[Bug 177583] Review Request: zaptel-kmod
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zaptel-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177583 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-28 02:22 EST --- (In reply to comment #41) > There are two primary reasons why we distribute Zaptel separately from the > kernel source trees [...] Both reasons seem wrong to me (especially reason 2) and your strategy counter-productive for the open-source world in general and the kernel-development-process in special. I'll forward the request for inclusion of this kernel-module to FESCo for approval, but I will do my best to prevent that this module get's into Extras as long as the plans says "we don't want to get the driver merged upstream" -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193493] Review Request: iksemel - An XML parser library designed for Jabber applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: iksemel - An XML parser library designed for Jabber applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193493 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-28 01:59 EST --- Well... Instead of writing a README explaining why iksemel was broken on x86_64, I just went ahead and fixed it. Once I get some sleep I'll submit the patch upstream. Spec: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/5/SRPMS/iksemel-1.2-5.fc5.spec SRPM: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/5/SRPMS/iksemel-1.2-5.fc5.src.rpm * Thu Jul 27 2006 Jeffrey C. Ollie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 1.2-5 - Patch to use SHA1 hashing routines from libgcrypt rather than broken internal code. This means that we need to BR autoools to regenerate configure script and makefiles. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192049] Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash 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: gnash - GNU Flash player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192049 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-28 01:44 EST --- This fails to build in mock. You need to add: BuildRequires: autoconf, automake, libtool -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200492] New: Review Request: perl-Gtk2-Sexy
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=200492 Summary: Review Request: perl-Gtk2-Sexy 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://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-Gtk2-Sexy.spec SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-Gtk2-Sexy-0.02-1.fc5.src.rpm Description: This module allows a perl developer to access the widgets of the sexy widget collection. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200348] Review Request: libgadu - Gadu-Gadu protocol support library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libgadu - Gadu-Gadu protocol support library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200348 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-28 00:34 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) > >* I don't think using of libgadu-current.tar.gz is good. This file changes > every day and md5sum of upstream source won't match md5 of source included > in SRPM > > Have you any idea? I tried looking for versioned downloads -- if I spoke any Polish I suspect I might have had better luck. But Michał is right; this poses a "challenge" for the review. > >* you should change doc files charset to utf8 (by iconv) > > OK, I'll do it, but please help me, I'm new to RPM. You can use a tool called iconv. See, e.g., "file-not-utf8" at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingTips/Perl -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 169704] Review Request: mosml - Moscow ML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mosml - Moscow ML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169704 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-28 00:31 EST --- Been a while, sorry about that. Builds on x86_64! But rpmlint doesn't link the lack of a soname version: E: mosml invalid-soname /usr/lib64/mosml/lib/libmregex.so libmregex.so E: mosml invalid-soname /usr/lib64/mosml/lib/libmunix.so libmunix.so E: mosml invalid-soname /usr/lib64/mosml/lib/libmgmp.so libmgmp.so And symlinks are broken, looks like lib64 problems. W: mosml dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/mosmlyac ../lib/mosml/bin/mosmlyac W: mosml dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/mosmllex ../lib/mosml/bin/mosmllex W: mosml dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/camlrunm ../lib/mosml/bin/camlrunm W: mosml dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/mosmlc ../lib/mosml/bin/mosmlc W: mosml dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/mosml ../lib/mosml/bin/mosml -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193493] Review Request: iksemel - An XML parser library designed for Jabber applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: iksemel - An XML parser library designed for Jabber applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193493 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-28 00:23 EST --- Sorry, you're right. In the month that this bug sat inactive the defaults faded from my memory. My original issue is that you should let the test suite run on PPC. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200152] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Client-LDAP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Client-LDAP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200152 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-28 00:20 EST --- +Import to CVS +Add to owners.list +Bump release, build for devel +devel build succeeds +Request branching (FC-5) +Close bug Thanks for the 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 169210] Review Request: xnee: recorder and player of X actions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xnee: recorder and player of X actions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169210 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||DEFERRED OtherBugsDependingO|163778 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-28 00:18 EST --- Abandoned. Mostly because it would end up looking a lot like rpmforge's. :P http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/xnee/xnee.spec -- 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 193493] Review Request: iksemel - An XML parser library designed for Jabber applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: iksemel - An XML parser library designed for Jabber applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193493 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-28 00:18 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) > Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear earlier. My point is that you've > prevented > building on PPC when you have no evidence that it fails to work. Why not just > leave it enabled and let the buildsystem go ahead and build it? If it fails > there then you can mask it out. Few of us have PPC machines to test on but we > still let our packages build there and then investigate if the build fails or > bugs are reported. If we enabled PPC building only when we had actual PPC > machines to test on then most packages would be disabled on PPC. Are we looking at the same spec file here? I fail to see where I prevented building on PPC. The only special casing of architecture is in the %check section. I don't understand how using "%ifarch i386" in the %check section would prevent building of the whole package on PPC. If not running "make check" on PPC is what you're objecting to here, no problem... I'll fix that in my next build. If it's something else, perhaps there's some aspect to the %check section that I'm not grokking that would prevent the package as a whole from building on PPC. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200472] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-SNMP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-SNMP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200472 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-28 00:12 EST --- +Import to CVS +Add to owners.list +Bump release, build for devel +devel build succeeds +Request branching (FC-5) +Close bug Thanks for the 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 198885] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Client-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: perl-POE-Component-Client-HTTP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198885 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-28 00:01 EST --- +Import to CVS +Add to owners.list +Bump release, build for devel +devel build succeeds +Request branching (FC-5) +Close bug Thanks for the 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 172869] Review Request: nss-mdns
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: nss-mdns
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=172869
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 23:58 EST ---
rpmlint:
W: nss-mdns summary-not-capitalized glibc plugin for .local name resolution
W: nss-mdns summary-not-capitalized glibc plugin for .local name resolution
Ignore, keep glibc.
