[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 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 201149] Review Request: Cherokee Flexible WebServer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Cherokee Flexible WebServer Alias: Cherokee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201149 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: Cherokee |Review Request: Cherokee ||Flexible WebServer -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 03:12 EST --- New spec and srpms at: http://giallu.interfree.it/fedora/alleyoop.spec http://giallu.interfree.it/fedora/alleyoop-0.9.3-1.src.rpm fixes the problem at program exit and mock (FC5) 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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 03:34 EST --- There is still a dependency on perl(GBF::Make) in the built package, which makes it uninstallable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-15 04:17 EST --- Sorry. The url is there: Spec URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/CGAL-3.2.1-13.fc5.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/CGAL.spec I am thinking about simplifying the spec file. Tell me what you think about 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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 04:46 EST --- Dammit! The package itself creates perl(GBF::Make). It looks like I'll need to explicitly include that it provides perl(GBF::Make). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 175047] Review Request: NetworkManager-openvpn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: NetworkManager-openvpn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175047 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 04:50 EST --- (In reply to comment #43) I have uploaded a new version of the package with the suggested changes. The SRPM is available at http://www.niemueller.de/projects/extrpms/packages/fedora-extras-5/NetworkManager-openvpn-0.3.2-4.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 175047] Review Request: NetworkManager-openvpn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: NetworkManager-openvpn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175047 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 05:12 EST --- Created an attachment (id=134200) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=134200action=view) Log of connection with SELinux openvpn policy module It seems that it does not work. I'm using the targeted policy in permissive mode (it just does not work with enforcing, so many simple little details fail, coding is a hassle with selinux enabled etc.). See the dmesg log for the problems. It seems that the management connection (local TCP socket) is not allowed and access to the user's certificate files is denied (it's in the user home directory somewhere probably), also there seems to be a problem with the dbus communication. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 05:14 EST --- (In reply to comment #28) The package itself creates perl(GBF::Make). It looks like I'll need to explicitly include that it provides perl(GBF::Make). I think you should filter out the perl(GBF::Make) dependency, as you've done with the others. This is because the perl modules provided by and used by this package are not in the standard perl module install directories, which means that no other packages will be able to use these perl modules unless they know exactly where to look for them. I'd check to ensure that no perl Provides: have slipped through as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 05:21 EST --- I updated the spec and the srpms with new versions. ldconfig is added. We do use gacutils to install the dlls, but not in the strange way that the packaging guidelines example show, its just called as a normal part of the upstream makefiles. We do pass the GACUTIL_FLAGS to make to override some of the flags passed to it though. I also added the -devel packages, but I don't think this is a very good idea. The packaging guidelines says its bad because it'll somehow pull in devel packages in a non-devel install, but that is simply not true (it has no dependencies). Instead we duplicate all the package metadata for a 900 byte package, bloating the install. Furthemore, having a -devel package means the distro compose will pull in the 32bit version of the packages into the 64bit distro, reinstating the yum update multilib conflict we solved this week. -- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 05:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #28) 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 Looks good, I've sponsored you and its ok to import this now. There is one small thing you should fix before importing, please add || : at the end of all the commands (not the if / endif lines) in the pre / post / postun scripts, that way if one of these commands fail it doesn't cause the entire rpm transaction to fail. This is especially important for the pre script, because of a user installs, then removes and then tries to reinstall clement the groupadd and useradd will fail because they already exist (which is ok, the exisiting user may be recycled in this corner case). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 175047] Review Request: NetworkManager-openvpn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: NetworkManager-openvpn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175047 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778, 177841 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 05:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #44) (In reply to comment #43) I have uploaded a new version of the package with the suggested changes. The SRPM is available at http://www.niemueller.de/projects/extrpms/packages/fedora-extras-5/NetworkManager-openvpn-0.3.2-4.src.rpm Looks good, approved! I've sponsored you now as promised so you should be able to import this. (In reply to comment #45) Created an attachment (id=134200) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=134200action=view) [edit] Log of connection with SELinux openvpn policy module It seems that it does not work. I'm using the targeted policy in permissive mode (it just does not work with enforcing, so many simple little details fail, coding is a hassle with selinux enabled etc.). See the dmesg log for the problems. It seems that the management connection (local TCP socket) is not allowed and access to the user's certificate files is denied (it's in the user home directory somewhere probably), also there seems to be a problem with the dbus communication. Thats unfortunate, still this review has been going on long enough as is, please add a big FAT warning to %description, and maybe somewhere in the docs that selinux needs to be in permissive mode for this to work :| After adding this to owners.list, please open a seperate bug with NetworkManager-openvpn as component to track the SELinux issues, and post a link to that bug here for reference. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199173] Review Request: clusterssh
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: clusterssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199173
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 05:26 EST ---
A question on point 2 - the desktop-file-install. I have included
Source1: %{name}.desktop
and
%install
desktop-file-install --vendor %{desktop_vendor} \
--dir ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/applications \
--add-category X-Fedora \
%{SOURCE1}
but when i try to build it i get an error cannot find clusterssh.spec. It
seems as though it is not looking in the right place to find it. How should I
specify the Source1:?
