 2006-06-28 11:24 EST ---
(In reply to comment #18)
Full review of requirements checklist:
* build root is correct -- almost, but not quite, should be %{version} in
there instead of %
{libhugetlbfs_version}
Good to go.
* BuildRequires are proper -- need to remove /usr/include/gnu/stubs-32.h
Good to go.
* rpmlint is silent -- not quite:
W: libhugetlbfs no-soname /usr/lib64/libhugetlbfs.so
E: libhugetlbfs script-without-shellbang
/usr/share/libhugetlbfs/ldscripts/elf_x86_64.xB
E: libhugetlbfs script-without-shellbang
/usr/share/libhugetlbfs/ldscripts/elf_x86_64.xBDT
The first isn't a problem, the 2nd and 3rd we can get rid of by chmod -x'ing
the ldscripts. (I'm
assuming they don't need to be executable).
Okay, those are taken care of, but I screwed up and forgot to mention one other
than I'd manually adjusted in a local copy of the spec. The version in the
changelog should be 0.20060627-1 instead of 0:20060627-1 (rpmlint complains
about a bad revision or some such thing).
* owns the directories it creates -- missing a '%dir %{_datadir}/libhugetlbfs'
for the base package
Good to go.
Once the version in the changelog is corrected, I believe the package is ready
for Extrafication (pending sponsorship, of course).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-28 12:02 EST --- http://flooterbu.net/fedora/libhugetlbfs.spec http://flooterbu.net/fedora/libhugetlbfs-0.20060628-1.src.rpm Updated to the 20060628 release which included my Makefile patch. I've fixed up the changelog version, but I'm confused since the guidelines at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines?action=showredirect=PackagingGuidelines#head-b7d622f4bb245300199c6a33128acce5fb453213 show 0:1.0-0.fdr.2 as an example. Does that page need updating or am I misunderstanding something? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194355] Review Request: imlib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: imlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194355 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 12:05 EST --- Builds fine for me in mock for development-i386 with reduced buildroot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196617] Review Request: perl-File-chdir - Perl module for local chdir()
Please 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-File-chdir - Perl module for local chdir() https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196617 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 13:37 EST --- Still builds fine and rpmlint is now quiet. The issues I had are fixed. 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 196627] Review Request: perl-SVN-Mirror - Mirror remote repository to local Subversion repository
Please 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-Mirror - Mirror remote repository to local Subversion repository https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196627 [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 194355] Review Request: imlib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: imlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194355 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 13:53 EST --- Yeah, I can confirm it builds fine in fc6/devel here under mock as well. It does not build under fc5 however (see build.log error in comment #5) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194355] Review Request: imlib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: imlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194355 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 13:59 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) Yeah, I can confirm it builds fine in fc6/devel here under mock as well. It does not build under fc5 however (see build.log error in comment #5) Does that matter? imlib is in Core for FC-5 so there will never be an FC-5 branch for it in Extras. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194355] Review Request: imlib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: imlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194355 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 14:02 EST --- (in reply to comment #8) Does that matter? imlib is in Core for FC-5 so there will never be an FC-5 branch for it in Extras. True. It's not a blocker, but I thought I would mention 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 197137] New: Review Request: Conga - Remote management interface
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=197137 Summary: Review Request: Conga - Remote management interface 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://sourceware.org/cluster/conga/extras/conga.spec SRPM URL: http://sourceware.org/cluster/conga/extras/conga-0.8-6.FC6.src.rpm Description: Conga is a next generation management interface for cluster and storage configuration, but can also be easily adopted to any remote management or configuration need. In addition to Cluster and Storage, Conga ships with modules for pkg installation, logging, service level configuration (chkconfig), etc. It consists of an agent and a user interface. Please see a full description at http://sources.redhat.com/cluster/conga/index.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-28 15:10 EST --- (In reply to comment #22) Package APPROVED. Josh, you're on for sponsorship. :) Done. Everyone invovled has done a great job. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196629] Review Request: perl-SVK - A Distributed Version Control System
Please 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-SVK - A Distributed Version Control System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196629 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 15:21 EST --- I fixed some the problems. I fixed the rpmlint warnings. I stopped it from wanting to autoinstall IO::Pager (and any other missing optional pakcages). There was a permission issue which kept the build directory from being removed. Spec: http://znark.com/fedora/perl-SVK.spec SRPMS: http://znark.com/fedora/perl-SVK-1.07-5.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 196627] Review Request: perl-SVN-Mirror - Mirror remote repository to local Subversion repository
Please 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-Mirror - Mirror remote repository to local Subversion repository https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196627 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 15:22 EST --- For some reason your web server thinks the specfile is text/html, which makes it tough to read. This package completely hangs up in mock because it waits for input. I piped yes n into the Makefile.PL bit and I get this far: Cannot reliably compare non-decimal formatted versions. Please install version.pm or Sort::Versions. [Core Features] - SVN::Core ...loaded. (1.3.1 = 1.0.7) - URI::Escape ...loaded. (3.28) - Term::ReadKey ...loaded. (2.30) - SVN::Simple::Edit ...loaded. (0.27) - Date::Format ...loaded. (2.22) - File::chdir ...loaded. (0.06) - Class::Accessor ...loaded. (0.25) [VCP support] - VCP ...missing. (would need 0.9) - Data::UUID...missing. == Auto-install the 2 optional module(s) from CPAN? [y/N] n The package builds and fails a pile of tests: Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed --- t/2basic.t 255 6528015 26 173.33% 3-15 t/6relay.t 255 65280 9 14 155.56% 3-9 t/7copy.t 255 65280 32 66.67% 3 t/8skipto-torev.t 255 6528058 116 200.00% 1-58 2 tests skipped. Failed 4/9 test scripts, 55.56% okay. 79/100 subtests failed, 21.00% okay. which of course fails the build. At this point I have to wonder whether or not you you actually tested this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189705] Review Request: aiccu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aiccu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189705 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 15:30 EST --- Fixed RPM_OPT_FLAGS usage, and removed executable bits on files going into debuginfo so that's sane now. Spec URL: http://domsch.com/linux/fedora/extras/aiccu/aiccu.spec SRPM URL: http://domsch.com/linux/fedora/extras/aiccu/aiccu-2005.01.31- 4.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 197048] Review Request: pam_script
