[Bug 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: clement-2.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-12 01:38 EST ---
Almost there, why are these:
%attr(-,mail,mail) %{_usr}/bin/%{name}
%attr(-,mail,mail) %{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version}/
%attr(-,mail,mail) ?
Perhaps the binary is suid? In that case please reflect that in the %attr, even
if it already is made suid in %install. And I see no reason for the
%{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version} being mail.mail, prhaps this is a leftover from
when it contained the log files?
I also found some more should fixes, I see you use:
%{_usr}/bin in various places, you should replace that with %{_bindir}
also you use %{_usr}/lib, which will result in things getting installed under
/usr/lib instead of /usr/lib64 on 64 bit archs, is that intentional? If not
please replace it with %{_libdir}.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202236] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-SSLify
Please 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-SSLify https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202236 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 22:44 EST --- Not much to say; builds fine and rpmlint is quiet. * source files match upstream: 8c3a9c5d538453105e20b2a3a0fce183 POE-Component-SSLify-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 not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(POE::Component::SSLify) = 0.04 perl(POE::Component::SSLify::ClientHandle) = 0.02 perl(POE::Component::SSLify::ServerHandle) = 0.02 perl-POE-Component-SSLify = 0.04-1.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Exporter) perl(Net::SSLeay) perl(POE) perl(POSIX) perl(Symbol) perl(strict) perl(vars) perl(warnings) * %check is present and all tests (test?) pass: All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=1, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.03 cusr + 0.02 csys = 0.05 CPU) * 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 201913] Review Request: compat-gcc-34 - GCC 3.4.6-RH compatibility compiler and 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: compat-gcc-34 - GCC 3.4.6-RH compatibility compiler and libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201913 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 21:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) > I'd second that - why does this need to be in core ? What package in core > requires it to build ? I'll second that second :). I also see no reason why this needs to be in core. -- 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 202224] Review Request: libtirpc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libtirpc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 20:52 EST --- OK, I suppose. Would have really liked to have had this for feature freeze. :) -- 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 202236] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-SSLify
Please 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-SSLify https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202236 [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 197974] Tracking bug for reviews stalled pending the adoption of guidelines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Tracking bug for reviews stalled pending the adoption of guidelines Alias: FE-GUIDELINES https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197974 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|181445 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778, 177841, 197974 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 20:23 EST --- You might even trace the pkgconfig problem further back; libshout-devel depends on libogg-devel, which also has a .pc file but no pkgconfig dependency. It seems there's bustage all around. I filed a bug against libogg-devel so there's a chance of this getting fixed in the future, but of course you have to target existing releases and so keeping the pkgconfig dependency here is the right thing to do. In any case, things look much better now; rpmlint is quiet and I can grab the upstream source. The only thing I notice, which I'm not too clear on, is your requirement of a minimum php-api version. Shouldn't this be a requirement of a specific php-api version (i.e. "=" instead of ">=")? I'll wager that you know more about PHP APIs than I do, so I'll leave it to you to decide what's best here. Well, there is one tiny thing. Your most recent changelog line is dated Jun 30 instead of Aug 11. You can fix it when you check in. Review: * source files match upstream: 3a630c1953e0bd0c42a3324f5e449077 phpShout-0.3.1.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. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: config(php-shout) = 0.3.1-5.fc6 shout.so()(64bit) php-shout = 0.3.1-5.fc6 = config(php-shout) = 0.3.1-5.fc6 libogg.so.0()(64bit) libshout.so.3()(64bit) libspeex.so.1()(64bit) libtheora.so.0()(64bit) libvorbis.so.0()(64bit) php-api >= 20041225 * %check is present and the included test seems to pass. * shared libraries are present, internal to PHP. * 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. Go ahead and apply for cvsextras membership (and fedorabugs if you want it). I'll set you up and then you can check in and request your builds. Let me know if you need any help. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193161] Review Request: ruby-postgres
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-postgres https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193161 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 19:41 EST --- Imported and built successfully into 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 199020] Review Request: conexusmm (Gtkmm widgets for the conexus network and serial I/O 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: conexusmm (Gtkmm widgets for the conexus network and serial I/O library) Alias: conexusmm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199020 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 18:45 EST --- * /usr/share/conexusmm-0.2.0/ is not included. * Only other issue I see is not a packaging problem, but a run-time problem: The demo is in $PATH, but it doesn't look in its datadir for the source code files. Gives ugly warnings in a terminal and an incomplete demonstration. As I believe you can fix those things: 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 200976] Review Request: cyphesis - WorldForge game 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: cyphesis - WorldForge game server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200976 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 18:32 EST --- I still don't know if this supports IPV6. I'm having a heck of a time getting ipv6 running on my test system. This latest package removes all %ghost lines per the recent Packaging committee decision to not %ghost .pyo files. I know this hasn't been ratified by FESCo/FC groups yet, but I'm hopeful that it will be. This also cleans up some of the semanage issues reported earlier, so there should be no more error/warning messages when installing/uninstalling on a system that isn't running selinux. There should also not be any more problems turning selinux off and on and having the port context get set correctly. http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/cyphesis-0.5.8-5.src.rpm http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/cyphesis.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 201941] Review Request: tetex-elsevier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tetex-elsevier https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201941 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 17:17 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > I wonder why you're seeing different behavior? Because I did testing stupidly. I didn't used cp -p for the first cp when testing. Now it should work, and I also fixed the .tex timestamps. http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/tetex-elsevier-0.1.20060516-2.