E: nss-mdns shlib-with-non-pic-code /lib64/libnss_mdns.so.2
E: nss-mdns shlib-with-non-pic-code /lib64/libnss_mdns6_minimal.so.2
E: nss-mdns shlib-with-non-pic-code /lib64/libnss_mdns6.so.2
E: nss-mdns shlib-with-non-pic-code /lib64/libnss_mdns4_minimal.so.2
E: nss-mdns shlib-with-non-pic-code /lib64/libnss_mdns4.so.2
E: nss-mdns shlib-with-non-pic-code /lib64/libnss_mdns_minimal.so.2
I don't know enough linker-fu to fix this.
E: nss-mdns non-executable-script /usr/libexec/nss-mdns-set.pl 0644
chmod +x
W: nss-mdns percent-in-%post
W: nss-mdns percent-in-%preun
Eh? Probably the %{_libexec}
W: nss-mdns dangerous-command-in-%post mv
W: nss-mdns dangerous-command-in-%preun mv
W: nss-mdns one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193493] Review Request: iksemel - An XML parser library designed for Jabber applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: iksemel - An XML parser library designed for Jabber applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193493 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 23:52 EST --- Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear earlier. My point is that you've prevented building on PPC when you have no evidence that it fails to work. Why not just leave it enabled and let the buildsystem go ahead and build it? If it fails there then you can mask it out. Few of us have PPC machines to test on but we still let our packages build there and then investigate if the build fails or bugs are reported. If we enabled PPC building only when we had actual PPC machines to test on then most packages would be disabled on PPC. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 173724] Review Request: libyahoo2 - Library for the Yahoo! Messenger Protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libyahoo2 - Library for the Yahoo! Messenger Protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173724 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 23:18 EST --- Ping. Got a 500 on the SRPM. Closing soon if no response. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200472] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-SNMP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-SNMP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200472 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 23:14 EST --- Something's odd with the test suite: t/10_snmp_get.POE::Kernel's run() method was never called. skipped all skipped: No SNMP data specified. Looking deeper, all of the skipped tests require not only network access, but a running SNMP server to talk to and write to that gets configured when Makefile.PL is run. So I guess everything's working as intended. * source files match upstream: d13446b20b21e24c15fd6be406006bec POE-Component-SNMP-1.05.tar.gz * 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. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (BR: perl is unnecessary) * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(POE::Component::SNMP) perl(POE::Component::SNMP::Dispatcher) = 1.27 perl(POE::Net::SNMP) perl-POE-Component-SNMP = 1.05-1.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(POE::Component::SNMP::Dispatcher) perl(POE::Kernel) perl(POE::Session) perl(Time::HiRes) perl(base) perl(constant) * %check is present; the test suite doesn't seem to run well but what can run passes: All tests successful, 10 tests skipped. Files=11, Tests=4, 2 wallclock secs ( 1.44 cusr + 0.50 csys = 1.94 CPU) * 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. * 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. 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 193493] Review Request: iksemel - An XML parser library designed for Jabber applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: iksemel - An XML parser library designed for Jabber applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193493 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |a.us) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 22:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) > Any movement here? This package just needs a couple of things: documentation > about the partial x86_64 brokenness, and at least an attempt to build on PPC. I have no access at all to a PPC system so I don't know how I can test building there... I'll get a readme typed up quick and gew a new package put together... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 154392] HelixPlayer should be removed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: HelixPlayer should be removed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=154392 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 22:20 EST --- Removed in rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199834] Review Request: nip2 - interactive image processing 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: nip2 - interactive image processing system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199834 Bug 199834 depends on bug 199833, which changed state. Bug 199833 Summary: Review Request: vips - image processing library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199833 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199833] Review Request: vips - image processing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vips - image processing library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199833 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 22:14 EST --- Built successfully on devel and FC-5. Still working on building for FC-4, but closing this bug since it's building on FC-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 200472] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-SNMP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-SNMP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200472 [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 200152] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Client-LDAP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Client-LDAP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200152 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 21:08 EST --- Not much to say here either; builds and installs fine and rpmlint is quiet. * source files match upstream: 5a52805b889af864622158d761b72f82 POE-Component-Client-LDAP-0.04.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (BR: perl is unnecessary) * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(POE::Component::Client::LDAP) = 0.04 perl(POE::Filter::ASN1) = 0.01 perl-POE-Component-Client-LDAP = 0.04-1.fc6 = perl >= 0:5.006 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(Convert::ASN1) perl(Net::LDAP::ASN) perl(Net::LDAP::Constant) perl(POE) perl(base) perl(strict) perl(warnings) * %check is present and all tests (test?) pass: All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=1, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.14 cusr + 0.05 csys = 0.19 CPU) * 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. * 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. 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 195363] Review Request: esc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: esc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 20:48 EST --- Successfully built on relevant platforms except ppc64. -- 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 197754] Review Request: perl-Perl6-Bible
Please 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-Perl6-Bible https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197754 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO_REPORTER -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193493] Review Request: iksemel - An XML parser library designed for Jabber applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: iksemel - An XML parser library designed for Jabber applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193493 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||a.us) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189184] Review Request: perl-Email-Valid - check validity of email addresses
Please 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-Email-Valid - check validity of email addresses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189184 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198885] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Client-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: perl-POE-Component-Client-HTTP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198885 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 20:09 EST --- I did try via spectool to fetch the 0.76 source about ten times but never succeeded in hitting a mirror that had it. Now that this package is updated to 0.77 there are no worries. Anyway, this builds, installs and checks out fine. * source files match upstream: bca2c306d8c63535845b760883a13644 POE-Component-Client-HTTP-0.77.tar.gz * 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. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (BR: perl is redundant). * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * noarch package; no debuginfo. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(POE::Component::Client::HTTP) = 0.77 perl(POE::Component::Client::HTTP::Request) perl(POE::Component::Client::HTTP::RequestFactory) = 0.01 perl(POE::Filter::HTTPChunk) perl(POE::Filter::HTTPHead) = 0.01 perl(POE::Filter::HTTPHead_Line) perl-POE-Component-Client-HTTP = 0.77-1.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(HTTP::Response) perl(HTTP::Status) perl(POE) perl(POE::Component::Client::HTTP) perl(POE::Component::Client::HTTP::Request) perl(POE::Component::Client::HTTP::RequestFactory) perl(POE::Filter::Line) perl(base) perl(bytes) perl(strict) perl(vars) perl(warnings) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=12, Tests=76, 5 wallclock secs ( 2.12 cusr + 0.66 csys = 2.78 CPU) * 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. * 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 200438] Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200438 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 19:57 EST --- Turns out to be a libpng bug, it's already fixed: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196580 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194566] Review Request: 915resolution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: 915resolution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194566
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 19:50 EST ---
As it stands, I've not built it yet (will do on the laptop - I can then give it
a try). However, I would consider the install -m 0755 to be essential. The file
going into %{_sbindir}, it makes life easier for us mere reviewers (plus, it's
only one file, so makes things clear to others wanting to package)
Hitting reload worked, though the release should be 2.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194566] Review Request: 915resolution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: 915resolution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194566
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 19:45 EST ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Is the .fc5 at the end of the src.rpm your own rename? if it is, please don't.