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pam_script https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197048 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 15:55 EST --- thanks for the review.. updated package ans spec Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/pam_script.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/pam_script-0.1.7-1.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 197048] Review Request: pam_script
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pam_script https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197048 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 15:55 EST --- Sorry.. incorrect URLs, trying again. Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/pam_script.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/pam_script-0.1.7-2.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 189705] Review Request: aiccu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aiccu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189705 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 16:09 EST --- Everything looks fine now; the debuginfo package has the source and build.log shows the proper flags being passed to the compiler. 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 196865] Review Request: audacious - A GTK2 based media player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: audacious - A GTK2 based media player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196865 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 16:18 EST --- Right, the PSX player traps ROM calls to native code, it does not have any actual ROM code in it that I can see. Also, the sooner we can get an audacious-mp3 package into the Repo That Must Not Be Named, the better. ;P -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196865] Review Request: audacious - A GTK2 based media player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: audacious - A GTK2 based media player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196865 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 16:22 EST --- And ACC and WMA. Those codecs were surgically removed from the 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 195659] Review Request: qt4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qt4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195659 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO_REPORTER --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 16:25 EST --- Please start with the Extras 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 196229] Review Request: xkeyboard-config
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xkeyboard-config https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196229 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO_REPORTER AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|188265 |188268 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 16:33 EST --- Package looks good, you'll have to add a Obsoletes: xorg-x11-xkbdata and Provides xorg-x11-xkbdata for upgrade paths. Can we get rid if the super ugly hack in %pre now? I'm going to approve. -- 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 196619] Review Request: perl-Data-Hierarchy - Handle data in a hierarchical structure
Please 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-Data-Hierarchy - Handle data in a hierarchical structure https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196619 [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 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|188265 |188268 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 16:41 EST --- SHOULDFIX: - There is no URL to upstream source, so it would be difficult to verify source checksum. Everything else is clean. This passes package review. Bill, care to ack/nack? John, if we bring this into core, how would it get installed on people's system? Would it go into a Comps group? Would it be a dep of something else? -- 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 196619] Review Request: perl-Data-Hierarchy - Handle data in a hierarchical structure
Please 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-Data-Hierarchy - Handle data in a hierarchical structure https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196619 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 16:56 EST --- * 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: f620014fc04e38d0e3a5283e9f7d8678 Data-Hierarchy-0.22.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(Data::Hierarchy) = 0.22 perl-Data-Hierarchy = 0.22-2.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Storable) perl(strict) * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=12, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.04 cusr + 0.01 csys = 0.05 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 197048] Review Request: pam_script
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pam_script https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197048 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 17:00 EST --- Looks good; the package builds fine, the compiler is called with the proper flags and the debuginfo package includes the files it's supposed to. 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 185423] Review Request: php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR
Please 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-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command
for PEAR
Alias: php-pear-PCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185423
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 17:03 EST ---
rpmlint output:
W: php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging invalid-license The PHP License v3.01
W: php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging no-documentation
W: php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging dangerous-command-in-%post install
W: php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging invalid-license The PHP License v3.01
W: php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging patch-not-applied Patch1:
php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging-0.1.2-fedora-conventions2.patch
W: php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging patch-not-applied Patch0:
php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging-0.1.2-fedora-conventions1.patch
W: php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging patch-not-applied Patch2:
php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging-0.1.2-initdepname.patch
These patches are applied, they just cannot be applied in the usual way due to
PHP packaging process.
