[Bug 192049] Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192049 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 02:49 EST --- (In reply to comment #38) Nod, but until that is fixed it doesn't make sense really to include gnash in Extras. I suggest a bug be opened for that issue and that it block this bug. This bug will likely be driver dependent... I also think that it would be better to prefix plugin-tempfile-dir.patch with gnash, such that it is called gnash-plugin-tempfile-dir.patch instead. Why? :) Because it helps knowing that it is a source file associated with the gnash rpm. Especially handy when you have a lot of patches and source in SOURCES. But it is not a blocker, just a remark. (In reply to comment #37) Another remark, autoconf is required by automake. So you mean it shouldn't be in BR? It can be removed I suppose though it makes the dependency on autoreconf less obvious... Perhaps autoconf should require automake too? autoconf shouldn't require automake, since it doesn't require automake. In our case builrequires for autoconf is not that bad, it is just an unneeded buildrequires, and the practice (and I think it is somewhere in the guidelines) is to avoid buildrequires when there are allready implied by another package. Not a blocker (other reviewers would consider that a blocker, I think) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203274] Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203274 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 03:13 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) (In reply to comment #6) I am now packaging it as an openmotif replacement. FE package MUST NOT replace FC packages. 1. Unless openmotif is formally discontinued in Core, you MUST NOT do this. That's the idea. openmotif shouldn't be in fedora since it is not free software. It seems that you are reading that thread on fedora-maintainers, aren't you ;) I don't plan on importing lesstif once it is approved, there must be some agreement on how and when to proceed, if openmotif is really to be replaced by lesstif. 2. Lesstif is not ABI compatible to OpenMotif, so you are breaking all Motif based apps in FE, once this package should be released. Indeed, and that's bad, but unfortunately necessary to rely only on free software. And there is certainly no need for the 1.x api. Who sais that? I don't have any idea on that matter, but I supposed so since it is not shipped since fedora core 3. Did anybody complain? 2. The Motif-2.x API (==OpenMotif) has changed and extended many times. Lesstif hardly has any chance to follow up these changes, because it's a clone and OpenMotif is the master. lesstif tries to follow the 2.1 api. Having a non free application providing more features is not a reason to ship 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 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|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 03:14 EST --- gtk-sharp2 is not providing gnome-sharp-2.0.pc. gnome-sharp-devel is. -- 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 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 03:26 EST --- Sorry, yes I was on 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 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] 2006-08-21 05:02 EST --- Updated SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/codeblocks-1.0-0.6.20060820svn2882.src.rpm Updated spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/codeblocks.spec Changes: - updated to revision 2882 - added missing Requires: pkgconfig for devel subpackage -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198758] Review Request: gnome-phone-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: gnome-phone-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 05:44 EST --- OK builds nicely in FC5 some problem in devel related to changes in E-D-S. Would open a bug for it on gnome-phone-manager but it haven't appeared in Bugzilla yet so can't. Thanks to Chris for the review and all! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191473] Review Request: kdiff3: Compare + merge 2 or 3 files or directories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdiff3: Compare + merge 2 or 3 files or directories https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191473 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 07:10 EST --- My employer legal dept has OK'd this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-08-21 07:14 EST --- I've not had time to do anything with the SELinux policy yet. Can you please CC me on the SELinux bug when you raise it? I'm thinking of creating an SELinux boolean to allow openvpn to read files from users' home directories (off by default), much like the one for spamassassin. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203274] Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203274 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 07:15 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) Indeed lesstif was only packaged for the 1.x compatibility api (up to Fedora Core 3). But following the discussion initiated here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2006-August/msg00076.html Thanks for the pointer. I guess it's time for me to subscribe YAML... I have at work some legacy Motif apps: if you think it is useful I could try rebuilding them against this new package. Additionally, since in their FAQ [1] I can see: Q: Will Motif be made Open Source in the future? A: Yes, we hope to be able to make a distribution under a license complying with the Open Source guidelines sometime in the future. For now this is as close as to Open Source as we could get. maybe we could try to bugging them for a real Open Source release, otherwise it will be removed from Fedora ASAP [1] http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/faq.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177512] Review Request: mysql-connector-net
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mysql-connector-net https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177512 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 07:19 EST --- Reassigning to [EMAIL PROTECTED] as per the stalled review policy (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Policy/StalledReviews). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191473] Review Request: kdiff3: Compare + merge 2 or 3 files or directories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdiff3: Compare + merge 2 or 3 files or directories https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191473 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 07:23 EST --- Well, ASSIGNED is not really the correct status of this package. But i do not see what could be best, now that is can no longer be NEW. Maybe VERIFIED. Do you still need a sponsor? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191473] Review Request: kdiff3: Compare + merge 2 or 3 files or directories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdiff3: Compare + merge 2 or 3 files or directories https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191473 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 07:27 EST --- Yes, I have several submissions waiting on a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-21 07:28 EST ---
(In reply to comment #20)
(In reply to comment #17)
I think moving the files but leaving the perl(...) Provides in is worse than
leaving the files in the usual locations (and leaving the Provides intact).