> src rpms are release agnostic.
I define %dist in my ~/.rpmmacros file, for my own sanity when building
packages... It's not a rename.
> The spec file still has the release as 0?{%dist}. This should be 2 as it's the
> 2nd release made. Remove the 0/-1 comment, it's wrong!
Hit reload on your browser, it's out there at 1 :)
> You don't need the make clean (unless the source tarball has a pre-made
> configure with pre-made bits and pieces) in %build
It does :)
> I'd prefer install -m 755 for the package into %{_sbindir}. Also, as it's only
> one program going into %{_sbindir}, give it the name in %files
Are these personal preferences, or do you consider them blockers?
> The changelog hasn't altered. Each time you change something, it gets
> documented, so it should read
[...snip...]
> (you get the idea)
Again, hit reload... :)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200438] Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200438 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 19:43 EST --- /usr/bin/convert: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/ImageMagick-6.2.8/modules-Q16/coders/png.so: undefined symbol: This is an ImageMagick bug and needs reporting in bugzilla. It isn't anything to do with the package (by the looks of 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 200438] Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200438 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 19:39 EST --- This bombs out on Development (x86_64) (cd /var/tmp/tango-icon-theme-0.7.2-4-root-root/usr/share/icons/Tango && \ for icon in address-book-new.png appointment-new.png bookmark-new.png contact-new.png document-new.png document-open.png document-print.png document-print-preview.png document-properties.png document-save.png document-save-as.png edit-clear.png edit-copy.png edit-cut.png edit-delete.png edit-find.png edit-find-replace.png edit-paste.png edit-redo.png edit-select-all.png edit-undo.png folder-new.png format-indent-less.png format-indent-more.png format-justify-center.png format-justify-fill.png format-justify-left.png format-justify-right.png format-text-bold.png format-text-italic.png format-text-strikethrough.png format-text-underline.png go-bottom.png go-down.png go-first.png go-home.png go-jump.png go-last.png go-next.png go-previous.png go-top.png go-up.png list-add.png list-remove.png mail-forward.png mail-message-new.png mail-mark-junk.png mail-mark-not-junk.png mail-reply-all.png mail-reply-sender.png mail-send-receive.png media-eject.png media-playback-pause.png media-playback-start.png media-playback-stop.png media-record.png media-seek-backward.png media-seek-forward.png media-skip-backward.png media-skip-forward.png process-stop.png system-lock-screen.png system-log-out.png system-search.png system-shutdown.png tab-new.png view-fullscreen.png view-refresh.png window-new.png; do \ /usr/bin/convert -bordercolor Transparent -border 1x1 22x22/actions/$icon 24x24/actions/$icon; \ done) /usr/bin/convert: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/ImageMagick-6.2.8/modules-Q16/coders/png.so: undefined symbol: png_get_asm_flags /usr/bin/convert: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/ImageMagick-6.2.8/modules-Q16/coders/png.so: undefined symbol: png_get_asm_flags /usr/bin/convert: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/ImageMagick-6.2.8/modules-Q16/coders/png.so: undefined symbol: png_get_asm_flags /usr/bin/convert: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/ImageMagick-6.2.8/modules-Q16/coders/png.so: undefined symbol: png_get_asm_flags /usr/bin/convert: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/ImageMagick-6.2.8/modules-Q16/coders/png.so: undefined symbol: png_get_asm_flags /usr/bin/convert: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/ImageMagick-6.2.8/modules-Q16/coders/png.so: undefined symbol: png_get_asm_flags /usr/bin/convert: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/ImageMagick-6.2.8/modules-Q16/coders/png.so: undefined symbol: png_get_asm_flags /usr/bin/convert: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/ImageMagick-6.2.8/modules-Q16/coders/png.so: undefined symbol: png_get_asm_flags /usr/bin/convert: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/ImageMagick-6.2.8/modules-Q16/coders/png.so: undefined symbol: png_get_asm_flags /usr/bin/convert: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/ImageMagick-6.2.8/modules-Q16/coders/png.so: undefined symbol: png_get_asm_flags /usr/bin/convert: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/ImageMagick-6.2.8/modules-Q16/coders/png.so: undefined symbol: png_get_asm_flags /usr/bin/convert: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/ImageMagick-6.2.8/modules-Q16/coders/png.so: undefined symbol: png_get_asm_flags /usr/bin/convert: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/ImageMagick-6.2.8/modules-Q16/coders/png.so: undefined symbol: png_get_asm_flags /usr/bin/convert: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/ImageMagick-6.2.8/modules-Q16/coders/png.so: undefined symbol: png_get_asm_flags /usr/bin/convert: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/ImageMagick-6.2.8/modules-Q16/coders/png.so: undefined symbol: png_get_asm_flags /usr/bin/convert: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/ImageMagick-6.2.8/modules-Q16/coders/png.so: undefined symbol: png_get_asm_flags /usr/bin/convert: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/ImageMagick-6.2.8/modules-Q16/coders/png.so: undefined symbol: png_get_asm_flags /usr/bin/convert: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/ImageMagick-6.2.8/modules-Q16/coders/png.so: undefined symbol: png_get_asm_flags /usr/bin/convert: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/ImageMagick-6.2.8/modules-Q16/coders/png.so: undefined symbol: png_get_asm_flags /usr/bin/convert: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/ImageMagick-6.2.8/modules-Q16/coders/png.so: undefined symbol: png_get_asm_flags /usr/bin/convert: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/ImageMagick-6.2.8/modules-Q16/coders/png.so: undefined symbol: png_get_asm_flags /usr/bin/convert: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/ImageMagick-6.2.8/modules-Q16/coders/png.so: undefined symbo
[Bug 193240] Review Request: XaraLX - Vector/general purpose graphics utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: XaraLX - Vector/general purpose graphics utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193240 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 19:31 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/XaraLX.spec (I've not uploaded a new src.rpm by agreement with the reviewer) - changed group to Applications/Publishing - fixed autoreconf problem (BR gettext-devel) - removed dupes in BR - removed BR perl - added mime-info - added examples -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194566] Review Request: 915resolution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: 915resolution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194566
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 19:31 EST ---
Is the .fc5 at the end of the src.rpm your own rename? if it is, please don't.
src rpms are release agnostic.
