[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] 2006-08-15 02:27 EST --- I would run lspci first to check for the device and then if it's there set the run level. I'm not exactly happy at making it run level 3 for extras and then changing it for Core (or RHEL) - it should be correct in all versions before being accepted. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202437] Review Request: perl-SDL - SDL bindings for the Perl language
Please 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-SDL - SDL bindings for the Perl language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202437 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 02:07 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) > Issues/Questions: > > 1. There is a SDL_perl 2.1.3 on CPAN: > http://search.cpan.org/~dgoehrig/SDL_Perl-2.1.3/ > Is that version usable for the packages that use this version? > Or totally diffrent interface? I haven't tried myself but have been told by the previous maintainers from the repo that must not be named that that version is not usable, so I assumed it has a different interface. Also the frozen-bubble package which this bug block contains: "Requires: perl-SDL >= 0:1.19.0, perl-SDL < 0:2.0" and an identical BR. However I've just checked a few other distros / rpm-repo's and I've found that rpmforge have frozen-bubble working with perl-SDL 2.1.2 (with a small patch, so I guess the interface really is different). > If that package is imported someday > would it conflict with this one? > I honestly don't know, but since it seems that frozen-bubble can be made to work with 2.1.x quite easily I'll guess it would be better to make the jumpt to 2.1.x now. I'll post a new version soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201170] Review Request: jfbterm - Japanese Console for Linux Frame Buffer Device
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jfbterm - Japanese Console for Linux Frame Buffer Device https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201170 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 01:46 EST --- bug 202032 (efont-unicode-bdf): Change in efont-unicode-bdf (font path change) affects jfbterm packaging. Please check bug 202032 before 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 202032] Review Request: efont-unicode-bdf: Unicode font by Electronic Font Open Laboratory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: efont-unicode-bdf: Unicode font by Electronic Font Open Laboratory https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202032 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 01:33 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) > rpmlint will complain that you're using a mixture of spaces and tabs. Ah.. rpmlint didn't complain, however, spaces and tabs mixed. Fixed by http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/efont-unicode-bdf.spec (0.4.2-5). -- 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 177232] Review Request: regionset - reads/sets the region code of DVD drives
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: regionset - reads/sets the region code of DVD drives https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177232 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 00:20 EST --- http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/regionset.spec http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/regionset-0.1-4.src.rpm Fixed, although there really is no point in using smp flags, because there's only one gcc command ever executed. Well, it doesn't hurt, either. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177105] Review Request: gnomeradio - Graphical FM-Tuner program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnomeradio - Graphical FM-Tuner program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177105 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 00:15 EST --- http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/gnomeradio.spec http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/gnomeradio-1.6-2.src.rpm This one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177104] Review Request: abook - Text-based addressbook program for mutt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: abook - Text-based addressbook program for mutt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177104 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 00:07 EST --- http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/abook.spec http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/abook-0.5.6-2.src.rpm 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 181997] Review Request: gpc - The GNU Pascal compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gpc - The GNU Pascal compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181997 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 23:32 EST --- It's possible. Frankly I was hoping that their GCC4 work would happen sooner rather than later, but they're still working out 4.0 compatibility while the world is moving on to 4.1 and beyond. The spec actually has the ability to build minimally if the installed GCC version matches the base GCC that GPC is being patched into. (Actually that's pretty much required to avoid file conflicts.) The only real issue with that is all of the patching that Red Hat generally does to GCC. In the past I haven't had problems with this, however. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202437] Review Request: perl-SDL - SDL bindings for the Perl language
Please 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-SDL - SDL bindings for the Perl language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202437
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 23:00 EST ---
Per talking with tibbs on IRC I am going to take over the review, as I had just
started in on one just before he did.
OK - Package name
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (LGPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
ab7fb92a1ed0db54a88839e64b9ce2c6 SDL_perl-1.20.3.tar.gz
ab7fb92a1ed0db54a88839e64b9ce2c6 SDL_perl-1.20.3.tar.gz.1
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
n/a - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
n/a - Spec handles locales/find_lang
n/a - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
n/a - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
n/a - -doc subpackage needed/used.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
n/a - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
n/a - .pc files in -devel subpackage.
n/a - .so files in -devel subpackage.
n/a - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
n/a - .la files are removed.
n/a - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - No rpmlint output.
SHOULD Items:
OK - Should include License or ask upstream to include it.
OK - Should build in mock.
Issues/Questions:
1. There is a SDL_perl 2.1.3 on CPAN:
http://search.cpan.org/~dgoehrig/SDL_Perl-2.1.3/
Is that version usable for the packages that use this version?