Moving should be coupled with Provides (and probably Requires due to
comment 8)
filtering but that's of questionable gain anyway, I'd revert moving the
files
and doing things as usual.
My main concerns with leaving the files in %{perl_vendorarch} is that these
are
application-specific perl modules. They have no use outside of this package.
I
strongly prefer moving things like this into application specific directories
such as %{_libdir}/%{name} instead of polluting the language library tree.
And I'm strongly in agreement with Wart. Whilst it's a little hassle in the spec
file, it's cleaner on the system the package gets installed into and is less
likely to result in future namespace collisions.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191473] Review Request: kdiff3: Compare + merge 2 or 3 files or directories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdiff3: Compare + merge 2 or 3 files or directories https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191473 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 07:38 EST --- Neal, please try to answer to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191492#c3 where Hans offer you an opporunity to get sponsored. You silence could interpreted badly. I would like to review the current request (kdiff3), but I cannot give sponsorship. Your future sponsor has priority. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191492] Review Request: unuran-0.7.2
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: unuran-0.7.2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191492 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 07:44 EST --- OK, this sounds fine. Sorry for the delay, I thought I had already replied to this but it seems not. I will collect 3 packages for review. I think that one that had progressed the farthest is kdiff3. I will also suggest 2 others and get back to you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203274] Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203274
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 07:54 EST ---
Quick-n-dirty items I see:
1. MUST drop Obsoletes/Provides: openmotif, openmotif-devel
at least for now(*). No Conflicts either. See also 6.
(*) Maybe we could consider using versioned Ob/Pr, say something like Obsoletes:
openmotif 2.2, openmotif21, Provides: openmotif = 2.1, but there would have to
be a strong demonstratable need for this (and I currently don't see any).
2. MUST: +BuildRequires: fontconfig-devel, since ./configure says:
checking for fontconfig-config... no
checking fontconfig/fontconfig.h usability... yes
checking fontconfig/fontconfig.h presence... yes
checking for fontconfig/fontconfig.h... yes
checking for FcInit... yes
3. MUST: +BuildRequires: mesa-libGLw-devel
4. MUST: use versioned Obsoletes/Provides: lesstif-clients, ie,
Obsoletes: lesstif-clients %{version}-%{release}
Provides: lesstif-clients = %{version}-%{release}
5. SHOULD: drop Oboletes/Provides: lesstif-1.2-devel, lesstif-2.0-devel
I see no purpose for this (anymore), especially Provides.
6. SHOULD: Come up with a better co-installable solution, maybe split out
lesstif-clients again (like upstream) so the main pkg doesn't conflict.
Conflicts in -clients and/or -devel is ok, imo. But for now, maybe don't worry
about this too much... we're going on the assumption (for now) that openmotif's
non-OSI license will eject it from Fedora.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO
Flag||needinfo?(drzeus-
||[EMAIL PROTECTED])
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 08:06 EST ---
0. Comment in specfile:
# configure --disable-static had no effect; delete manually.
FYI, this is most likely due to your using LIBTOOL=/usr/bin/libtool
No suggestion here, just an FYI. (:
1. SHOULD/COULD: You could use the %{fedora} macro (defined in Fedora's
buildsystem), to conditionalize this bit:
# FC5
BuildRequires: libXt-devel, xorg-x11-proto-devel
# FC4 or earlier
# BuildRequires:xorg-x11-devel
into something like:
%if %{?fedora} 4
BuildRequires: libXt-devel, xorg-x11-proto-devel
%else
BuildRequires: xorg-x11-devel
%endif
But I'll leave the choice of doing this up to you (you're the one that'll have
to maintain it afterall).
2. Regarding split-out server/client libs/modules. Will pulseaudio apps link
with these (and automatically include them as dependancies)?
If yes and/or dependancies are handled automatically for end-users, end of
problem.
If no, how will users' get these extra dependancies installed on their machines
(other than doing so manually)?
Address this last 2 issues, and I'll APPROVE this (and sponsor you).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203274] Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203274 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 08:26 EST --- FYI, see also: Bugzilla Bug #202527 – openmotif's licensing is poor and it should be moved to Fedora 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 203274] Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203274
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED
Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) |
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 08:32 EST ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Quick-n-dirty items I see:
1. MUST drop Obsoletes/Provides: openmotif, openmotif-devel
at least for now(*). No Conflicts either. See also 6.