The spec file still has the release as 0?{%dist}. This should be 2 as it's the
2nd release made. Remove the 0/-1 comment, it's wrong!
You don't need the make clean (unless the source tarball has a pre-made
configure with pre-made bits and pieces) in %build
I'd prefer install -m 755 for the package into %{_sbindir}. Also, as it's only
one program going into %{_sbindir}, give it the name in %files
The changelog hasn't altered. Each time you change something, it gets
documented, so it should read
%changelog
* Mon 25 Dec 2006 Paul F. Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0.5-2
- fixed silly mistake in the spec file
- added ia64 and sparcx86 patches
* Sun 24 Dec 2006 Paul F. Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0.5-1
- added BR foo
- removed R bar
- added a b c and d into docs
- chmod 0755 sbindir-foobar
- bumped to new version
* Sun 17 Dec 2006 Paul F. Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0.4-11
(you get the idea)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jokosher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 19:22 EST ---
Source: %{tmppath}/SOURCE/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.tar.gz
No!
Source: %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz or the URL link from the website (eg
http://www.foo.org/package/download/com-1.1.1.tar.gz)
remember, the source is the source you've downloaded from the website the
package came from (unless you've built the archive yourself, which is not that
good an idea, especially if you have patches. You should keep the source
unpatched and provide patches which are incorporated via the spec file)
Please package again. The src rpm will include the patches, the spec file will
apply them in %prep - I can't accept it as is.
Can you put the defines right at the start? - it makes things much simpler to
follow.
Given the specs, it's unlikely this will work in FC5 (unless things are updated
in FC5). I'd drop the versions from the Requires.
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python_sitelib}/jokosher
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python_sitelib}/jokosher/images
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python_sitelib}/jokosher/Instruments
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python_sitelib}/jokosher/Instruments/images
You only need the final line and the images line. -p creates the path requested
--mode=644, much easier just to have -m 0644
install -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python_sitelib}/jokosher/images
Not sure these are required as you've already created the directories
install -p jokosher $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/jokosher
chmod 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/jokosher
can be written
install -p -m 0755 jokosher $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/jokosher
Why have you got BR desktop-file-utils, but never use them. What are they for?
Still a way to go, but keep on in there.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200438] Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200438 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 19:19 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) > Isn't the tango icons already in Rawhide? Why else would the > icon-naming-utils > be in Core? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/BluecurveAndBeyond/Gallery The new theme has adopted the specification, naming etc from Tango for consistency. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194566] Review Request: 915resolution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: 915resolution https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194566 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 19:13 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > The release should already be one as soon as you package the original version. Bumped. > Not sure about the user to configure bit. > > Personally, I'd wrap it in a service and install a set of "default" modes > (they > can all be commented out). At least everything is in place when the xorg > driver > gets out of the stable and into the big, bad world. For a temporary (alebit turning into a long-term) fix, I still don't think it's worth that effort -- as soon as the xorg update is released in core, this program's function is obviated. If someone is installing this package, they're going to need to know what to do with it regardless of if there's a service wrapper or not. I did, however, stick a README.fedora in this release, with a brief "here's how to get it going on boot" synopsis... Spec URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/915resolution.spec SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/915resolution-0.5.2-1.fc5.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 19:12 EST --- the grep python gives you a list of everything with the word python in it! I have python 2.4.3-8.FC5 installed. As there seems to be (currently) a need for pydbus, I'd add it as a 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 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 19:09 EST --- (In reply to comment #18) Hello Paul, > Change the license to GPL with exceptions Done! > > The dbus version comes back with > > (0, 51, 0) Hmmm, same here. Can you give the output from rpm -qa | grep -i python - we are continuing to investigate. > > Can you please upload a new spec and src rpm for review? Okay, its at: http://www.iammetal.co.uk/jokosher.spec http://www.iammetal.co.uk/jokosher-0.1-4.src.rpm Regards Chris -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194566] Review Request: 915resolution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: 915resolution https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194566 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 18:55 EST --- The release should already be one as soon as you package the original version. Not sure about the user to configure bit. Personally, I'd wrap it in a service and install a set of "default" modes (they can all be commented out). At least everything is in place when the xorg driver gets out of the stable and into the big, bad world. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199611] Review Request: monsterz - Puzzle game, similar to Bejeweled or Zookeeper
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: monsterz - Puzzle game, similar to Bejeweled or Zookeeper https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199611 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194566] Review Request: 915resolution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: 915resolution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194566
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 18:51 EST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Let's make a start
>
> "# will be set to -1 on build/release
> Release:0%{?dist}"
>
> The release should reflect the release (in other words, the build number). It
> goes up, not down
Sorry, that could have been more clearly expressed... It'll go to one.
> %description ends in a .
Isn't this only %summary which shouldn't end in a period?
> I can't see how this package would be instantated by the host machine. Is it
> supposed to be called directly, as a service or needing integration into
> xorg.conf (or similar)?
Right now, it's up to the user to configure. I call it with the correct
resolution values at boot in /etc/rc.local, for instance. It would certainly be
possible to wrap the entire thing in a service, but 1) that would still require
user configuration as to which video modes to override, and 2) it's not worth
that effort given the xorg driver has been in a state of not needing this "real
soon now" for the last several months.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 18:43 EST --- Change the license to GPL with exceptions The dbus version comes back with (0, 51, 0) Can you please upload a new spec and src rpm for 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 194566] Review Request: 915resolution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: 915resolution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194566
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 18:40 EST ---
Let's make a start
"# will be set to -1 on build/release
Release:0%{?dist}"
The release should reflect the release (in other words, the build number). It
goes up, not down
%description ends in a .