Or totally diffrent interface? If that package is imported someday
would it conflict with this one?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181997] Review Request: gpc - The GNU Pascal compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gpc - The GNU Pascal compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 22:36 EST --- Would this package be helped any by the recent addition of the compat-gcc-34 package to core? (it's 3.4.6, not 3.4.5 however). Ie, could this be reconfigured to just build the frontends and require compat- gcc-34? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202319] Review Request: perl-Data-Compare - Compare perl data structures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Data-Compare - Compare perl data structures https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202319 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 22:30 EST --- + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license field matches the actual license. + license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. + source files match upstream: 874a13f201c6948e84867f82d950907a Data-Compare-0.13.tar.gz 874a13f201c6948e84867f82d950907a Data-Compare-0.13.tar.gz.srpm + latest version is being packaged. + BuildRequires are proper. package builds in mock ( ). + rpmlint is silent. + final provides and requires are sane: == provides perl(Data::Compare) = 0.13 perl(Data::Compare::Plugins::Scalar::Properties) = 1.0 perl-Data-Compare = 0.13-1.fc5 == requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(Data::Compare) perl(Exporter) perl(File::Find::Rule) perl(strict) perl(vars) perl(warnings) + no shared libraries are present. + package is not relocatable. + owns the directories it creates. + doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + %clean is present. + All tests successful. Files=7, Tests=76, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.55 cusr + 0.20 csys = 0.75 CPU) %check is present and all tests pass: + 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. + not a web 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 202437] Review Request: perl-SDL - SDL bindings for the Perl language
Please 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-SDL - SDL bindings for the Perl language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202437 [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 202319] Review Request: perl-Data-Compare - Compare perl data structures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Data-Compare - Compare perl data structures https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202319 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 202319] Review Request: perl-Data-Compare - Compare perl data structures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Data-Compare - Compare perl data structures https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202319 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[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 202318] Review Request: perl-Scalar-Properties - Run-time properties on scalar variables
Please 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-Scalar-Properties - Run-time properties on scalar variables https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 22:16 EST --- Everything looks good. + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license field matches the actual license. + license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. + source files match upstream: 19aefcff9043f8645d42f0bbe8c39d18 Scalar-Properties-0.12.tar.gz 19aefcff9043f8645d42f0bbe8c39d18 Scalar-Properties-0.12.tar.gz.srpm + latest version is being packaged. + BuildRequires are proper. + package builds in mock (5/x86_64). + rpmlint is silent. + final provides and requires are sane: == provides perl(Scalar::Properties) = 0.12 perl-Scalar-Properties = 0.12-1.fc5 == requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(strict) perl(warnings) + no shared libraries are present. + package is not relocatable. + owns the directories it creates. + doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + %clean is present. + %check is present and all tests pass: + 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. + not a web 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 202032] Review Request: efont-unicode-bdf: Unicode font by Electronic Font Open Laboratory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: efont-unicode-bdf: Unicode font by Electronic Font
Open Laboratory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202032
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 22:14 EST ---
(In reply to comment #10)
>From your option, I came to think that this package (efont-unicode-bdf)
should own its ORIGINAL font directory.
This package doesn't require fonts-japanese, of course. However,
putting the fonts in /usr/share/fonts/japanese/misc will cause problem,
especially when fonts-japanese is removed when this package is installed
because fonts-japanese calls "chkfontpath -q -r /usr/share/fonts/japanese/misc",
which removes the entry of efont-unicode-bdf, too. We must treat
which package of this package and fonts-japanese will be removed first,
which is somewhat troublesome.
So, I moved the font directory from /usr/share/fonts/japanese/misc to
/usr/share/fonts/japanese/%{name} and added some necessary ghost
files. The updated spec file is
http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/efont-unicode-bdf.spec
(0.4.2-4)
Note: the previous spec file is preserved as
http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/efont-unicode-bdf-0.4.2-3.spec
Note: this change affects bug 201170 (jfbterm), so please check if
this change is proper.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 22:13 EST --- Hi Laurent, I'm interested in reviewing CGAL but am getting a 404 Not Found error when trying to download the SRPM. Is this submission still active? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193108] Review Request: libsexymm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libsexymm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 21:56 EST --- The rpmlint warning on no docs in the devel subpackage can be ignored in this case I think. Including a copy of the license is a SHOULD item in the review guidelines, not a MUST, so it's not a blocker either way. Your patch should be fine for now, glad they fixed it upstream. Everything else looks good to me, so this package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this bug with NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built for 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 201656] Review Request: gstm-1.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gstm-1.2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201656 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 21:44 EST --- For some reason several things have stopped building for me in rawhide, including this package. It still builds fine in FC5, though. OK, so you removed the BR: openssh-client, but you seem to have neglected the other comments I made. The mixed-spaces-and-tabs thing isn't really a blocker but it's still there and it would be good if you fixed it. More troubling is that there's still no dependency on openssh-clients. At minimum you need to require /usr/bin/ssh because gstm will call that directly. (Actually it calls "ssh" and relies on PATH to find 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 202318] Review Request: perl-Scalar-Properties - Run-time properties on scalar variables