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 201149] Review Request: Cherokee Flexible WebServer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Cherokee Flexible WebServer Alias: Cherokee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201149 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 05:47 EST --- I've corrected two oversight on the spec file, for instance, I forgot : after BuildRequires. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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 175047] Review Request: NetworkManager-openvpn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: NetworkManager-openvpn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175047 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 05:53 EST --- Do the certificate files *have* to be the user's home directory (this is a biggie for SELinux, which likes to keep user and system space as far apart as possible), or could they go in the usual /etc/openvpn place? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-15 06:26 EST ---
** gstm-1.2-2.src.rpm builds and runs fine on my x86_64 machine under FC-5.
** rpmlint produces:
W: gstm mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
** However, I think that %{_bindir}/gaskpass should go into a separate
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 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] 2006-08-15 06:31 EST --- quote of IvD: * Ivo van Doorn (aka IvD) o Source-rebuild rt2x00 main developer o rt2400/rt2500 Source Code fixes and enhancements The legacy drivers: rt2400, rt2500, rt2570, rt61 and rt73 will _never_ be merged with the kernel tree since they do not comply with any of the kernel coding rules. The design is ugly, it is not portable and is buggy on SMP and PREEMPT enabled machines, and is even more buggy on big endian machines. rt2x00 already is in the wireless-dev tree and will be merged upstream when rt2x00 and the dscape stack are stable. When they are it would also finally resolve the solution that rt2x00 is not working with Fedora Core kernels because he Fedora Core kernels are so heavily patched that the API of certain structures have changed and external module compilation will always fail. Answear about how much time it will take will follow... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 06:31 EST --- Ok, I've updated both perl-SDL and frozen-bubble to work with the newer perl-SDL. New perl-SDL here: Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/perl-SDL.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/perl-SDL-2.1.3-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-08-15 06:32 EST --- New version to work with the new perl-SDL-2.1.3: Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/frozen-bubble.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/frozen-bubble-1.0.0-7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 06:37 EST --- p.s. I think this should only be build for the devel branch now since it breaks existing apps, which is BAD todo with release versions. Leaving it in that other repo for FC-4 and FC-5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 175047] Review Request: NetworkManager-openvpn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: NetworkManager-openvpn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175047 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 06:38 EST --- In general this will not be possible. Since connections are user-specific settings certificates are user-specific, too. We authenticate users, not machines. And users do not have write permission in /etc/openvpn anyway. And since NM is the gateway from the user to the system space for networking stuff this makes sense. There may be the need then to communicate certificates through in NM in the worst case. For now I think the policy should allow openvpn to read the certificates from the user's home until we found a better solution. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-15 06:40 EST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
Actually, it does: in %files, %{_datadir}/pixmaps should
be %{_datadir}/pixmaps/*. This is a MUST.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-15 06:41 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) 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. You're right, I've just send a mail asking upstream and will let you know the result. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-15 06:42 EST --- (Sorry for the spam.) Another comment: the %description should preserve the case chosen upstream: gSTM instead of Gstm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-15 07:09 EST --- Question about how much time... quote of IvD: Well it all depends on when rt2x00 is considered stable, dscape might make it to the main kernel tree within a few months. How soon rt2x00 follows afterwards really depends on how fast successes are being achieved with the last few issues regarding association time and the remaining RX issues. So no schedule can be given for neither the next rt2x00 beta, the final rt2x00 or rt2x00 moving to main kernel tree. rt2x00 will be considered stable when it is stable. I see a lot of theses Ralink wifi chipset in computers around me, but not so much drivers for Fedora or other distributions... That 's why i've made a pre-compiled module for FC5 (may work with FC4 and legacy!) Obviously it may be better than using Ndiswarper... The driver will be osolete as soon as the rt2x00 can build on a Fedora kernel... ( compilation fails for rt2x00- here is somme info : http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=12631#12631) I don't know if a bug is already submitted for this issue... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED
Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])|
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 07:30 EST ---
- Use %{name}-%{version} in URL field as to not have to update it every time
the
version changes.
Done.
- Remove Requires(postun) and (pre) on ldconfig, as %post -p picks that up
automagically
Done.
- Replace %makeinstall with make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}. %makeinstall
has been known to break packages in bad ways and its use is highly
discouraged.
Done. This good to know... I thought %makeinstall was the approved way... I
guess I'll need to make this change other packages as well...
- Don't package static libraries unless there is a VERY good reason to do so.
So we no longer support static libraries in devel packages? I don't think
that is a very good idea.. Being that this is a relatively small library
and the RPC code is pretty legacy code... I really don't think excluding the
static library is a good idea...
- Don't list gssapi requirement specifically, rpm will figure that out on its
own when building the package.
So your saying to removed the Requires: libgssapi from the spec file?
How will rpm know that this library needes libgssapi? I must be missing
something...
Spec file and RPM updated with first three requests...
--
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 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution||NOTABUG
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 08:07 EST ---
Hello!
The script make install exist but cannot work well with %RPM_BUILD_ROOT (ie: the
binary searches icons in /var/tmp/RutilTv0.11-buildroot/usr/share/rutilt where
it should be /usr/share/rutilt. I was using sh configure.sh
--prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix} - So i've just noted where make install
place files and use normal prefix to manual install files...
What is the regular way of updatating the .spec file?