I can't see how this package would be instantated by the host machine. Is it
supposed to be called directly, as a service or needing integration into
xorg.conf (or similar)?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200472] New: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-SNMP
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=200472 Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-SNMP 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://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-POE-Component-SNMP.spec SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-POE-Component-SNMP-1.05-1.fc5.src.rpm Description: POE::Component::SNMP is a POE-ized wrapper around the the Net::SNMP module. Most of its arguments aren't even evaluated by POE, except for -alias and -callback_args, as described in the manpage. If you want to make non-blocking calls with Net::SNMP in a POE application, this is the module to do it with. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199611] Review Request: monsterz - Puzzle game, similar to Bejeweled or Zookeeper
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: monsterz - Puzzle game, similar to Bejeweled or Zookeeper https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199611 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 18:36 EST --- I was waiting for the additional branches :-) It's building now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200438] Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200438 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 18:07 EST --- Thanks, new spec and SRPM: http://pmail.pl/~raven/tango-icon-theme.spec http://pmail.pl/~raven/tango-icon-theme-0.7.2-4.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 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jokosher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 17:58 EST ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> If the way the GPL is messed with adds restrictions, it causes major problems.
> If it removes restrictions, that's fine. My reading is it adds.
If the exceptions are placed into a separate file, would this resolve the
matter? My reading is that it permits people to use non-GPL compatible plugins
and therefore is not adding restrictions but IANAL.
>
> The problem with release often and early is that you get releases which
> haven't
> had the time to mature and be debugged correctly. I've known of many security
> problems with that system.
The only comment I can make here is that this version has few known bugs and
most of those are outside of its control. One reason the package is being pushed
for inclusion in Extras is so that upstream can garner more feedback and improve
Q.A. which will surely help with debugging. As for security problems I really
cannot comment except to say this is an audio editor written in python using Gtk
widgets, not say, a driver with kernel hooks.
>
> "* Directory /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/jokosher/ is not included.
>
> Please could you clarify."
>
> The application creates a directory (via the define) in the
> python/site-packages/ directory called jokosher. You need in your %files
>
> %{python_dir}/site-packages/jokosher
Fixed.
>
> "> You're missing some requires as well - check
> http://www.jokosher.org/download
> > for details.
>
> Fixed. Alsaaudio is not a strict requirement for the operation of jokosher and
> the next version will not require it at all. However I will consider packaging
> it if necessary."
>
> Depending on the timeframe of this packages possible acceptance into FE, I'd
> look into importing it. It won't harm.
A small patch (which only just missed the 0.1 release deadline) has now removed
this dependency on alsaaudio.
http://jokosher.python-hosting.com/changeset/466
I have updated the package and spec file accordingly and bumped the version.
>
> I can also replicate the dbus error on my 64 and 32 bit systems. This will
> need
> to be looked into.
I have posted on this and will get back to you. Would you please in the meantime
avail us of your dbus version which you can get with:
$ python -c "import dbus; print dbus.version"
Regards
Chris
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200438] Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200438 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 17:55 EST --- You should be able to drop the BR on ImageMagick & librsvg2, since the respective devel packages sonames should pull these in. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 17:48 EST --- Never mind; ganymed-ssh2 isn't build for FC5. So there's pretty much no way this can be reviewed right now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193240] Review Request: XaraLX - Vector/general purpose graphics utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: XaraLX - Vector/general purpose graphics utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193240 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 17:45 EST --- I will review this one. Review for release 1.r1564: * RPM name is OK * Source XaraLX-0.7r1564.tar.bz2 is the same as upstream Needs work: * BuildRequires: perl should not be included (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#Exceptions) * Build failed in mock autoreconf: failed to run autopoint: No such file or directory Minor: * Duplicate BuildRequires: automake (by libtool), autoconf (by libtool), perl (by automake), gtk2-devel (by wxGTK-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 195363] Review Request: esc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: esc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 17:44 EST --- (In reply to comment #27) > comps should be group 'gnome-desktop' default. > > bob Added to comps. Please close when package is built for rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 17:39 EST --- Unfortunately that patch doesn't apply to the spec in http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/eclipse-subclipse-1.0.3-2.src.rpm I don't think I botched it when I applied it manually. However, now there are dependency issues; ganymed-ssh2 and javasvn need rebuilds against libgcj.so.7. Is it reasonable to build against FC5 here? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199611] Review Request: monsterz - Puzzle game, similar to Bejeweled or Zookeeper
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: monsterz - Puzzle game, similar to Bejeweled or Zookeeper https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199611 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 17:39 EST --- Ian, you have imported package on CVS, but why haven't you built 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 195363] Review Request: esc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: esc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 17:23 EST --- Excellent point. I will remove that entry. -- 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 197565] Review Request: buildbot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: buildbot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197565 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 17:19 EST --- Updated: Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/buildbot.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~michael/buildbot-0.7.3-3.src.rpm Moved the contribs to /usr/share/buildbot/contribs Thanks for that suggestion! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200374] Review Request: qstat - Real-time Game Server Status for Quake servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qstat - Real-time Game Server Status for Quake servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200374 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200438] Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200438 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 17:09 EST --- >Open a bugzilla report, and request and update (and tell them why, you need it for tango-icon-theme on fc5/Extras) Thanks for all your help. :) (bug 200457) >Back to the package, would you consider building with >./configure --enable-png-creation >(it helps out kde users) Done, new spec and SRPM: http://pmail.pl/~raven/tango-icon-theme.spec http://pmail.pl/~raven/tango-icon-theme-0.7.2-3.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 200374] Review Request: qstat - Real-time Game Server Status for Quake servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: qstat - Real-time Game Server Status for Quake servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200374
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 17:08 EST ---
A few small points before I get to a full review:
You don't need the check for "/" when you clean the buildroot in %install and
%clean. A simple rm -rf will suffice:
rm -rf %{buildroot}
The -n %{name}-%{version} is unnecessary. %setup already uses this as a
default.