Please 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-Scalar-Properties - Run-time properties on scalar variables https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[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 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] 2006-08-14 21:04 EST --- Version 2.1-192 SPECS file fine tuning, user/group clement used to run the main daemon Spec Url: ftp://ftp.safe.ca/pub/clement-2.1/SPECS/clement-2.1-192.spec SRPM Url: ftp://ftp.safe.ca/pub/clement-2.1/SRPMS/clement-2.1-192.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 202529] Review Request: rt2500-(kmod-common)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rt2500-(kmod-common) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202529 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 20:30 EST --- updated version of the spec file: - drop qt-devel >= 3.2.1 * how to include desktop-file-utils? - drop exclusive arch, may build on i586, i686, x86_64 - maybe on pcc?(asking team) * what is a version tag example with applet desktop ? - dropped gtk-icon-cache (not high res directory - remplaced with ln rt2500/foo.xpm - doc ok! What else may -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202424] Review Request: trackballs-music - In-game music for Trackballs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: trackballs-music - In-game music for Trackballs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202424 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 19:53 EST --- The only reference I've been able to find for a license for the music files is a general "GPL" tag on the sourceforge project page, which probably explains the License: GPL in the spec file. Have you found any other license info that's specific to the game's music files, as GPL seems a bit odd for music files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202528] Review Request: rt2500-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: rt2500-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202528 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 19:41 EST --- rt2x00 is in development and will be merged with the mainline kernel as soon as it will be ready, this is planned! (and then provide kernel module for all ralink wifi chipset) But there is a bug and rt2x00 cannot be built on fedora ( i'm searching for already submitted bug... ) asking publishable information from the author... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202423] Review Request: trackballs - Steer a marble ball through a labyrinth
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: trackballs - Steer a marble ball through a labyrinth https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202423 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 19:22 EST --- This is a fairly easy package: GOOD * rpmlint output clean * Package/spec name matches upstream * GPL license ok, license file included * Source matches upstream: 9ea9ca93d87bb0f9ad8abca1b34af594 trackballs-1.1.2.tar.gz * Builds in mock on FC5-i386, FC5-x86_64, FC6-i386, FC6-x86_64 * No need for a -devel subpackage * No need for a -doc subpackage * locale files installed correctly * .desktop file installed correctly * icon files installed and updated in %post/%postun correctly * No duplicate %files * Owns all directories that it creates; does not own directories that it should not. * Runs on FC5-x86_64. MUSTFIX === * BR: libGL-devel is redundant. This is already required by libGLU-devel. * BR: gcc-c++ is already part of the minimal buildroot, so it can be removed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193108] Review Request: libsexymm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libsexymm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193108 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 19:07 EST --- Hello, thanks for reviewing my package. * Here's the updated spec : http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SPECS/libsexymm.spec * The srpm : http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SRPMS/libsexymm-0.1.7-3.src.rpm * rpmlint output: [EMAIL PROTECTED] i386]$ rpmlint -i libsexymm-0.1.7-3.i386.rpm [EMAIL PROTECTED] i386]$ rpmlint -i libsexymm-devel-0.1.7-3.i386.rpm W: libsexymm-devel no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. * Issues: 1) About the license, I added a patch to correct the license file. Debian developers were told by libsexymm maintainers (David Trowbridge & Christian Hammond) that the license of the bindings is LGPL. http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/libs/libsexymm/libsexymm_0.1.7-3/libsexymm-dev.copyright It has been fixed 2 weeks ago in libsexymm's svn but no release has been made since, if needed, I'll mail libsexymm maintainers. http://osiris.chipx86.com/svn/osiris-misc/trunk/libsexymm/ChangeLog 2) Right, it needs libxml2 to build. 3) Removed. 4) Corrected -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ 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] 2006-08-14 18:56 EST --- SPEC URL:http://ibmasm.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*/ibmasm/ibmasm/ibmasm.spec SRPM URL: http://osdn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/ibmasm/ibmasm-3.0-8.src.rpm > You don't seem to have added anywhere the runlevels this should run at This one I was not sure about. Initially it was set to run at level 3. But it fails if your machine does not have an IBM RSA card installed. Since many machines don't have this, the runlevels in RHEL4/RHEL5 were removed so that the system admin would have to do this himself/herself. I can make it to be in runlevel 3 again, since this package would be initially in Fedora Extras and then hopefully moved to Core (at which point it definitly should not set the runlevel and let the system admin do it - or perhaps do a lspci and check to see if the PCI device is installed?). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202004] Review Request: brandy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: brandy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202004 [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 202529] Review Request: rt2500-(kmod-common)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: rt2500-(kmod-common)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202529
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 18:39 EST ---
BuildRequires: qt-devel >= 3.2.1
If you're only packing this for FC5/6/rawhide, you won't need this.
You will need to include desktop-file-utils
ExclusiveArch: i686 x86_64
Needs a note explaining why also needs a note why smp_mflags are not used on the
make line
%install
cd Utilitys
No.
If the file is in Utilitys from the BUILD directory, it should be
install Utilitys/foo $RPM_BUILD_DIR%{_bindir}/foo
You don't need to use cd
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/doc/rt2500
install -D -p -m 0644 THANKS CHANGELOG FAQ LICENSE
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/doc/rt2500
These should be done in the %files section using %doc
ie.
%doc THANKS CHANGELOG FAQ etc. If the mode is not already correct, %prep is the
correct place to fix it.
cat > %{name}.desktop /dev/null || :
Have a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets#head-fc74f078205565f961f6d836b77c3428619c689d
for advice on this. You can't just assume gtk-update-icon-cache or
update-desktop-database exist, they have to be checked and the package they come
from included in the BRs
%{_datadir}/pixmaps/rt2500/RaConfig2500.xpm
%{_datadir}/pixmaps/rt2500/adapter.xpm
No.