The dangerous command can be ignored (you can surpress this warning by adding
quote around the install, like 'install', if you decide to do this you should
add a comment to your spec file saying you are doing this to surpress spurious
rpmlint warnings.
The License discussion is below I am going to highly recommend you do as I say
about the license issue, I talked to several FESCo members about this subject.
- package conforms to PHP package naming guidelines
- spec file name matches %{name}
- package meets packaging guidelines
- package licensed with open source compatible license
- package does not include license text
- spec file written in American english
- spec file is legible
- sources match upstream
b8b3e3791c687e8ddaaeac7c65732233 PEAR_Command_Packaging-0.1.2.tgz
- package successfully compiles and builds on FC-5 x86_64
- Not all BuildRequires are sane
Should use:
BuildRequires: php-pear = 1.4.9
Requires(post): php-pear = 1.4.9
Requires(pre): php-pear = 1.4.9
- package does not use locales
- package does not put .so files in standard directories (no need to run
ldconfig)
- package owns all directories it creates
- defattr permissions are okay
- package contains proper %clean section
- macro usage is consistant
- package contains permissible content
- no large documentation
- doc files do not affect runtime
- package does not need a devel sub package
- package does not contain any libtool archives
- package does not need a .desktop file
- package does not own any files or directories owned by other packages
=
SUMMARY
=
SHOULD FIX:
- Change license tag to just PHP License
- Include actual license in %doc
This has the benefit of having an _actual_ license to look at, not just a
license name. It also kills off three rpmlint warnings. It also makes it
absolutely clear about the licensing agreement.
Comment from a FESCo member about this (Ville Skyttä):
scop | I'd use just PHP License
scop | the License tag is not legally binding anyway, and including specific
version number has potential for bitrot
I am not going to make this a blocker, but I strongly recommend you follow my
guidelines on this. An actual license is _always_ better than just a version
number in the header.
MUST FIX:
- The package contains /usr/share/pear/PEAR/Command/Packaging.php.orig
This looks like a leftover from a patch operation or something. It should not
be included as one of the files in the package.