The %attr statements for qstat.cfg and the qstat binary are also not necessary
as these permissions/ownership are already used.
qstat can be used for more than just quake servers, so remove 'quake' from the
summary line. You could replace it with 'FPS game' instead.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 16:50 EST --- Spec Name or Url: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/monodevelop.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/monodevelop-0.11-13.src.rpm *should* sort out the 64 bit problem in #52 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 16:43 EST --- It would be nice to get this pacakge reviewed with the patch in place. I'm still planning to track down the problem, but it is is a *very* complex GCJ problem. Also, I won't get time until mid August. Robert, are you ok with this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184331] Review Request: K-3D - 3D modeling and rendering 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: K-3D - 3D modeling and rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184331 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 16:26 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > (In reply to comment #8) > > > - I folded the devel package into the main package since there's not much sense > > > in having the split (since otherwise the main package would have to Require it). > > > > Very bad move. Please revert this change and split into *-devel and > > *non-devel, > > again. > > If the main package would have to require it, it sounds like the files in the > devel package (at least some of them) aren't really devel files. This package seems to contain shared libs, dll-modules/plugins and headers. > What was in the devel package that's needed by the main package? Is there > anything that was in the devel package that's *not* needed by the main > package? I presume the OP had mixed up *.so symlinks and dll-modules/plugins. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200438] Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200438 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 16:08 EST --- afaict, tango is not is rawhide. Dunno why icon-naming-utils is in Core, but it's been there since FC-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 191389] Review Request: oooqs2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: oooqs2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191389 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 16:06 EST --- SPEC URL: http://ausil.us/packages/oooqs2.spec SRPM URL: http://ausil.us/packages/oooqs2-1.0-2.fc5.src.rpm added the COPYING File added the patch for Russian desktop file translation the dangling symlinks cant fix the files they point to are provided by kdelibs and the language packs this is extremely common in kde packages. the relative symlinks are 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 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jokosher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 16:04 EST ---
If the way the GPL is messed with adds restrictions, it causes major problems.
If it removes restrictions, that's fine. My reading is it adds.
The problem with release often and early is that you get releases which haven't
had the time to mature and be debugged correctly. I've known of many security
problems with that system.
"* Directory /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/jokosher/ is not included.
Please could you clarify."
The application creates a directory (via the define) in the
python/site-packages/ directory called jokosher. You need in your %files
%{python_dir}/site-packages/jokosher
"> You're missing some requires as well - check http://www.jokosher.org/download
> for details.
Fixed. Alsaaudio is not a strict requirement for the operation of jokosher and
the next version will not require it at all. However I will consider packaging
it if necessary."
Depending on the timeframe of this packages possible acceptance into FE, I'd
look into importing it. It won't harm.
I can also replicate the dbus error on my 64 and 32 bit systems. This will need
to be looked into.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200438] Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200438 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 15:55 EST --- Isn't the tango icons already in Rawhide? Why else would the icon-naming-utils be in Core? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200438] Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200438 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 15:50 EST --- > I meant "update to 0.7.3", because this package is in FC5, > but in old version (0.6.7). Open a bugzilla report, and request and update (and tell them why, you need it for tango-icon-theme on fc5/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 200438] Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200438 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 15:43 EST --- >Very little chance, new packages aren't (usually) added to the distro after it's been released. That doesn't preclude it's appearance in fc5/Extras. Sorry for my English again. When I said "add to updates", I meant "update to 0.7.3", because this package is in FC5, but in old version (0.6.7). >Back to the package, would you consider building with >./configure --enable-png-creation >(it helps out kde users) No problem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200438] Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200438 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 15:29 EST --- >>To what are you referring when you say "it"? > icon-naming-utils, of course. Sorry for my poor English... Very little chance, new packages aren't (usually) added to the distro after it's been released. That doesn't preclude it's appearance in fc5/Extras. Back to the package, would you consider building with ./configure --enable-png-creation (it helps out kde users) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200438] Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200438 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 15:24 EST --- >Regardless, that *is* the license (and it is valid, regardless of rpmlint's whininess) OK, you are right. >To what are you referring when you say "it"? icon-naming-utils, of course. Sorry for my poor English... New spec and SRPM: http://pmail.pl/~raven/tango-icon-theme.spec http://pmail.pl/~raven/tango-icon-theme-0.7.2-2.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 200438] Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200438 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 15:17 EST --- > icon-naming-utils is in core and rawhide sports version 0.7.3 Coolness, how did I miss that? (: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] SRPMS]$ rpmlint tango-icon-theme-0.7.2-1.src.rpm >W: tango-icon-theme invalid-license Creative Commons Attribution >Share-AlikeCan Regardless, that *is* the license (and it is valid, regardless of rpmlint's whininess) >#3: Can someone add it to FC5 updates-released (or testing)? To what are you referring when you say "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 200438] Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200438 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 15:09 EST --- Comment #1: Thanks for the scriptlets. #2: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SRPMS]$ rpmlint tango-icon-theme-0.7.2-1.src.rpm W: tango-icon-theme invalid-license Creative Commons Attribution Share-AlikeCan #3: Can someone add it to FC5 updates-released (or testing)? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: esc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 15:03 EST --- what kind of files? you can't just remove directories on users systems (what if they put something in it?). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200438] Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200438 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 14:59 EST --- icon-naming-utils is in core and rawhide sports version 0.7.3 http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/icon-naming-utils/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200438] Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200438 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 14:53 EST --- Re: icon-naming-utils It would probably be best if the same person maintained both icon-naming-utils and tango-icon-theme. You can use what I've got for a starting point there (if you don't have it already): http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/icon-naming-utils.spec (and for reference and pointers http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/tango-icon-theme.spec ) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200310] Review Request: pyicqt - ICQ transport for Jabber servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pyicqt - ICQ transport for Jabber servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200310
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 14:52 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Good:
> + Tar ball match with upstream.
> + Local build works fine.
> + No complaints for source rpm from rpmlint
> + No complaints for binaries rpm from rpmlint.
> + Mock build works fine.
>
> Bad:
> - Tar file has the name pyicq-t but the package is called pyicqt.
I'll change that in the next rev...