- Make a patch and import (what's the old/new name?)
- Upload to new version of the .spec on my website?
Quote of INSTALL file:
- Rutilt helper's install path has changed between v0.07 and v0.08. Before,
it was /usr/libexec/, it's now /usr/local/share/rutilt/. Ditto with the main
binary, is was previously installed in /usr/bin/, it's now in /usr/local/bin/.
Make sure you erase the old binaries.
...
- make install installed the program in /usr/sbin before v0.06, it's
now /usr/bin. Make sure you erase your old binary.
- so maybe i can change from /usr/share to /usr/local/share? what is the name
of this directory for using in a spec file? But INSTALL is not really clear so
i've used path result of the make install script...
changed livna to extra and %{_datadir} png
ExclusiveArch: may be dropped (ppc version of the kmod-rt2500 may be very
buggy )
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-15 08:51 EST --- ... be corrected? ppc (big endian) may be very buggy cf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202528 dropped for testing? i586 is certainly good also... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||202528 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||202529 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 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] 2006-08-15 08:55 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) (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 :| ok will try to rebuild 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 :) ok now the bad news : I tested the same rpm on a second box (FC5/UP/x86_64/6600GT) - the start game button does not launch the game but the same window again. the package versions are not the same as on this box (which works) because there is no internet connection, but it isn't a fresh FC5 install 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 196262] Review Request: katapult: Faster access to applications, bookmarks, and other items
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: katapult: Faster access to applications, bookmarks, and other items https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196262 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 09:11 EST --- Why haven't you imported this package to Extras? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-08-15 09:15 EST ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Actually, it does: in %files, %{_datadir}/pixmaps should
be %{_datadir}/pixmaps/*. This is a MUST.
Indeed. In FC5 is it very common for gnome packages to own this directory; 40
packages provide it. When I looked at the list of packages I seem to have
missed the fact that filesystem is one of those packages, and so you must not
own 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 196262] Review Request: katapult: Faster access to applications, bookmarks, and other items
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: katapult: Faster access to applications, bookmarks, and other items https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196262 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 09:15 EST --- I think Chitlesh has been on vacation: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Vacation -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-15 09:45 EST --- Why has this ticket been 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 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Keywords||Reopened Resolution|NOTABUG | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-15 09:54 EST --- reopen (don't know why it has closed) really new to bugzilla so i need also a sponsort! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-15 09:55 EST --- I really don't think excluding the static library is a good idea... There really is no good reason to ship a static archive. You're not doing anybody a favor. People might inadvertendly link against it and then security or bug updates don't apply. Of you want to debug a system and use a specially annotated DSO which would not be picked up. Archives should be distributed only for _very_ good reasons. Small and pretty legacy code is none of them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-08-15 10:04 EST --- You will also need to add the review of RutiL-kmod will block this and that this will block RutiL-utils -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-08-15 10:35 EST --- Alex, if the guidelines don't make sense, PLEASE PLEASE help us to make them better. Mono is one of those things that leave most of us scratching our heads and trying to make sense of it. The -devel package is to prevent development files being packaged in the main package. We've gone over this before, users may want to develop 32bit mono software on a x86_64 host. If mono isn't arch specific, then why aren't the packages noarch? I don't believe we solved anything last week, the headers from the 32bit package and the 64bit package shouldn't conflict. If they do, the package needs to be fixed, not just avoided to sweep the problem under the rug. if you wish to discuss the guidelines, please send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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 202317] Review Request: perl-File-HomeDir - Get the home directory for yourself or other users
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-File-HomeDir - Get the home directory for yourself or other users https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202317 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 10:40 EST --- Also build for FC-5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 10:41 EST --- I agree w/ Ulrich. As to the rpm requirement, When building a package, RPM will ldd the libraries to see what other libraries it is linked against and uses that to populate the Requires list. I tested your package myself by removing the explicit Requires: line, and the rpm that was produced DID have a requirement on the gssapi library. This is the preferred method of determining deps. -- 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 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 10:52 EST --- Hi Laurent, thanks for fixing the URL! I grabbed the SRPM and am looking through it. I agree with you that it would be a very good idea to cleanup the spec file and remove all the bits that are unnecessary for Fedora Extras (eg. all the internal_release, prefix, build_doc, etc. macros). As soon as you have a slimmed-down SRPM available, please post it and I'll start doing a thorough review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-08-15 10:54 EST --- Not sure to understand well! Don't know if its really a kmod because it do not produce .ko file! But it's true he seems to need a kernel path (maybe to include headers of wireless extensions...) So, do you expect that I need to make kdump smp xenO or XenU versions of this? Or only provides binaries to related kernel version like 2174_FC5? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-15 11:05 EST --- This application (i.e. the application associated to this bug) is not the kernel module but the configuration tool for said module. You need to file this question against the kmod package you've submitted. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202324] Review Request: nagios-plugins-snmp-disk-proc - Nagios SNMP plugins to monitor remote disk and processes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nagios-plugins-snmp-disk-proc - Nagios SNMP plugins to monitor remote disk and processes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202324 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 11:19 EST --- New location: ftp://perl.di.uminho.pt/pub/fedora/nagios-plugins-snmp-disk-proc.spec ftp://perl.di.uminho.pt/pub/fedora/nagios-plugins-snmp-disk-proc-1.0-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-08-15 11:35 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I notice MySQL is enabled, but configure also looked for Postgre. Would this
be
something you would want to --enable but not Require?