%{_datadir}/pixmaps/%{name}/
is all that is required
%doc %{_datadir}/doc/rt2500/*
See above
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202528] Review Request: rt2500-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: rt2500-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202528 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 18:38 EST --- Have you read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/KernelModules? Can you provide the requested information, in particular: * A publishable explanation from the author(s) why the module is not merged with the mainline kernel yet and when it's planed to get merged. You of course can ask the author to explain it directly in the bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202529] New: Review Request: rt2500-(kmod-common)
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=202529 Summary: Review Request: rt2500-(kmod-common) 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://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/SPECS/rt2500.spec SRPM URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/5/SRPMS/rt2500-0.0.0.2006080806-3_FC5.src.rpm Description: User module and Diagnostic tools for Ralink Wireless devices -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202424] Review Request: trackballs-music - In-game music for Trackballs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: trackballs-music - In-game music for Trackballs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202424 [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 202423] Review Request: trackballs - Steer a marble ball through a labyrinth
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: trackballs - Steer a marble ball through a labyrinth https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202423 [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 202528] New: Review Request: rt2500-kmod
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=202528 Summary: Review Request: rt2500-kmod 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://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/SPECS/kmod-rt2500.spec SRPM URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/5/SRPMS/rt2500-kmod-0.0.0.2006080806-3.2.6.17_1.2174_FC5.src.rpm Description: Kernel module and Diagnostic tools for Ralink Wireless devices kmodtool v10 linked with RutilT Raconfig2500 cannot ask for root access, but can be dropped to use RutilT... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202521] Review Request: RutilT
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: RutilT https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202521 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 18:07 EST --- Just a thought, shouldn't those png files conform to them being placed in the normal icons directory? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197814] Review Request: autogen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: autogen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197814 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||189685 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 189685] Review Request: Anjuta-2.0.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: Anjuta-2.0.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189685 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||197814 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202521] Review Request: RutilT
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: RutilT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202521
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 18:06 EST ---
ExclusiveArch: i686 x86_64
You need a note explaining why it won't work elsewhere
BuildRequires: gtk2-devel
You also need desktop-file-utils
sh configure.sh \
--prefix=%{_prefix}
Not required
%configure --prefix=%{_prefix} (though the --prefix shouldn't be needed either)
%install
needs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the start
is there no make install on the package?
%{_datadir}/rutilt/RutilT128x128.png
%{_datadir}/rutilt/RutilT16x16.png
...etc
Not needed
%{_datadir}/rutilt/
does the same job and you don't need all the pngs listed. It also gives the
package ownership of that directory
%{_datadir}/applications/livna-RutilT.desktop
Um? livna?
cat > %{name}.desktop
[Bug 202521] Review Request: RutilT
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: RutilT https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202521 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 17:57 EST --- Configuration tool for Rt2400 rt2500 rt2570 rt2600 wifi chipset Related to rt2500-kmod and rt2500 packages... (driver for rt2500 Ralink chipset) web : http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com forum : http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=12685#12685 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202521] New: Review Request: RutilT
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=202521 Summary: Review Request: RutilT 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://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/SPECS/RutilT.spec SRPM URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/5/SRPMS/RutilT-0.11-1.kwizart.FC5.src.rpm Description: Configuration tool for Ralink Wireless devices -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201149] Review Request:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Alias: Cherokee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201149 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 17:44 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) > Build failed: > > checking for bison... no > checking for byacc... no > configure: error: Bison is required to build Cherokee > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.21464 (%build) > > > You will need to add a BuildRequires for this, bison-devel I think. > > Also, please add a %changelog section to document changes between releases. > > Delete the gzip line in %prep, the %setup macro handles that. > > Delete the Autoreqprov:on line, automatic dependencies are already on. > > If you must manually export CFLAGS use CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" Done. Bison-devel is not necesary at all, just bison. Thanks John -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. 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 187610] Review Request: crm114 - CRM114 Bayesian Spam Detector
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: crm114 - CRM114 Bayesian Spam Detector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187610
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 17:26 EST ---
Release: %{rel}.%{cvsver} - you need the %{?dist} tag adding
%build
%{__make} %{?_smp_mflags} INSTALL_DIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}
CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"
does the install dir need to be here (and the CFLAGS)?
install -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT{%{_bindir},%{_datadir}/%{name}}
the make install should create these directories for you. If they don't, mkdir
-p is the way to go.
%{__make} BINDIR=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_bindir} install
Isn't make DEST_DIR=%{buildroot} install more usual?
%{_datadir}/%{name}/*.crm
This just needs to be %{_datadir}/%{name}/
The binary files should already be 755, so the %defattr before them shouldn't be
required.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201149] Review Request:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Alias: Cherokee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201149 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 17:22 EST --- Build failed: checking for bison... no checking for byacc... no configure: error: Bison is required to build Cherokee error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.21464 (%build) You will need to add a BuildRequires for this, bison-devel I think. Also, please add a %changelog section to document changes between releases. Delete the gzip line in %prep, the %setup macro handles that. Delete the Autoreqprov:on line, automatic dependencies are already on. If you must manually export CFLAGS use CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. 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 189685] Review Request: Anjuta-2.0.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: Anjuta-2.0.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189685 Bug 189685 depends on bug 182320, which changed state. Bug 182320 Summary: Review Request: gnome-build https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182320 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 182320] Review Request: gnome-build
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-build https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182320 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 17:14 EST --- Thanks for the review. Much appreciated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 182320] Review Request: gnome-build
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-build https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182320 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 17:03 EST --- rpmlint just says W: gnome-build-devel no-documentation Dependencies OK. APPROVED as per comment 23. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-14 16:43 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-2.39.0-1.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Aug 14 2006 Alain Portal 2.39.0-1 - Update to 2.39.0 French man pages are now uptodate against man-pages. Is there a language so advanced in translation? Please, consider the work. -- 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 202032] Review Request: efont-unicode-bdf: Unicode font by Electronic Font Open Laboratory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: efont-unicode-bdf: Unicode font by Electronic Font
Open Laboratory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202032
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 16:20 EST ---
Requires(post): xorg-x11-font-utils, %{_sbindir}/chkfontpath, fontconfig
Requires(postun): fontconfig
rpmlint will complain that you're using a mixture of spaces and tabs. Use one or
the other.
%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/japanese/misc
This is a problem. This directory is already owned by
fonts-japanese-0.20050222-11.1.1.noarch
This means that you can't have
%files
%{fontdir}/
You will need to explicitly define what your package owns.