> - when I start /etc/init.d/pyicqtt start, I will got the following message:
> /etc/init.d/pyicqt start
> Starting ICQ transport:
> /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/twisted/words/__init__.py:21: UserWarning:
> twisted.words will be undergoing a rewrite at some point in the future.
> warnings.warn("twisted.words will be undergoing a rewrite at some point in
> the
> future.")
Yeah, I get that too. Until the pyicq-t authors update their code, I don't know
what can be done, as this message is generated by twisted:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# python
Python 2.4.3 (#1, Jun 13 2006, 16:41:18)
[GCC 4.0.2 20051125 (Red Hat 4.0.2-8)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import twisted.words
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/twisted/words/__init__.py:21: UserWarning:
twisted.words will be undergoing a rewrite at some point in the future.
warnings.warn("twisted.words will be undergoing a rewrite at some point in the
future.")
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198837] Review Request: eris - Client-side session layer for Atlas-C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eris - Client-side session layer for Atlas-C++ Alias: eris https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198837 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 14:49 EST --- This has been built now that wfmath is available. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198839] Review Request: sear - WorldForge client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sear - WorldForge client Alias: sear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198839 Bug 198839 depends on bug 198837, which changed state. Bug 198837 Summary: Review Request: eris - Client-side session layer for Atlas-C++ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198837 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198839] Review Request: sear - WorldForge client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sear - WorldForge client Alias: sear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198839 Bug 198839 depends on bug 198833, which changed state. Bug 198833 Summary: Review Request: mercator - Terrain library for WorldForge client/server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198833 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198833] Review Request: mercator - Terrain library for WorldForge client/server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mercator - Terrain library for WorldForge client/server Alias: mercator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198833 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 14:47 EST --- This has been built now that the wfmath issue has been temporarily resolved. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: esc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 14:43 EST --- comps should be group 'gnome-desktop' default. bob -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200438] Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200438 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 14:43 EST --- 3. Per http://tango.freedesktop.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions use License: Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jokosher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 14:42 EST ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz (or sometimes with something after %{version} such
> as
> -rc2.tar.gz). This is what Source has to point to.
Fixed.
(In reply to comment #10)
> You're missing some requires as well - check http://www.jokosher.org/download
> for details.
Fixed. Alsaaudio is not a strict requirement for the operation of jokosher and
the next version will not require it at all. However I will consider packaging
it if necessary.
(In reply to comment #11)
* I suggest that upstream do not modify/extend/sublicence the GPL with
exceptions, but rather put their distribution licence terms into a separate
file.
I have mentioned this on the development list.
* Run rpmlint on the binary rpm. From the two errors it reports, one is valid.
Now fixed.
* Directory /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/jokosher/ is not included.
Please could you clarify.
* Why is it arch-specific and not "BuildArch: noarch"?
Now fixed.
* Upstream recommends GStreamer 0.10.9 or above and prefers a CVS snapshot.
Requires: gstreamer >= 0.10.8 does not reflect that.
Now fixed.
* Prefer "install -p" over "cp" to preserve time-stamps of files.
Now fixed - yes this is much better, thanks.
* Run-time warning:
Some functionality will not work correctly or at all.
You must have the Python alsaaudio package installed.
Please install python-alsaaudio or fetch from
http://www.wilstrup.net/pyalsaaudio/.
See above.
* Crashes reproducibly with below message. Steps to reproduce:
1) Start "jokosher"
2) Enter "Preferences".
3) Click "Close".
4) Click "Create a new project".
Starting up
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/jokosher/Jokosher.py:1054:
GtkDeprecationWarning: gtk.threads_init is deprecated, use gtk.gdk.threads_init
instead
gtk.threads_init()
6783: assertion failed "allocator->lock == mutex" file "dbus-dataslot.c" line 82
function _dbus_data_slot_allocator_alloc
Aborted
I cannot reproduce this however I am running the latest gstreamer and gnonlin
releases although I fail to see how that would alter things. This has not been
reported on the support forums or lists to my knowledge. Perhaps the latest spec
file and requires fixes this. py-dbus maybe?
(In reply to comment #12)
> The more I look into this package, the more odd it becomes.
> There is nothing (I can see) on the website as to the license
> Upstream recommending a cvs snapshot (moving target problems)
Gstreamer have now made a release so no longer dependent on cvs. Gnonlin also
anticipated doing the same in the near future however again, current gnonlin
will work, just not with full features.
> Upstream not sticking totally to the GPL
This has been mentioned to the devs. I would appreciate comments on how much of
a showstopper this is and how to get around it of there is no altering the
stance of how it is licensed upstream.
> Sure, it looks a nice package, but as it stands, is it stable (upstream)
> enough
> to be in Extras?
I would say yes in the spirit of release early and often. This is not an
admittance of buggy software - the two main issues users currently experience
are due to current version of gstreamer and gnonlin, both of which Requires
indicates.
> The functionality issues in #11 give me serious reasons to doubt it's
> inclusion
> at this time (though this could be down [again] to upstream or non-inclusion
> of
> R's on the rpm itself)
I hope the above gives you cause to re-think. I would be happy to see it wait
until fc6 for inclusion. Thanks again for the advice.
Regards
Chris
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198837] Review Request: eris - Client-side session layer for Atlas-C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eris - Client-side session layer for Atlas-C++ Alias: eris https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198837 Bug 198837 depends on bug 198829, which changed state. Bug 198829 Summary: Review Request: wfmath - WorldForge math libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198829 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198833] Review Request: mercator - Terrain library for WorldForge client/server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mercator - Terrain library for WorldForge client/server Alias: mercator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198833 Bug 198833 depends on bug 198829, which changed state. Bug 198829 Summary: Review Request: wfmath - WorldForge math libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198829 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 14:31 EST --- noarch doesn't create a debuginfo package. Can you upload a new spec and src.rpm when you've fixed the other issues please? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198829] Review Request: wfmath - WorldForge math libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wfmath - WorldForge math libraries Alias: wfmath https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198829 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 14:31 EST --- I disabled 'make check' on ppc until upstream can provide a fix. Now that this has been imported and built on devel I'm closing the ticket. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200438] Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200438
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 14:31 EST ---
I can't sponsor you, but I'll give you something very review-like:
1. includes
BuildRequires: icon-naming-utils >= 0.7.2
but that isn't in Core or Extras (yet).