We could do that. However, based on the 1.1.1 release notes, it looks like
postgres support is currently broken, fix slated for 1.1.2.
Speaking of which, new build is updated to v1.1.1 (thank you, Jeff).
You'll also want zabbix-web to Require php-mysql
Okay, I simply changed Requires: php to php-mysql, since php-mysql requires php.
Please substitute the references to /var with %{_localstatedir} in your sed
scripts.
Done.
Latest build:
http://wilsonet.com/packages/zabbix/zabbix.spec
http://wilsonet.com/packages/zabbix/zabbix-1.1.1-1.fc6.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 11:41 EST --- Paul, Sounds good. I made a fix so that it would check the PCI Vendor ID and if found, add the service to the proper run-level. Here are the updated URLs: SPEC URL:http://ibmasm.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*/ibmasm/ibmasm/ibmasm.spec SRPMS URL: http://osdn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/ibmasm/ibmasm-3.0-9.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 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] 2006-08-15 12:02 EST --- OK! But this config file also work for rt2400 rt2570and rt2600. That 's why i've proposed an independant package for RutilT. It can be linked inside rt2500-kmod to provide rt2500-kmod-util ( I don't know how to do this for now - with use of kmodtool) Or use requires: RutilT-kmod inside rt2500-kmod to link with the same kernel version. Since this config tool is optionnal (not needed by rt2500-kmod which provide ra2500config ) but is smarter than the one provided. I have proposed not do link it with the driver for now... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177249] Review Request: jrtplib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jrtplib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177249 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 12:30 EST --- + built on devel x86_64 + follows naming conventions + license (MIT) + source matches + BuildRequires sane + consistent use of macros + devel subpackage with the development files, requires base package n-v-r + calls to ldconfig + proper %clean + proper permissions + rm of *.a and *.la rpmlint says: E: jrtplib shlib-with-non-pic-code /usr/lib64/libjrtp-3.6.0.so A result of not --disable-static or equivalent so I'll ignore. Rationale commented in spec. Bit of a typo in devel subpackage %description, mentions JThread. Cut and paste, I see. 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 177247] Review Request: jthread
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jthread https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177247 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|fedora-extras- | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | CC||fedora-package- ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC|fedora-package- | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | CC||fedora-extras- ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are 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 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] 2006-08-15 13:53 EST --- Good news, I got a repsonse from upstream and the music really is GPL: --- Hi Hans, I agree with you that having a GPL licence is a bit odd for binary data but since this was not a question if had thought of very hard when the first release of trackballs was made several years ago this is the licence i choose for the whole project (including music, sfx, levels and music). Also, since the music files have been contributed to the project by others than me under the GPL licence (as I explicitly asked for) it makes it very difficult for me change this. So, in short, yes the music is also licensed under the GPL license. I hope this does not pose any difficult question such as what/where is the sourcecode for the music... cheers / Mathias -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 13:58 EST ---
Finally my mirror is updated and I can build again.
This still builds fine and indeed all of the documentation and examples are
there. However, there are a couple of issues:
Proper flags are not pased to the compiler. I use this hack at the end of %prep
to get them passed properly; the resulting package still seems to work
correctly:
perl -pi -e s/^(CFLAGS.*=.*)/\1 %{optflags}/ makefile
I wonder if the examples would be more proper as documentation. This would be
more in line with what I've seen in the past, but I don't think it's a blocker.
* source files match upstream:
0aedef51e76cf07533d82fe4dcd89efa brandy_119.tgz
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none!)
X compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* debuginfo package looks complete (even though the compiler flags are wrong, -g
is still passed)
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
brandy = 1.0.19-2.fc6
=
(no non-glibc or rpm dependencies)
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream. Manual testing shows that
things at least install and run. (My BASIC is not the best after a couple of
decades of disuse.)
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 15:00 EST --- Thanks! Imported and build, closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Bug 202424 depends on bug 202423, which changed state. Bug 202423 Summary: Review Request: trackballs - Steer a marble ball through a labyrinth https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202423 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 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] 2006-08-15 15:03 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) now the bad news : I tested the same rpm on a second box (FC5/UP/x86_64/6600GT) - the start game button does not launch the game but the same window again. the package versions are not the same as on this box (which works) because there is no internet connection, but it isn't a fresh FC5 install either. Hmm, is your other machine 64 bit too? Although I doubt that is the problem, my devel machine is 64 bit. Could you try fully updating the affected machine, maybe some of crackattacks dependencies cause this problem? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201149] Review Request: Cherokee Flexible WebServer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Cherokee Flexible WebServer Alias: Cherokee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201149 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. 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 202033] Review Request: deltarpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: deltarpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202033 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 15:18 EST --- Do you have any good suggestion on a good group for this to live in? I can see it in: Development/Tools Applications/Archiving (well, maybe not, rpms are not generally for archives) Aplications/System -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution||NEXTRELEASE
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 15:29 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
SHOULD
==
* You can prevent unneeded copying of the files by removing the 'cp'
commands from %prep and using 'install -p -m 644 %{SOURCE0} %{SOURCE1} ...'
in %install.