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 199780] Review Request: dstat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dstat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199780 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 17:00 EST --- SPEC: http://www.perturb.org/tmp/dstat.spec SRPM: http://www.perturb.org/tmp/dstat-0.6.3-5.src.rpm I fixed the above mentioned things. rpmlint is clean on both the srpm and the binary rpm. I don't know how much time I'll have to review another project however. Plus I'm not sure I have the expertise. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201006] Review Request: HelixPlayer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: HelixPlayer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC|[EMAIL PROTECTED] | OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 16:18 EST --- Needs work: * The BuildRoot must be cleaned at the beginning of %install * It doesn't look like the build uses the $RPM_OPT_FLAGS * The spec files has a mixed use of spaces and tabs * Directory /usr/lib/helix/ is unowned * The desktop file should be installed with desktop-file-install and with the vendor prefix set to "fedora" (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#desktop) * Desktop file: the Categories tag should contain X-Fedora (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#desktop) * The translation files are not properly tagged. Use the %find_lang macro (wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) * Scriptlets: missing "gtk-update-icon-cache" in %post and postun, since you install icons to %_datadir/icons/hicolor. (wiki: ScriptletSnippets) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202224] Review Request: libtirpc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libtirpc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 14:49 EST --- rpcbind which will replace portmapper. I'm currently working on the rpcbind rpm now, but I need the libtirpc lib in place to move forward. Once these two rpms are in place, I can start moving forward on porting all the RPC applications (yp*,nfs*, etc) to the new library resulting in making them IPv6 aware... -- 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 202236] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-SSLify
Please 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-SSLify https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202236 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||163776 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202236] New: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-SSLify
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=202236 Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-SSLify Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/POE-Component-SSLify/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-POE-Component-SSLify-0.04-1.fc5.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-POE-Component-SSLify.spec Description: This component represents the standard way to do SSL in POE. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197353] Review Request: man-pages-fr - French man pages from the Linux Documentation 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: man-pages-fr - French man pages from the Linux Documentation Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197353 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 14:24 EST --- Spec URL: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SPECS/man-pages-fr.spec SRPM URL: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SRPMS/man-pages-fr-2.36.0-1.src.rpm %changelog * Fri Aug 11 2006 Alain Portal 2.36.0-1 - Update to 2.36.0 * Fri Aug 11 2006 Alain Portal 2.35.0-1 - Update to 2.35.0 * Thu Aug 10 2006 Alain Portal 2.34.0-2 - New mansupfr.tar.bz2 tarball : alsa-utils, man, nano and shadow-utils man pages are no more in this tarball, so, no need to remove them. -- 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 202224] Review Request: libtirpc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libtirpc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 13:58 EST --- What's going to use it initially? -- 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 196529] Review Request: gtkdatabox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtkdatabox https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196529 [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 201913] Review Request: compat-gcc-34 - GCC 3.4.6-RH compatibility compiler and 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: compat-gcc-34 - GCC 3.4.6-RH compatibility compiler and libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201913 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 13:45 EST --- I'd second that - why does this need to be in core ? What package in core requires it to build ? -- 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 202224] New: Review Request: libtirpc
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=202224 Summary: Review Request: libtirpc Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/steved/tirpc/lib/libtirpc.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/steved/tirpc/lib/libtirpc-0.1.7-2.fc6.src.rpm Description: This package contains SunLib's implementation of transport-independent RPC (TI-RPC) documentation. This library forms a piece of the base of Open Network Computing (ONC), and is derived directly from the Solaris 2.3 source. This package also support RPC over IPv6 which will be needed for all the RPC applications to support IPv6 -- 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 202220] Review Request: compat-gcc-295 - RHEL5 2.95.3 compatibility libstdc++ for s390{, x}
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: compat-gcc-295 - RHEL5 2.95.3 compatibility libstdc++
for s390{,x}
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202220
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||196083
nThis||
Flag||rhel-5.0.0+
--
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 181445] Review Request: php-shout
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 13:06 EST --- Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/php-shout.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/php-shout-0.3.1-5.src.rpm Okay I did find some time to update the package with these fixes. The reason I removed pkgconfig is that it was decided that libshout-devel would already require pkgconfig (and I still think it should...), but you're right... I tried it in mock and it fails without pkgconfig. You should also be able to find the 0.3.1 sources on SourceForge 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 202220] Review Request: compat-gcc-295 - RHEL5 2.95.3 compatibility libstdc++ for s390{, x}
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: compat-gcc-295 - RHEL5 2.95.3 compatibility libstdc++
for s390{,x}
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202220
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Product|Fedora Core |Red Hat Enterprise Linux
||Beta
Version|devel |5.0.0
Component|Package Review |Package Review
OtherBugsDependingO||202216
nThis||
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202220] New: Review Request: compat-gcc-295 - RHEL5 2.95.3 compatibility libstdc++ for s390{, x}
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=202220
Summary: Review Request: compat-gcc-295 - RHEL5 2.95.3
compatibility libstdc++ for s390{,x}
Product: Fedora Core
Version: devel
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: normal
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://devserv/~jakub/compat/compat-gcc-295.spec
SRPM URL: http://devserv/~jakub/compat/compat-gcc-295-2.95.3-82.src.rpm
Description: IBM asked again for s390{,x} 2.95.3 libstdc++.