It seems to build fine, rpmlint complained about the mixed tabs and spaces
Builds cleanly in mock. I'm not going to install it until the ownership problem
is resolved as I already have the japanese fonts rpm installed. Please fix and
resubmit the spec file only.
I'll check that, rebuild and then test the other package from 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 202448] Review Request: gnome-sharp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-sharp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202448 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 16:20 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > If this is for core, does it still need to follow the FE guides? (sorry if > this > is a blindingly obviously question) Yes. The packaging guidelines are for Fedora, ALL of Fedora. Not just Extras or Core. There is ONE set of guidelines that applies to ALL of Fedora, including 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 202448] Review Request: gnome-sharp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-sharp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202448 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 16:10 EST --- If this is for core, does it still need to follow the FE guides? (sorry if this is a blindingly obviously question) As to installing gtk-sharp2 : with *that* spec file? You gotta be joking! Where's the -devel file? what is GACUTIL - it doesn't exist (gacutil does)! -- 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 202496] Review Request: quodlibet - A music management program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: quodlibet - A music management program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202496 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |A music management program --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 16:09 EST --- DOH! Forgot to set a proper summary. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202496] New: Review Request:
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=202496 Summary: Review Request: 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://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/development/SRPMS/quodlibet-0.23-1.fc6.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/development/SRPMS/quodlibet-0.23-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: Quod Libet is a music management program. It provides several different ways to view your audio library, as well as support for Internet radio and audio feeds. It has extremely flexible metadata tag editing and searching capabilities. Ex Falso is a tag editor with the same tag editing interface as Quod Libet, but it does not play files. Supported file formats include Ogg Vorbis, MP3, FLAC, MOD/XM/IT, Musepack, Wavpack, and MPEG-4 AAC. (FYI, Quod Libet uses GStreamer for audio playback so it will actually only support the audio formats that GStreamer supports). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198285] Review Request: python-simplejson - Simple, fast, extensible JSON encoder/decoder for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-simplejson - Simple, fast, extensible JSON encoder/decoder for Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198285 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 16:06 EST --- Imported to CVS, added to owners.list, FC-5 branch requested, tagged and built for devel. 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 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|188265 |188267
nThis||
Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 15:43 EST ---
NEEDSWORK:
- Use %{name}-%{version} in URL field as to not have to update it every time the
version changes.
- Remove Requires(postun) and (pre) on ldconfig, as %post -p picks that up
automagically
- Replace %makeinstall with make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}. %makeinstall has
been known to break packages in bad ways and its use is highly discouraged.
- Don't package static libraries unless there is a VERY good reason to do so.
- Don't list gssapi requirement specifically, rpm will figure that out on its
own when building the package.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202457] Review Request: crack-attack - Puzzle action game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: crack-attack - Puzzle action game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202457 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 15:29 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) > tested on x86_64 (FC5) > builds and works fine here. > (nvidia drivers + 7800GTX) > one thing I found: > rpmlint /home/dragoran/rpm/RPMS/x86_64/crack-attack-1.1.14-7.x86_64.rpm > W: crack-attack unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/crack-attack > I ran rpmlint too and it didn't give that warning for me, there seems to be a bug in rpmbuild which sometimes causes this (yes sometimes, strange but true) often a rebuild of the very same srpm / spec will fix it :| (In reply to comment #2) > should there be any sound? > here I can here nothing. Sound would be nice, but isn't included upstream, so you not hearing anything is to be expected :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202439] Review Request: frozen-bubble - Frozen Bubble arcade gam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: frozen-bubble - Frozen Bubble arcade gam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202439 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 15:22 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) > There is no reason this game can't be in extras. See bug #202437 for more > information. Exactly, this game wasn't in FE because perl-SDL wasn't in FE. perl-SDL wasn't in FE because it can use smpeg, however it turns out that perl-SDL is just fine without smpeg as (sofar) no perl-SDL using packages use the smpeg part. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 15:20 EST --- Actually, this is good enough. I just needed to know where it was located in order to complete the review. You may want to add a comment in the spec file indicating where the license is located, but not necessary. Approved as is. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201149] Review Request:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Alias: Cherokee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201149 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[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. 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 202457] Review Request: crack-attack - Puzzle action game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: crack-attack - Puzzle action game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202457 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[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 187818] Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187818 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 14:43 EST --- Had to add a build require, gmp-devel, but now it builds in devel, I will ask for a FC5 branch also. Closed as NEXTRELEASE according to http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202439] Review Request: frozen-bubble - Frozen Bubble arcade gam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: frozen-bubble - Frozen Bubble arcade gam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202439 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 14:37 EST --- There is no reason this game can't be in extras. See bug #202437 for more information. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202448] Review Request: gnome-sharp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gnome-sharp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202448
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|188265 |188267
nThis||
Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 14:33 EST ---
This package does not follow the guidelines from
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Mono
.pc file is not in -devel package
gacutil is not used to register dlls
no call to ldconfig for .so file placed in %{_libdir}/
--
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 202439] Review Request: frozen-bubble - Frozen Bubble arcade gam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: frozen-bubble - Frozen Bubble arcade gam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 14:25 EST --- I think this game was removed from Fedora in the past for some legal reason. I don't have any details of this though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193712] Review Request: sos
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193712 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 14:18 EST --- The source RPM and spec file are available at http://people.redhat.com/sconklin, and the release is tagged r0-1-10 in the source tree. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198285] Review Request: python-simplejson - Simple, fast, extensible JSON encoder/decoder for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-simplejson - Simple, fast, extensible JSON encoder/decoder for Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198285 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 14:00 EST --- rpmlint still says E: python-simplejson zero-length /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/simplejson-1.3-py2.4.egg-info/zip-safe I agree it can be ignored. Good: + sitelib macro + source matches + license (MIT) + mock builds on devel x86_64 + proper %clean section + macro usage throughout + noarch 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 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|188265 |188271