2. scriptlets should be:
%post
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/Tango 2> /dev/null ||:
gtk-update-icon-cache -q %{_datadir}/icons/Tango 2> /dev/null ||:
%postun
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/Tango 2> /dev/null ||:
gtk-update-icon-cache -q %{_datadir}/icons/Tango 2> /dev/null ||:
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 14:08 EST --- Okay, here goes, First of all thanks for reviewing and for assigning yourself to this one Paul. Most comments understood and have been or are being acted upon. (In reply to comment #8) > Bad : you need to define BuildArch : noarch Done > rpmlint on the rpm gives > > E: script-without-shellbang > /usr/share/doc/jokosher-0.1/userguide/jokosheruserguide.de.html Fixed. > > rpmlint on the debuginfo gives > > E: empty-debuginfo-package Do noarch packages generate debuginfo packages? rpmbuild no longer produces these. Regards Chris -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200422] Review Request: international-time (first package, seeking sponsor)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: international-time (first package, seeking sponsor)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200422
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 14:08 EST ---
Hi Tim,
A couple of comments:
* The preferred value for the BuildRoot tag is
"%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)". This is not a
requirement for approval, though.
* desktop-file-install is usually (always?) called using "--vendor fedora" and
"--add-category X-Fedora".
* rpmlint has a few complaints (none of them serious):
W: international-time summary-ended-with-dot
W: international-time no-url-tag
W: international-time no-documentation
* You can drop the 'pygtk2' requirement since 'pygtk2-libglade' already depends
on it. Also, it seems rpm already adds a dependency on "/usr/bin/python"
automatically so the 'python' requirement might be redundant... but I'm not
really sure.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200310] Review Request: pyicqt - ICQ transport for Jabber servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pyicqt - ICQ transport for Jabber servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200310
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 13:54 EST ---
Good:
+ Tar ball match with upstream.
+ Local build works fine.
+ No complaints for source rpm from rpmlint
+ No complaints for binaries rpm from rpmlint.
+ Mock build works fine.
Bad:
- Tar file has the name pyicq-t but the package is called pyicqt.
- when I start /etc/init.d/pyicqtt start, I will got the following message:
/etc/init.d/pyicqt start
Starting ICQ transport:
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/twisted/words/__init__.py:21: UserWarning:
twisted.words will be undergoing a rewrite at some point in the future.
warnings.warn("twisted.words will be undergoing a rewrite at some point in the
future.")
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200438] Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200438 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200438] New: Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project
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=200438 Summary: Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project 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://pmail.pl/~raven/tango-icon-theme.spec SRPM URL: http://pmail.pl/~raven/tango-icon-theme-0.7.2-1.src.rpm Description: Hi, it's one of my first packages and I'm looking for sponsor. :) tango icon-theme package contains icons form Tango Project. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200348] Review Request: libgadu - Gadu-Gadu protocol support library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libgadu - Gadu-Gadu protocol support library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200348 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||200436 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 200436] Review Request: gaim-gadugadu - Gadu-Gadu support in Gaim IM client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gaim-gadugadu - Gadu-Gadu support in Gaim IM client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200436 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||200348 OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200436] New: Review Request: gaim-gadugadu - Gadu-Gadu support in Gaim IM client
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=200436 Summary: Review Request: gaim-gadugadu - Gadu-Gadu support in Gaim IM client 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://pmail.pl/~raven/gaim-gadugadu.spec SRPM URL: http://pmail.pl/~raven/gaim-gadgadu-2.0.0-0.7.beta3.src.rpm Description: Hi, it's one of my first packages and I'm looking for sponsor. :) gaim-gadugadu package allows you to use Gadu-Gadu protocol in Gaim instant messaging client. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: esc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 13:16 EST --- Thanks! The "pwd" is a mistake. As for removing the directory, Xulrunner leaves some stuff behind in the directory that does not get removed when the RPM is un-installed. I figured that we would not want to have the directory lying around. -- 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 178922] Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178922 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 13:10 EST --- (In reply to comment #48) > any chance for a update to 1.2.10 for asterisk? http://repo.ocjtech.us/asterisk-1.2/fedora/5/SRPMS/asterisk-1.2.10-1.fc5.spec http://repo.ocjtech.us/asterisk-1.2/fedora/5/SRPMS/asterisk-1.2.10-1.fc5.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200348] Review Request: libgadu - Gadu-Gadu protocol support library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libgadu - Gadu-Gadu protocol support library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200348 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 12:29 EST --- Sorry, I didn't remember to add changelog entry and bump release. Spec URL: http://pmail.pl/~raven/libgadu.spec SRPM URL: http://pmail.pl/~raven/libgadu-20060726-2.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 177583] Review Request: zaptel-kmod
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zaptel-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177583 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 12:28 EST --- There are two primary reasons why we distribute Zaptel separately from the kernel source trees (and have not even offered them for inclusion in the source trees): 1) Zaptel supports both 2.4 and 2.6 kernel series, and many users will run 2.4 kernels but want access to driver fixes and drivers for new hardware as it arrives. Since the 2.4 kernel tree is essentially closed for new features, it's not likely we could get Zaptel merged into the 2.4 kernel tree, and thus we'd need to continue distributing it separately even if it was merged into the 2.6 tree (thus creating extra work for us to keep them in sync). As we move to supporting more the 2.6 kernel's new features in Zaptel, it's likely that we will discontinue support for the 2.4 kernel in the reasonably near feature, and at that time we can look at this issue again if it makes sense to do so. 2) Zaptel is available under both the GPLv2 license and also non-open-source commercial licenses negotiated with Digium. This means that contributions to Zaptel must be licensed for Digium to use them in non-open-source distributions, and thus we must strictly control the changes that get merged into the Zaptel source trees. If the Zaptel source was merged into the 2.6 kernel, there would be no method to continue this process (changes merged by other kernel developers would be made directly in the 2.6 tree, bypassing our licensing process), and the 2.6 tree version would begin to diverge from our dual-licensed version, which is not a situation we wish to be the case. I'm happy to provide any additional information that is needed here; we'd like to see Asterisk and Zaptel in Fedora Extras as well, so we'll do anything that's within reason to help achieve that goal :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