Good idea, done.
APPROVED
Thanks!
Imported and build, closing.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 15:37 EST --- Seems to be some 64-bit problems: RPM build errors: File not found by glob: /var/tmp/codeblocks-1.0-0.2.20060812svn2840.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/*.so.* File not found: /var/tmp/codeblocks-1.0-0.2.20060812svn2840.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/codeblocks/plugins File not found: /var/tmp/codeblocks-1.0-0.2.20060812svn2840.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/codeblocks/plugins/libastyle.so (and so on for many files). Looks like the upstream source wants to install into /usr/lib regardless of what configure is told. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202670] New: Review Request: bygfoot - Football Manager
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=202670 Summary: Review Request: bygfoot - Football Manager 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://ecik.zspswidwin.pl/bygfoot/bygfoot.spec SRPM URL: http://ecik.zspswidwin.pl/bygfoot/bygfoot-2.0.0-1.src.rpm Description: Bygfoot is a small and simple graphical football (a.k.a. soccer) manager game featuring many international leagues and cups. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: codeblocks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 16:02 EST ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Seems to be some 64-bit problems:
RPM build errors:
File not found by glob:
/var/tmp/codeblocks-1.0-0.2.20060812svn2840.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/*.so.*
File not found:
/var/tmp/codeblocks-1.0-0.2.20060812svn2840.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/codeblocks/plugins
File not found:
/var/tmp/codeblocks-1.0-0.2.20060812svn2840.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/codeblocks/plugins/libastyle.so
(and so on for many files).
Looks like the upstream source wants to install into /usr/lib regardless of
what
configure is told.
Should be a libtool issue I think as the Makefile.am files are very clean and
all are used on the build system to create the executable files. Can you check
how is defined libdir in Makefile.in and Makefile in some src/plugins/ subdir? I
have
libdir = @libdir@/@PACKAGE@/plugins in Makefile.in and
libdir = ${exec_prefix}/lib/codeblocks/plugins in Makefile
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 16:16 EST --- It also works perfectly on: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# cat /etc/fedora-release Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) And: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# lspci | grep -i vga 00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation 82852/855GM Integrated Graphics Device (rev 02) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202670] Review Request: bygfoot - Football Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bygfoot - Football Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202670 [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 202670] Review Request: bygfoot - Football Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bygfoot - Football Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202670 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 16:26 EST --- I'll give this a look over :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-15 16:35 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) I notice MySQL is enabled, [...]. Would this be something you would want to --enable but not Require? I would concur with this statement. I would think that on larger installations a person would want to run the Zabbix server and the MySQL server on separate systems, and wouldn't want to have mysql-server installed needlessly. Sure having as a Require will make things easier for newbie administrators, but I don't think that that is as important right now. Plus hopefully the Zabbix devs will have PostgreSQL support fixed soon and I'm sure that PostgreSQL users wouldn't want the MySQL server installed on their systems and vice-versa. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 16:40 EST --- I have updated the spec file with libdir defined when running configure. Can you try to rebuild the sources using this spec file? I will upload the SRPM tomorrow. Updated spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/codeblocks.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 16:58 EST --- No problem; I rebuilt with that spec and everything seems OK. Aside from the rpmlint warnings that you indicated were false positives (which I agree with, BTW), there is: W: codeblocks setup-not-quiet W: codeblocks mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (You have to run rpmlint on the SRPM to see this.) The former is IMHO not a blocker but can be cured by passing -q to %setup. The latter can be fixed by deciding whether you're going to use tabs or spaces for indentation and stick with it. (You mostly use tabs but use spaces in %package devel and the Requires: bit of %package contrib.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 16:57 EST --- Just curious what is an valid reason to include a static library? -- 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 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] 2006-08-15 17:02 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) (In reply to comment #4) I notice MySQL is enabled, [...]. Would this be something you would want to --enable but not Require? I would concur with this statement. Heh, I think John was only talking about Postgres there, but see my note on this very issue in the initial description. I'm definitely open to not including mysql-server as a Requires (I'll make that change to my local copy now). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-08-15 17:27 EST --- http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/crm114.spec http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/crm114-0-1.20060704a.src.rpm New version, fixed parallel make and rpmlint problems. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-15 17:31 EST --- I personally can't think of any off the top of my head. Others have come up with reasons, I think maybe some stuff used in a boot environment where you don't want shared libs perhaps. -- 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 202701] New: Review Request: python-xeninst
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=202701 Summary: Review Request: python-xeninst Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~katzj/xeninst/python-xeninst.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~katzj/xeninst/python-xeninst-0.9-1.src.rpm Description: Set of python modules to create and install Xen guests. Note that this is a refactoring of the xenguest-install code currently included in the xen package itself. It's being split out to ease maintenance as well as to make it easier for other things (virt-manager) to use it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200064] Review Request: libpano12 : Library and tools for manipulating panoramic images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpano12 : Library and tools for manipulating panoramic images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200064 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 17:43 EST --- (In reply to comment #17) Can you include something to the effect that this is the modified version - altered in order to not break the patent? Ok, I've added this text to the %description: Due to patent restrictions, this library has a maximum fisheye field-of-view restriction of 160 degrees to prevent stitching of hemispherical photographs. http://bugbear.blackfish.org.uk/~bruno/apt/SPECS/libpano12.spec http://bugbear.blackfish.org.uk/~bruno/apt/fedora/linux/5/x86_64/SRPMS.panorama/libpano12-2.8.4-7.fc5.