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 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] 2006-08-14 13:17 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-2.38.0-1.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Aug 14 2006 Alain Portal 2.38.0-1 - Update to 2.38.0 -- 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 202457] Review Request: crack-attack - Puzzle action game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: crack-attack - Puzzle action game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202457 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 12:46 EST --- should there be any sound? here I can here nothing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clement-2.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 12:18 EST --- There is no policy which says that all rpmlint errors/warnings must be fixed. Look at it from a different perspective to understand. There is nothing about this in the Package Review Guidelines. Nothing at all about creating user/group accounts. Not even the guideline about "setuid root" from fedora.us QACheckList is included. When we agreed on the initial rather long list of MUST/SHOULD items in a FESCO meeting, we didn't cover useradd/groupadd/userdel/groupdel or fedora-useradd and friends. | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines | | - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. | This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine | sanity. If anything had changed over time, it should have been announced clearly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202457] Review Request: crack-attack - Puzzle action game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: crack-attack - Puzzle action game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202457 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 12:09 EST --- tested on x86_64 (FC5) builds and works fine here. (nvidia drivers + 7800GTX) one thing I found: rpmlint /home/dragoran/rpm/RPMS/x86_64/crack-attack-1.1.14-7.x86_64.rpm W: crack-attack unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/crack-attack -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-14 12:08 EST --- Updated Spec and SRPM. Found a problem with last release. Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/steved/tirpc/lib/0.1.7-3/libtirpc.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/steved/tirpc/lib/0.1.7-3/libtirpc-0.1.7-3.fc6.src.rpm WRT Bill's Comment #7, I totally agree... sooner whould have been better... So now if you would like be to wait until early FC7 for this code, just let me know... -- 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 202448] Review Request: gnome-sharp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gnome-sharp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202448
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 11:52 EST ---
The exclusivearch is needed of course. Otherwise things break on the other
arches.
FE doesn't build on any non-mono arch, so that doesn't matter.
I haven't tried on x86-64. Maybe it needs:
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT GACUTIL_FLAGS="/package gtk-sharp /gacdir
%{_prefix}/lib /root ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_prefix}/lib"
that gtk-sharp2 has.
--
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 202457] New: Review Request: crack-attack - Puzzle action game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202457 Summary: Review Request: crack-attack - Puzzle action game Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/crack-attack.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/crack-attack-1.1.14-7.src.rpm Description: A puzzle/action game in which you rush to eliminate colored blocks before they fill your screen. Particularly clever eliminations cause garbage to clutter your opponent's screen. Who will survive the longest!? Playable both online and off. --- Notice that there has been some legal discussion about this package on f-e-l because it uses game mechanics from a well known game, which in itself is not a problem. The problem is however that the docs mention this well known and trademarked game as the inspiration for the game mechanics. Since this name is trademarked I have added a patch to the srpm removing the trademarked name from the binary packages. I haven't made a special source tarbal without this name because Core cotnains a package (gnome-games) with similar issues and also handles this in the spec file and not with a modified tarbal, and what is good enough for Core should be good enough for FE (when talking about legal issues) . I've compared this game with screenshots from the game this is inspired by and except for the game mechanics nothing has been copied, the graphics logo, controls etc all are different. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202448] Review Request: gnome-sharp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gnome-sharp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202448
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 11:42 EST ---
# Mono only availible on these:
ExclusiveArch: %ix86 x86_64 ppc ia64 armv4l sparc
# no mono on s390 for now: s390 s390x
Is this really required now? I can only remember seeing it on FC packages - it
has certainly never been pulled up on anything in FE
How does this build in a non x86 based system. Unless something has changed,
this will try to install material to lib64 rather than %{_prefix}/lib so the
build won't work.
The way I have fixed this is to have
%define monodir %{_prefix}/lib
%configure --libdir=%{monodir}
%files
%{monodir}/blah...
I will try this out tonight on the x86_64 box and let you know what happens.
--
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 202384] Review Request: dates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dates https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202384 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 11:41 EST --- Dates has been built for extras-development. Cheers! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202448] Review Request: gnome-sharp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-sharp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202448 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 11:23 EST --- If you need to build this you first need: http://www.gnome.org/~alexl/gtk-sharp2-2.9.0-1.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202448] New: Review Request: gnome-sharp
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=202448 Summary: Review Request: gnome-sharp 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://www.gnome.org/~alexl/gnome-sharp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.gnome.org/~alexl/gnome-sharp-2.15.0-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: The gtk-sharp2 package was split up upstream into two tarballs, gtk-sharp and gnome-sharp as part of getting accepted into the gnome bindings set. This is the split out package for gnome-sharp. -- 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 192311] Review Request: cobbler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cobbler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192311 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 11:01 EST --- The stalled review policy indicates that we give John one more week to respond and then he can be unassigned from the package. However, just a quick once over from me: Source0: does not contain a URL to the upstream tarball. I'd consider this a blocker unless somehow there is no upstream other than this package. rpmlint on SRPM says: W: cobbler strange-permission cobbler.spec 01664 Really odd for the sticky bit to be set on a spec file. W: cobbler setup-not-quiet Not a big deal; pass -q to the %setup macro if you want to quiet this. rpmlint on the built RPM says: E: cobbler non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/cobbler/gui.py 0644 rpmlint fires this off anytime it sees a shebang line in a file that's not executable. For Python source this is often bogus; it depends on whether the code is actually runnable (i.e. contains something other than class definitions). This seems to be the case here, so the rpmlint complaint can be ignored. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202384] Review Request: dates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: dates
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202384
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 10:57 EST ---
PUBLISH +1
Good:
* tarball verified against svn
* Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines
* Group Tag is from the official list
* Buildroot has all required elements
* All paths begin with macros
* Desktop entry is fine
* All necessary BuildRequires listed.