- Use the following Requires:
BuildRequires: php-pear = 1.4.9
Requires(post): php-pear = 1.4.9
Requires(pre): php-pear = 1.4.9
Your current Requires: line looks okay
- Include the following macro at the top of your spec:
%define datadir %(pear config-get data_dir 2 /dev/null || echo
%{_datadir}/pear/data)
and use %{datadir} in your %files section
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191005] Review Request: glob2 - Realtime Strategy game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: glob2 - Realtime Strategy game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191005 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 17:09 EST --- I got a hosting on the http://nikolai.thecodergeek.com/ page. I just made a page with a small review and links to the SPEC and SRPM files. The files are already uploaded, including a binary 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 185423] Review Request: php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR
Please 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-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR Alias: php-pear-PCP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185423 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 17:11 EST --- Additional SHOULD item: - Add ||: to your %post and %postun scriptlets, see: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185423] Review Request: php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR
Please 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-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR Alias: php-pear-PCP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185423 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 17:20 EST --- Ooops, just noticed something else, Requires(pre) is wrong, it should look like this: BuildRequires: php-pear = 1.4.9 Requires(post): php-pear = 1.4.9 Requires(postun): php-pear = 1.4.9 This is a must fix. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192311] Review Request: cobbler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cobbler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192311 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 17:50 EST --- All items are now fixed except for the part about the 'dist tag', which I did not understand, and the relocatable part, which AFAIK, I have not marked the package relocatable. Pointers on these two items would be greatly appreciated. I've updated the src rpms, noarch rpms, and spec files accordingly. === Wrap at 80 characters. * Fixed E: cobbler no-changelogname-tag You need a %changelog * Fixed E: cobbler non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/cobbler/cobbler.py 0644 Begins with #!/usr/bin/python, ignorable. * Fixed anyway Package is marked as relocatable, please check. (wiki: Packaging/Guidelines#RelocatablePackages) * I don't see relocatable in the spec file. So I'm not sure how the package is marked as such. Spec file: tag Vendor is forbidden (wiki: Packaging/Guidelines#tags) * Fixed No downloadable source. Please give the full URL in the Source tag. * Fixed. The source is also in the bugzilla entry at the top of this page. The BuildRoot must be cleaned at the beginning of %install * Fixed. Also You need to use dist tag instead of coding release * Can you elaborate on what needs to be done here? Source tag is not a URL * Fixed Add Changelog * Fixed === -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196627] Review Request: perl-SVN-Mirror - Mirror remote repository to local Subversion repository
Please 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-Mirror - Mirror remote repository to local Subversion repository https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196627 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 17:54 EST --- I hadn't tried it under mock. I fixed the autoinstall and input problem by passing the --skipdeps option to Makefile.PL. Spec: http://znark.com/fedora/perl-SVN-Mirror.spec SRPMS: http://znark.com/fedora/perl-SVN-Mirror-0.68-6.src.rpm Once that is done, it builds under mock with FC5 and all the tests pass. Are you using development? I don't have rawhide mock available here at work. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196620] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-Annotate - represent a series of changes in annotate form
Please 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-Algorithm-Annotate - represent a series of changes in annotate form https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196620 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 18:02 EST --- It's worse than superfluous. You get this in the dependency list: perl(Algorithm::Diff) perl(Algorithm::Diff) = 1.15 I have no problem with you specifying a specific version, although as far as I can tell the earliest version that was ever in Extras was 1.19 so you shouldn't need to worry. If you really want to, however, you _must_ filter the unversioned dependency generated by RPM. Let me know if you need help doing this. The package does build in mock; rpmlint has this to day: W: perl-Algorithm-Annotate incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.10-2 0.10-3.fc6 You neglected to add a changelog entry for the last version bump. Also, your %doc tag has no files. I understand that there are none to ship, so you should just remove it. So I see three 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 not included upstream. * source files match upstream: 453395489640e28fc772944ef08d396b Algorithm-Annotate-0.10.tar.gz * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. X final requires list has a duplicate entry: perl(Algorithm::Annotate) = 0.10 perl-Algorithm-Annotate = 0.10-3.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) X perl(Algorithm::Diff) X perl(Algorithm::Diff) = 1.15 perl(strict) * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=3, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 cusr + 0.02 csys = 0.04 CPU) * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. X no documentation, but empty %doc tag. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192313] Review Request: koan
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: koan https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192313 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 18:06 EST --- All rpmlint errors have been fixed and the packages have been updated at the above URLs. Please let me know if there's anything else that needs to be fixed. === The three macros at the top of the file are totally redundant. * Don't see this being a problem. Correct me if it breaks something. 2) Remove Vendor tag. * Fixed 3) Relaease should contain the dist tag * Fixed, per instructions on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag ... please verify I got this right, though. As I understand it, my RPM's won't show any dist in the name until the build system tries to build them. 4) The Prefix tag seems redundant ( I may be missing something there tho). * Fixed (Removed) 5) the install section should begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT * Fixed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197048] Review Request: pam_script