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-08-15 17:43 EST --- Bah, mid-air collision. But I'll submit this anyway. There are precious few reasons: The thing just won't build a .so. It needs to be linked against something used at boot time or in rescue or single user mode. That's about all I can think of. I've seen that argument for things like numerical libraries where folks want to link and then run on a different system without having to install any additional libraries, but I don't recall whether that argument was persuasive. Just realised I'm talking about Extras here and this is a Core review, so perhaps the criteria are different. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200438] Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tango-icon-theme - Icons from Tango Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200438 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 18:24 EST --- ImageMagick-6.2.8.0-2.x86_64 still has this bug. While the libpng bug has been fixed in libpng-1.2.10-6, IM needs to be rebuilt against it. I did, and it worked fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 18:24 EST --- rpmlint is now quiet; everything looks good to me. 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 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 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 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] 2006-08-15 18:57 EST --- Update: Spec URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/CGAL-3.2.1-14.fc5.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/CGAL.spec I have pruned the spec files from non Fedora stuff. I eventually admit that the spec file is complicated enough, even now: the %install stage is quite complicated, as the upstream installation process is not yet well adapted to Fedora Extras requirements. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO
Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 19:24 EST ---
Whoops, just noticed that buildroot isn't quite right. You have:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
but the guidelines prefer:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
By using make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} you no longer have to use
--prefix=%{buildroot} as files install in the right place.
%{_sysconfdir}/netconfig should probably be marked as a config file, perhaps
even config(noreplace). 'netconfig' is a pretty generic term, does anything
else use it or are you claiming that namespace? (:
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202224] Review Request: libtirpc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libtirpc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202224
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 19:27 EST ---
Proposed patch to fix things up:
Also changes my example removal of static libs to use your preferred
%{buildroot} rather than $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, for consistency sake.
--- ./libtirpc.spec.jk 2006-08-15 18:03:45.0 -0400
+++ ./libtirpc.spec 2006-08-15 18:36:58.0 -0400
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@
%build
autoreconf -fisv
-%configure --enable-gss --prefix=%{buildroot}
+%configure --enable-gss
make all
%install
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@
mkdir -p %{buildroot}/etc
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
# Don't package .a or .la files
-rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/*.{a,la}
+rm -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/*.{a,la}
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@
%defattr(-,root,root)
%doc AUTHORS ChangeLog NEWS README
%{_libdir}/libtirpc.so.*
-%{_sysconfdir}/netconfig
+%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/netconfig
%files devel
%defattr(0644,root,root,755)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202224] Review Request: libtirpc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libtirpc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202224
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED
Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])|
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 20:00 EST ---
Made the following changes and updated the spec file and srpm.
diff -r1.6 libtirpc.spec
9c9
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
---
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
54c54
%configure --enable-gss --prefix=%{buildroot}
---
%configure --enable-gss
62c62
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/*.{a,la}
---
rm -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/*.{a,la}
75c75
%{_sysconfdir}/netconfig
---
%config(noreplace)%{_sysconfdir}/netconfig
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202224] Review Request: libtirpc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libtirpc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202224 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO OtherBugsDependingO|188267 |188268 nThis|| Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 20:04 EST --- Ok, approved. I'm supposing that this will be a dep of other things, so it doesn't need to be explicitly listed in comps, correct? Please close when you've built. -- 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 202701] Review Request: python-xeninst
Please 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-xeninst https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202701 [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] 2006-08-15 20:06 EST --- Everything looks good. rpmlint complains about the #! in some .py files. Do these .py files have an init or main? Do they do anything if executed on their own? E: python-xeninst non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/xeninst/util.py 0644 E: python-xeninst non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/xeninst/FullVirtGuest.py 0644 E: python-xeninst non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/xeninst/XenGuest.py 0644 E: python-xeninst non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/xeninst/ParaVirtGuest.py 0644 -- 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 21:25 EST --- Builds fine; here's the rpmlint complaint list: W: quodlibet mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs I'm seeing this quite a bit lately. Just do less -U *spec and you can see the inconsistencies in indentation. W: quodlibet incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.22-1 0.23-1.fc6 Looks like a typo in your changelog entry. E: quodlibet non-executable-script /usr/share/quodlibet/plugins/songsmenu/replaygain.py 0644 E: quodlibet non-executable-script /usr/share/quodlibet/plugins/songsmenu/_subprocobj.py 0644 I think these are valid. These errors are often false positives, when the python code is actually runnable. But these seem to contain only class definitions, and as such they shouldn't have the shebang line. At least that's my interpretation of things. A while back there was a good IRC discussion about this; I'll try to dig up the log if you'd like to read 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 187610] Review Request: crm114 - CRM114 Bayesian Spam Detector
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: crm114 - CRM114 Bayesian Spam Detector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187610
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|Package Review |osgcal
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 21:56 EST ---
Going down my own review checklist:
http://beer.tclug.org/fedora-extras/review-checklist.txt
1. One rpmlint error; will cover below.
2. I have some concerns about the version/release of this package. Will discuss
below.