* All desired features are enabled
* Make succeeds even when %{_smp_mflags} is defined
* Scriptlets look good.
* Files have appropriate permissions and owners
* Package installs and uninstalls cleanly on FC5
* rpmlint is basically clean. The warning about the devel package not having
docs can be ignored.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202006] Review Request: fmio - FM radio card manipulation 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: fmio - FM radio card manipulation utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202006 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 10:56 EST --- I've partially fix all found issues. * Sun Aug 13 2006 Andy Shevchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2.0.8-3 - set defattr in files sections - fix Requires tag in subpackages - drop setuid attribute from certain binaries (README.fedora has been added) - update fmio-gq-wrapper to 0.4.1 - satisfy rpmlint claim (use -fPIC for library) Updated file here: ftp://andriy.asplinux.com.ua/pub/people/andy/extras/fmio-2.0.8-3.src.rpm About python files. I try to build on FC4 distribution and have no problem with a single python file. I'll try to rebuild it on fc6 and fix if it's needed. Additional words for usage. I've sf-64pcr3 fm card. I try to use the 'sfr64' as native fmio's driver as well as 'v4l' as kernel driver. Both are work correctly. 'bktr' is only for *BSD systems. I've written README.fedora with several words. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202437] Review Request: perl-SDL - SDL bindings for the Perl language
Please 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-SDL - SDL bindings for the Perl language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||202439 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 202439] Review Request: frozen-bubble - Frozen Bubble arcade gam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: frozen-bubble - Frozen Bubble arcade gam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||202437 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clement-2.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 10:48 EST --- A bit late due to a bugzilla collision, but I fully agree with Michael: (In reply to comment #23) > So I added clement as group & user as suggested. > > got this from rpmlint (many lines of this kind) > > E: clement non-standard-gid /var/spool/clement-2.1/mqueue clement > A file in this package is owned by a non standard group. > Standard groups are: > root, bin, daemon, sys, adm, tty, disk, lp, mem, kmem, wheel, mail, > news, uucp, man, games, gopher, dip, ftp, lock, nobody, users > > > Does not look like as a 'Warning' to me, how to make it as a Warning? > Erm, so its an error (my mistake), still it can be ignored, rpmlint us an automated validation tool and sometimes it can be just plain wrong. Trust me (and Michael) on this between the 2 of us there is a ton of packaging experience. > > Also got this warning > W: clement dangerous-command-in-%preun userdel > because I would like to delete created user when removing all the application, > there is a kind of ambiguity here as some file could be left if the > application > was in production previously. > My understanding of the last Michael comment is to let the sys-admin delete > the remaining user/group himself, right? Yes, you should not remove the user, the user may only be removed if your 100.1% sure that no files owned by that user will be left around, which in this case we aren't actually we are pretty sure that files will be left around, so the userdel must be removed from the 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 201417] Review Request: alleyoop : Graphical front-end to the Valgrind memory checker for x86
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: alleyoop : Graphical front-end to the Valgrind memory checker for x86 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201417 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 10:40 EST --- *** Bug 166205 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 166205] Review Request: alleyoop : Graphical front-end to the Valgrind memory checker for x86
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: alleyoop : Graphical front-end to the Valgrind memory checker for x86 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166205 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |201449 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 10:40 EST --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 201417 *** -- 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 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] 2006-08-14 10:39 EST --- (In reply to comment #24) > > E: clement non-standard-gid /var/spool/clement-2.1/mqueue clement > > Who cares? This is not the first package that creates a new user/group. Me!. Agree this is not the first package creating a user/group problem, if rpmlint is THE reference and rpmlint is reporting error how can I make the difference between real error which are errors from simple advice... now in my case there is 48 "errors" which are 'who cares', h.. > > > My understanding of the last Michael comment is to let the sys-admin > > delete the remaining user/group himself, right? > > Yes. If package removal does not get rid of all files owned by that > user/group, the next package might allocate the same uid/gid and give > some other software access to the old files, which are still left > on the file-system as orphans. OK, lets keep the user/group then > -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 166205] Review Request: alleyoop : Graphical front-end to the Valgrind memory checker for x86
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: alleyoop : Graphical front-end to the Valgrind memory checker for x86 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166205 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 10:21 EST --- OK. the new review request is bug 201417 -- 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 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] 2006-08-14 10:19 EST --- > E: clement non-standard-gid /var/spool/clement-2.1/mqueue clement Who cares? This is not the first package that creates a new user/group. > My understanding of the last Michael comment is to let the sys-admin > delete the remaining user/group himself, right? Yes. If package removal does not get rid of all files owned by that user/group, the next package might allocate the same uid/gid and give some other software access to the old files, which are still left on the file-system as orphans. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202439] New: Review Request: frozen-bubble - Frozen Bubble arcade gam