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pam_script https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197048 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 18:07 EST --- Cheers for the review, imported into CVS and building on devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192311] Review Request: cobbler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cobbler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192311 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 18:07 EST --- DistTag should be fixed now 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 185423] Review Request: php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR
Please 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-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR Alias: php-pear-PCP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185423 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 18:08 EST --- I've posted to fedora-packaging about a couple of the issues there, but just to pick up on something: (In reply to comment #15) Ooops, just noticed something else, Requires(pre) is wrong, it should look like this: BuildRequires: php-pear = 1.4.9 Requires(post): php-pear = 1.4.9 Requires(postun): php-pear = 1.4.9 Why? I don't understand what was wrong with the original spec. What bit of the build process and post and postun scripts requires PEAR 1.4.9? And even if it did, shouldn't that be 1:1.4.9? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192313] Review Request: koan
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: koan https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192313 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 18:09 EST --- FYI ... This should have been in the original submission Cobbler (alluded to in the submission) has it's bugzilla here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192311 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192313] Review Request: koan
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: koan https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192313 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||192311 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192311] Review Request: cobbler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cobbler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192311 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||192313 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 196620] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-Annotate - represent a series of changes in annotate form
Please 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-Algorithm-Annotate - represent a series of changes in annotate form https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196620 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 18:53 EST --- Fixed. Spec: http://znark.com/fedora/perl-Algorithm-Annotate.spec SRPMS: http://znark.com/fedora/perl-Algorithm-Annotate-0.10-4.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 194355] Review Request: imlib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: imlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194355 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 18:55 EST --- Small updates Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/imlib.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/imlib-1.9.13-28.src.rpm 1: fixed 2: I have not looked at upgrade to the newer version. Will do soon. 3: fixed 4: fixed 5: won't fix as this is for FC6 and beyond. 6: Suggestions? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196629] Review Request: perl-SVK - A Distributed Version Control System
Please 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-SVK - A Distributed Version Control System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196629 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 18:57 EST --- I fixed some issues building under mock. It needed some more BuildRequires. Also, the tests were failing because they needed the supposedly optional SVN::Mirror. perl-SVN-Mirror had to be patched to remove the circular dependency. Spec: http://znark.com/fedora/perl-SVK.spec SRPMS: http://znark.com/fedora/perl-SVK-1.07-7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185423] Review Request: php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR
Please 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-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR Alias: php-pear-PCP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185423 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 19:12 EST --- I read your post on fedora-packaging, did you check the fedora-packaging archives? Your question comes up about once a month. Here is a similar thread that comes to the conclusion I suggested: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2006-March/msg4.html Best Practice is to keep the License tag as simple as possible and to place the license text in %doc as I suggested. Note also that this is a SHOULD and not a MUST. If you feel you do not want to follow best practices then feel free not to. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196627] Review Request: perl-SVN-Mirror - Mirror remote repository to local Subversion repository
Please 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-Mirror - Mirror remote repository to local Subversion repository https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196627 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 19:35 EST --- OK, indeed the test failures are gone under FC5. Still, this is going to cause significant trouble going forward. I will attach a full build log with TEST_VERBOSE=1 and hopefully this will help you. It almost looks like the error isn't even in this module. There are several of these: TypeError in method 'svn_ra_reporter2_invoke_set_path', argument 6 of type 'char const *' That method string doesn't match anything in the source; it looks like some issue with some generated bindings. Perhaps it's a subversion-perl issue? I suggest you work with upstream and perhaps ping fedora-perl-list. I will review this package based on an FC5 build. The only issue that turns up is your manual versioned dependency for perl(SVN::Core) which conflicts with one determined by RPM. You'll either need to drop the manual dependency or filter out the one RPM finds. 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: acc9a1b4d3bf3b633892b5fe0c183266 SVN-Mirror-0.68.tar.gz * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (FC5, x86_64). (fails to build on development) * rpmlint is silent. X final provides and requires are sane: perl(SVN::Mirror) = 0.68 perl(SVN::Mirror::Git) = 0.62 perl(SVN::Mirror::Ra) = 0.68 perl(SVN::Mirror::Ra::MirrorEditor) perl(SVN::Mirror::VCP) = 0.50 perl-SVN-Mirror = 0.68-6.fc5 = /usr/bin/perl perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Class::Accessor) perl(Date::Format) perl(File::Path) perl(File::Spec) perl(File::Spec::Functions) perl(File::Spec::Unix) perl(File::chdir) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(SVN::Client) perl(SVN::Core) X perl(SVN::Core) = 1.0.7 perl(SVN::Delta) perl(SVN::Fs) perl(SVN::Mirror) perl(SVN::Mirror::Ra) perl(SVN::Ra) perl(SVN::Repos) perl(SVN::Simple::Edit) perl(Sys::Hostname) perl(Term::ReadKey) perl(Time::HiRes) perl(URI) perl(URI::Escape) perl(base) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(warnings) * 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 (on FC5; some tests fail on development) All tests successful, 2 tests skipped. Files=9, Tests=100, 59 wallclock secs ( 9.33 cusr + 8.14 csys = 17.47 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. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196627] Review Request: perl-SVN-Mirror - Mirror remote repository to local Subversion repository