3. Spec is named crm114.spec, check.
4. Package meets Packaging Guidelines, AFAICT.
5. Licensed under GPL, check.
6. License: GPL, check.
7. n/a, no LICENSE/COPYING file in tarball.
8. Spec appears to be American English.
9. Spec seems legible.
10. md5sum on crm114-20060704a-BlameRobert.no-TRE.src.tar.gz does NOT match
upstream. WTF?
11. Compiles and builds on i386/ppc (my two supported build platforms).
12. x86_64 excluded, as per dependency on tre-devel. You should know the drill.
13. Builds under Plague, so I imagine all of its dependencies are listed.
14. n/a, I think.
15. n/a (no shared libs)
16. n/a
17. crm114-emacs does not own %{_datadir}/emacs/site-lisp/; I believe emacs-el
does. Please add a dependency.
18. No duplicate %files entries.
19. Not 100% certain on the defattr for the main package.
20. Has valid %clean section.
21. Macro use appears consistent.
22. Package contains code, not content.
23. The doc directory makes up more than half the package's size; you may want
to consider splitting it off to a -doc subpackage. (As discussed on IRC.)
24. I don't see anything in %doc affecting runtime.
25. No header files or static libraries.
26. No .pc files.
27. No library files, much less ones with suffixes.
28. n/a (no -devel subpackage)
29. No .la files.
30. No GUI applications.
31. Doesn't own any directories owned by other packages (to the best of my
knowledge).
32. Packager should poke upstream to include a LICENSE file.
33. I'm not sure there are any description/summary translations available.
34. Package builds as i386 and ppc in Plague (and thus Mock).
35. Package won't build on x86_64 due to dependency's ExcludeArch: x86_64; other
architectures, yes.
36. I can't verify full functionality, but the binary doesn't segfault on
i386/ppc.
37. No scriptlets.
38. The -emacs subpackage doesn't Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release};
submitter may want to consider doing so.
So the standing issues, as I see them (some of which we discussed), are:
- rpmlint returns:
W: crm114-emacs no-documentation
Not sure it's worth remedying. I welcome more experienced reviewers to chime
in on this.
- I'm concerned about the versioning scheme. How will you be able to re-release
20060704a if there's a bug? Incrementing Release to 2.20060704a will preclude
resetting the first digit to 1 with the next release. Also, I believe the 'a'
violates the Naming Guidelines. Again, I welcome outside feedback on this.
- #10 concerns me greatly. Did you repack the tarball or something?
- I think you're missing ExcludeArch: x86_64 (I wouldn't notice, as I don't have
an x86_64 buildsys, but this has been a subject of discussion).
- Maybe add Req: emacs-el for -emacs, due to that package owning the directory
the file is in. (I believe you did this already, offline.)
- Is %defattr(-,root,root,-) well-defined enough?
- You might want to split out the documentation to a subpackage.
- Maybe ask upstream to provide a LICENSE file.
- Maybe add Req in #38.
I'm sure we'll be in touch.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187610] Review Request: crm114 - CRM114 Bayesian Spam Detector
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: crm114 - CRM114 Bayesian Spam Detector https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187610 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Component|osgcal |Package Review --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 22:02 EST --- Hmm, I guess Firefox's focus was on Component when I hit PageUp. Oops! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202701] Review Request: python-xeninst
Please 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-xeninst https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 22:10 EST --- Nope, but you want python -tt at the top to make it easier to a) add some test coverage (not there yet, but I do actually want to write a little bit of that :-) and b) so that you can always be sure that tabs/spaces are being used consistently in files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199173] Review Request: clusterssh
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: clusterssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199173
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 22:31 EST ---
Odd. Can you upload your current spec and desktop file?
what is %{desktop_vendor} set to?