--
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 193059] Review Request: ibmasm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ibmasm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193059 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 12:22 EST --- (In reply to comment #18) > #15 : any sign of the update? Not yet. I will work on it today and have it ready by Monday. Sorry for the delay. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201941] Review Request: tetex-elsevier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tetex-elsevier https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201941 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 11:50 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > With the new src.rpm the timestamps are kept for the source files > (normally I try to always keep the timestamps, and I used them > to construct the version, although I made a mistake on the month). Ah, I was wondering where that version came from, since it didn't match the dates on the files. > I also keep the timestamp for the installed files. The result is > a spec which is rather verbose since I don't know how to preserve > the creation date when copying a file. install -p and cp -p don't > keep it. How odd, cp -p should work and in fact it does seem to work for me; I commented out the touch statements in %install and built in mock and the resulting package had Apr 12 and May 16 for the .bst and .cls files, respectively. Even the .pdf files in %doc came out correctly. I then commented out the first touch staement in %prep and things were still OK. However, even with an unmodified spec, the .tex files still came out with the build time. Perhaps it would be best just to leave things alone since they really are being modified. > Tell me if you prefer that I remove those changes. I think it's useful to try and preserve the timestamps as possible, but just using cp -p seems to work fine for me so the extra work seems unnecessary. I wonder why you're seeing different behavior? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clement-2.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 09:00 EST --- Version 2.1-186 SPECS file fine tuning, logs are not in /usr/share/clement anymore Spec Url: ftp://ftp.safe.ca/pub/clement-2.1/SPECS/clement-2.1-186.spec SRPM Url: ftp://ftp.safe.ca/pub/clement-2.1/SRPMS/clement-2.1-186.src.rpm Beside SPEC file fine tuning, numeros improvement and bug-fix since 2.1-176, see Changelog within SPEC file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201941] Review Request: tetex-elsevier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tetex-elsevier https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201941 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 08:58 EST --- With the new src.rpm the timestamps are kept for the source files (normally I try to always keep the timestamps, and I used them to construct the version, although I made a mistake on the month). I also keep the timestamp for the installed files. The result is a spec which is rather verbose since I don't know how to preserve the creation date when copying a file. install -p and cp -p don't keep it. Tell me if you prefer that I remove those changes. - keep files timestamps, even for installed files - remove unneeded tetex-latex BuildRequires - correct the version by using the right month from the file timestamps http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/tetex-elsevier-0.1.20060516-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201418] Review Request: widelands - GPL Settlers II clone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: widelands - GPL Settlers II clone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201418 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 06:28 EST --- About the "build=debug" this is needed to enforce a build with "-g", otherwise the package is not built with debugging info and the -debuginfo package starts crying. I am not currently on Fedora (I like KDE best, and the RH artwork loooks ugly on it), but I'm configuring the system to receive RPM builds. When I'm done with this, I will rebuild the package. While I don't finish it, I'll only update the spec file. I'm looking forward to UnleashKDE's approval :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 04:53 EST --- Built :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196281] Review Request: php-manual-en - English language PHP manual
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: php-manual-en - English language PHP manual
Alias: php-manual-en
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196281
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 03:41 EST ---
copyright.html describes the distribution license
opl.license.html and linked pages are the license itself
I'd be tempted to symlink these into %{doc}, except that they are generated HTML
pages that would have broken links out of context.
How does creating a "placeholder" LICENSE file in %{doc} that says "For
licensing information please see %{defaultdocdir}/php-manual/en/copyright.html"
sound?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 182254] Review Request: SS5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: SS5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182254 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 03:28 EST --- 1) I read the steps about "Import of complete src.rpm packages" (it's my case), so I ask you to check how I want to proceed: * My package is named ss5 (ss5-3.5.9-1.src.rpm) and is under Devel/FC-4/Fc-5 branch; * I am releasing new version of ss5 (ss5-3.6.1-1.src.rpm), so: export CVSROOT=:ext:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs/extras export CVS_RSH=ssh cvs co ss5 cd ss5/devel cd ss5/common a ... b ./cvs-import.sh -b -m "ss5 updated to 3.6.1-1" ~/rpmbuild/SRPM/ss5- 3.6.1-1.src.rpm c cd ../FC-5 d cvs up e make build ... (steps a,b,c,d,e also for FC-4 branch) 2) About logo, I read guidelines and I wrote to mailbox to requests usage permission. Thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 03:11 EST --- Thanks for making the addition 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