Please 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-Mirror - Mirror remote repository to local Subversion repository https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196627 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 19:37 EST --- Created an attachment (id=131706) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=131706action=view) Build log from mock on rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196620] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-Annotate - represent a series of changes in annotate form
Please 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-Algorithm-Annotate - represent a series of changes in annotate form https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196620 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 19:48 EST --- Three blockers are fixed: No more versioned Algorithm::Diff dependency. No empty %doc tag. Changelog entries include versions. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 165899] Review Request: pam_pkcs11 : PKCS #11 PAM login module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pam_pkcs11 : PKCS #11 PAM login module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165899 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 19:59 EST --- Works for me. -- 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 196623] Review Request: perl-PerlIO-via-dynamic - dynamic PerlIO layers
Please 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-PerlIO-via-dynamic - dynamic PerlIO layers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196623 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 20:15 EST --- s/-3/-2/ in that URL. 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: 2bbb9d61c3e8df006e8bede08ed5c9c1 PerlIO-via-dynamic-0.12.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(PerlIO::via::dynamic) = 0.12 perl-PerlIO-via-dynamic = 0.12-2.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(IO::Handle) perl(Scalar::Util) perl(Symbol) perl(strict) * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=4, Tests=6, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.12 cusr + 0.06 csys = 0.18 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 196621] Review Request: perl-IO-Digest - Perl module to calculate digests while reading or writing
Please 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-IO-Digest - Perl module to calculate digests while reading or writing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196621 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 20:29 EST --- I cannot fetch the spec via that URL. I can get the srpm fine, however. You have a duplicated dependency on PerlIO::via::dynamic. Since you've just packaged this, I think it safe to say that the necessary version is in Extras and the dependency can be dropped. Otherwise you'll need to filter. 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: 0448841e0559c2c19c7e8001ef087e26 IO-Digest-0.10.tar.gz * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. X a duplicated dependency: perl(IO::Digest) = 0.10 perl-IO-Digest = 0.10-3.fc6 = perl = 0:5.008 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Digest) X perl(PerlIO::via::dynamic) X perl(PerlIO::via::dynamic) = 0.10 perl(strict) perl(warnings) * 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=2, Tests=4, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.04 cusr + 0.04 csys = 0.08 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. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196622] Review Request: perl-PerlIO-eol - PerlIO layer for normalizing line endings
Please 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-PerlIO-eol - PerlIO layer for normalizing line endings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196622 [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 196624] Review Request: perl-PerlIO-via-symlink - PerlIO layers for creating symlinks
Please 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-PerlIO-via-symlink - PerlIO layers for creating symlinks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196624 [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 196621] Review Request: perl-IO-Digest - Perl module to calculate digests while reading or writing
Please 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-IO-Digest - Perl module to calculate digests while reading or writing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196621 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 20:40 EST --- Fixed duplicated dependency. Spec: http://znark.com/fedora/perl-IO-Digest.spec SRPMS: http://znark.com/fedora/perl-IO-Digest-0.10-4.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 196624] Review Request: perl-PerlIO-via-symlink - PerlIO layers for creating symlinks
Please 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-PerlIO-via-symlink - PerlIO layers for creating symlinks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196624 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 20:52 EST --- * 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: bf33533dba6a48eb459a15df15c8415f PerlIO-via-symlink-0.05.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(PerlIO::via::symlink) = 0.05 perl-PerlIO-via-symlink = 0.05-3.fc6 = perl = 0:5.008 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Errno) perl(Symbol) perl(strict) perl(warnings) * 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=2, Tests=10, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.05 cusr + 0.02 csys = 0.07 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 196627] Review Request: perl-SVN-Mirror - Mirror remote repository to local Subversion repository
Please 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-Mirror - Mirror remote repository to local Subversion repository https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196627 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-28 20:57 EST --- There haven't been any changes to subversion package on rawhide that would explain the problem. It is the same version and patches. This one fixes the duplicate dependency. Spec: http://znark.com/fedora/perl-SVN-Mirror.spec SRPMS: http://znark.com/fedora/perl-SVN-Mirror-0.68-7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193156] Review Request: devallocator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: devallocator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193156 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||197170 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