%{SOURCE1} should be right for Source1.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202701] Review Request: python-xeninst
Please 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-xeninst https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202701 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|188267 |188268 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 22:45 EST --- Ok, I can waive on that. Approved. I'll let you make the ocmps changes (: Added to dist-fc6. -- 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 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 22:50 EST --- The version from comment #3 fails in mock here with (from build.log): + echo 'Patch #0 (sdlperl_2.1.2-1.diff.gz):' Patch #0 (sdlperl_2.1.2-1.diff.gz): + /bin/gzip -d + patch -p1 -s + STATUS=0 + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']' + patch -p1 -b -z .deb patching file src/OpenGL.xs + patch -p1 patching file src/OpenGL.xs Hunk #1 succeeded at 912 (offset 2 lines). Hunk #3 succeeded at 1006 (offset 2 lines). Hunk #5 succeeded at 1090 (offset 2 lines). + echo 'Patch #1 (perl-SDL-no-mixertest.patch):' Patch #1 (perl-SDL-no-mixertest.patch): + patch -p1 -b --suffix .no-mixertest -s The text leading up to this was: -- |--- t/mixerpm.t~ 2003-03-21 19:48:58.0 +0200 |+++ t/mixerpm.t2004-07-11 00:12:59.851670873 +0300 -- File to patch: Skip this patch? [y] 2 out of 2 hunks ignored error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.2893 (%prep) Agreed with comment #4. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 183439] Review Request: papyrus (Canvas drawing library based on cairo/cairomm)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: papyrus (Canvas drawing library based on cairo/cairomm) Alias: papyrus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183439 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 23:05 EST --- Spec Name or Url: http://miskatonic.dyn-o-saur.com/pub/papyrus.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://miskatonic.dyn-o-saur.com/pub/fedora/5/srpms/papyrus-0.3.0-1.src.rpm I think this one addresses everything from the previous comments, plus a few more: - New release fixes some problems with the missing demo files - Changed ownership of the demo directories - Added papyrus to the libtool LIBADD automake line should resolve the symbol warnings -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 23:20 EST ---
GOOD
* rpmlint output clean
* Package and spec named appropriately
* Source matches upstream:
2be5ead2aee72adc3fb643630a774b59 frozen-bubble-1.0.0.tar.bz2
* GPL license ok, license file included
* RPM_BUILD_ROOT cleaned where it ought to be
* .desktop file and icons installed correctly
* No duplicate %files
* Spec file legible and in Am. English
* Builds in mock on FC5-i386, FC5-x86_64, FC6-i386, FC6-x86_64
* No need for -doc subpackage
* No need for -devel subpackage
* No locales
* Owns all directories that it creates
* Does not own any directories that it should not
* Contains code and allowable game content
* File permissions look ok
* Not relocatable
MUSTFIX
===
* BR: perl is not necessary. It is already picked up by perl-SDL.
SHOULD
==
* There is some inconsistency in the use of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT vs.
${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}. Both work. Pick one and stick with it.
* The perl autoprovider in rpm adds some automatic provides since this package
installs files into %{perl_vendorarch}. If these files are only going
to be used by frozen-bubble, wouldn't it be better to put them somewhere
in %{_datadir}/frozen-bubble instead?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185205] Review Request: nqc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nqc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185205 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 23:31 EST --- Will do. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198289] Review Request: python-pastescript - A pluggable command-line frontend
Please 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-pastescript - A pluggable command-line frontend
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198289
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 23:37 EST ---
rpmlint:
E: python-pastescript zero-length
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/PasteScript-0.9-py2.4.egg-info/not-zip-safe
Ignore.
W: python-pastescript doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/python-pastescript-0.9/docs/example_cgi_app.ini /usr/bin/env
W: python-pastescript doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/python-pastescript-0.9/docs/example_wsgiutils_app.ini
/usr/bin/env
Many python scripts require this, ignore.
About the name, upstream does use capitals when refering to Paste Script,
however Debian also does python-pastescript, I'm inclined to follow along.
* Uses both $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}. Still readable but easily fixed on
next commit.
Good:
+ builds on devel x86_64
+ uses setuptools
+ license (MIT)
+ noarch
+ sources match upstream
+ sitelib macro
+ follows python templates for macros and file listing script
+ proper %clean
+ macro usage throughout
+ file permissions and ownership
Nearly ready for approval, but let's get resolution on the naming issue. See
also python-pastedeploy, bug #198288
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201337] Review Request: gcin - Chinese input method server for Traditional Chinese
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gcin - Chinese input method server for Traditional Chinese https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201337 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-16 00:26 EST --- I have fixed some rpmlint problems. The new Spec URL: http://cle.linux.org.tw/candyz/gcin.spec SRPM URL: http://cle.linux.org.tw/candyz/gcin-1.2.1-3.src.rpm I still have problems, but I don't know how to solve it. E: gcin script-without-shellbang /etc/X11/xinit/xinput.d/gcin This executable text file does not contain a shebang, thus it cannot be properly executed. Often this is a sign of spurious executable bits for a non-script file, but can also be a case of a missing shebang. To fix this error, find out which case of the above it is, and either remove the executable bits or add the shebang. W: gcin-devel no-soname /usr/lib/libgcin-im-client.so -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-16 00:43 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) The version from comment #3 fails in mock here with (from build.log): + echo 'Patch #0 (sdlperl_2.1.2-1.diff.gz):' Patch #0 (sdlperl_2.1.2-1.diff.gz): + /bin/gzip -d + patch -p1 -s + STATUS=0 + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']' + patch -p1 -b -z .deb patching file src/OpenGL.xs + patch -p1 patching file src/OpenGL.xs Hunk #1 succeeded at 912 (offset 2 lines). Hunk #3 succeeded at 1006 (offset 2 lines). Hunk #5 succeeded at 1090 (offset 2 lines). + echo 'Patch #1 (perl-SDL-no-mixertest.patch):' Patch #1 (perl-SDL-no-mixertest.patch): + patch -p1 -b --suffix .no-mixertest -s The text leading up to this was: -- |--- t/mixerpm.t~ 2003-03-21 19:48:58.0 +0200 |+++ t/mixerpm.t2004-07-11 00:12:59.851670873 +0300 -- File to patch: Skip this patch? [y] 2 out of 2 hunks ignored error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.2893 (%prep) Agreed with comment #4. Erm, a patch failing to apply is not mock specific, it seems that for some reason you are still using the patch from the 1.20.3 package which was updated for / in the 2.1.3 package. I just tried to install the provided SRPM on a different PC then where it was developed and there it builds fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