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=202439 Summary: Review Request: frozen-bubble - Frozen Bubble arcade gam Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/frozen-bubble.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/frozen-bubble-1.0.0-6.src.rpm Description: Full-featured, colorful animated penguin eyecandy, 100 levels of 1p game, hours and hours of 2p game, 3 professional quality 20-channels musics, 15 stereo sound effects, 7 unique graphical transition effects and a level editor. You need this game. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clement-2.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 10:05 EST --- So I added clement as group & user as suggested. got this from rpmlint (many lines of this kind) E: clement non-standard-gid /var/spool/clement-2.1/mqueue clement A file in this package is owned by a non standard group. Standard groups are: root, bin, daemon, sys, adm, tty, disk, lp, mem, kmem, wheel, mail, news, uucp, man, games, gopher, dip, ftp, lock, nobody, users Does not look like as a 'Warning' to me, how to make it as a Warning? Also got this warning W: clement dangerous-command-in-%preun userdel because I would like to delete created user when removing all the application, there is a kind of ambiguity here as some file could be left if the application was in production previously. My understanding of the last Michael comment is to let the sys-admin delete the remaining user/group himself, right? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202437] New: Review Request: perl-SDL - SDL bindings for the Perl language
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=202437 Summary: Review Request: perl-SDL - SDL bindings for the Perl language Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/perl-SDL.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/perl-SDL-1.20.3-8.src.rpm Description: SDL (Simple DirectMedia Layer) bindings for the perl language. --- Notice that this package comes from the repo that must be named, where it used to live because it depends on smpeg which contains patented code, however it can be build without smpeg support too and currently the packages using it don't need the smpeg part. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192311] Review Request: cobbler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cobbler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192311 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 10:03 EST --- It's been a month over the last response from anyone. Can anyone take a look at this? It seems the earlier RPM issues are resolved and it would be nice if someone could confirm packaging issues are ok so I we can go forward with the next steps. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202032] Review Request: efont-unicode-bdf: Unicode font by Electronic Font Open Laboratory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: efont-unicode-bdf: Unicode font by Electronic Font Open Laboratory https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202032 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 09:56 EST --- My newest srpm is in comment #7. Paul, would you check 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 201170] Review Request: jfbterm - Japanese Console for Linux Frame Buffer Device
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jfbterm - Japanese Console for Linux Frame Buffer Device https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201170 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 09:56 EST --- My newest srpm is in comment #16. Paul, would you check 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 177211] Review Request: newsx - NNTP news exchange 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: newsx - NNTP news exchange utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177211 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 09:52 EST --- Building with mock on both FC5 and FC6 I still get checking history... ERROR: cannot determine hash mode of /var/lib/news/history Try running makehistory first. Adding --without-history to configure does make it build. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-08-14 09:40 EST --- > 2) rpmlint complain if you add/create a user Hmm? The "dangerous-command-in" _warning_ about userdel/groupdel? This is misinformation. Surely there are valid cases when creating a new user or group is required/justified. Similarly, there are cases when deleting a user or group during package removal can be done, i.e. if no files owned by that uid/gid are left anywhere. In particular, since you want a "centralized quarantine area" (quote), you need a special uid/gid and not use an existing uid/gid which is shared with other programs/services. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193712] Review Request: sos
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193712 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 09:25 EST --- I'm here. I'll make the setup quiet, and I'm also ready to deliver a new release that fixes a couple of minor problems. I'll roll that today or tonight and make it available. The project is hosted at sos.108.redhat.com, and that is the upstream. I'll also make sure that's reflected in the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202384] Review Request: dates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dates https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202384 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 198562] Review Request: zabbix - Open-source monitoring solution for your IT infrastructure
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: zabbix - Open-source monitoring solution for your IT
infrastructure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198562
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 08:52 EST ---
Correct, I was building FC6 on FC5.
I notice MySQL is enabled, but configure also looked for Postgre. Would this be
something you would want to --enable but not Require?
You'll also want zabbix-web to Require php-mysql
Please substitute the references to /var with %{_localstatedir} in your sed
scripts.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: clement-2.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 08:43 EST ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Seems I do not explain myself right...
> %{_usr}/bin/%{name} MUST be own by 'somebody' else than root to have clement
> to
> know, once started, under which ID it must run (the application look about
> the file ownership and say 'ok lets seteuid to this'), if the application
> is not setuid the only other way is to hard code the effective uid, this is
> not good from my stand point. I choosed 'mail' because this ID is used by
> related application. I want to give possibility to change this on the fly
> by local sysadmin.
>
I understand.
> useradd and groupadd clement where part of the original implementation but
> removed to comply to rpmlint.
> If rpmlint is a reference tools to 'the right way to do something' warning
> can't ignore. IMHO rpmlint warning are 'you are doing something which can work
> but are against established standard'.
No, a rpmlint warning means you shouldnot be doing this unless you've got a good
reason, and it this case we have a good reason so using user and groupadd is ok.
(In reply to comment #19)
> > I choosed 'mail' because this ID is used by related application.
>
> This asks for a very close look. Either it is a necessity, by design,
> that the program must run as "mail". Or it is a fault, and it runs with
> a shared uid/gid it should not have access to.
>
If I understand jmp correctly its the latter (a fault) jmp if you think it is
better to have it run as clement, feel free to add the user, in exceptional
cases (which daemons always are) you can ignore the relevant rpmlint warnings,
thats why they are warnings, rpmlint deliberatly has 2 levels of compaining,
warn and error, and these are only warnings.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