I will do that but don't we want to have mutually exclusive
packages, at least for -devel, with lesstif-devel replacing
openmotif-devel on upgrades?
(*) Maybe we could consider using versioned Ob/Pr, say something like
Obsoletes:
openmotif 2.2, openmotif21, Provides: openmotif = 2.1, but there would have
to
be a strong demonstratable need for this (and I currently don't see any).
I can't see how it would help either.
2. MUST: +BuildRequires: fontconfig-devel, since ./configure says:
checking for fontconfig-config... no
checking fontconfig/fontconfig.h usability... yes
checking fontconfig/fontconfig.h presence... yes
checking for fontconfig/fontconfig.h... yes
checking for FcInit... yes
Right, missed it.
3. MUST: +BuildRequires: mesa-libGLw-devel
or libGLw-devel?
4. MUST: use versioned Obsoletes/Provides: lesstif-clients, ie,
Obsoletes: lesstif-clients %{version}-%{release}
Provides: lesstif-clients = %{version}-%{release}
If you like.
5. SHOULD: drop Oboletes/Provides: lesstif-1.2-devel, lesstif-2.0-devel
I see no purpose for this (anymore), especially Provides.
I kept them from the fc3 spec. I'll remove.
6. SHOULD: Come up with a better co-installable solution, maybe split out
lesstif-clients again (like upstream) so the main pkg doesn't conflict.
I don't view it like this. If openmotif is going away, it would be
better to split openmotif to have a compat package that only provides
the binary libraries (with the issue of the sonames I report above
that could be very painfull).
If I haven't misunderstood what xmbind is, it should be provided with
the library, not in a separate package. And uil is, in y opinion much
better in the -devel subpackage.
Conflicts in -clients and/or -devel is ok, imo. But for now, maybe don't
worry
about this too much... we're going on the assumption (for now) that
openmotif's
non-OSI license will eject it from Fedora.
In any other case packaging lesstif to be fully parallel installable
would be too much pain without benefit, and may prove hard to achieve,
and using the lesstif library would be in that case quite painfull.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-21 08:43 EST --- Okay, I'll add filters for the bogus provides then, do the same to the requires since otherwise things won't work and then post a new version. This may take a few days though since my vacation is over, so my spare time has been drasticly reduced. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203274] Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203274 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 08:44 EST --- 3. MUST: +BuildRequires: mesa-libGLw-devel or libGLw-devel? Right, better: BuildRequires: libGLw-devel -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 182254] Review Request: SS5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: SS5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182254 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 09:18 EST --- Any news? Thx! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193712] Review Request: sos
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193712 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 10:18 EST --- The following are available at http://people.redhat.com/sconklin sos-0.1-11.noarch.rpm sos-0.1-11.src.rpm sos.spec The regression is fixed, and a lot of cleanup has been done to remove inaccurate comments, unused variables, and improve readability -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192049] Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192049 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 10:29 EST --- (In reply to comment #39) I suggest a bug be opened for that issue and that it block this bug. This bug will likely be driver dependent... Quite possible. Perhaps better would be to update the gnash source to cvs head? Because it helps knowing that it is a source file associated with the gnash rpm. Especially handy when you have a lot of patches and source in SOURCES. Ok, you're right of course. It is so long that I've used the default directories for rpmbuilding, that I had quite forgotten about this namespace issue. (Personally I think it is much saner to build packages from separate directories...) autoconf shouldn't require automake, since it doesn't require automake. (but autoreconf does) In our case builrequires for autoconf is not that bad, it is just an unneeded buildrequires, and the practice (and I think it is somewhere in the guidelines) is to avoid buildrequires when there are allready implied by another package. Not a blocker (other reviewers would consider that a blocker, I think) I'll remove it anyway. Updated package: http://people.redhat.com/petersen/extras/gnash.spec http://people.redhat.com/petersen/extras/gnash-0.7.1-5.src.rpm For the record I don't really like the flooding of tmpdirs behaviour very much, but it seems like the simplest secure implementation possible. I guess X uses something similar for its /tmp/xses-$USER.XX session log files. A better implementation would probably save the .swf files in a directory like /tmp/gnash-$USER/ owned by USER having permission 0700. It should also take account of TMPDIR I suppose. But I'm lazy... ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196003] Review Request: Kmenu-gnome
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Kmenu-gnome https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 10:34 EST --- Excellent, 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 196177] Review Request: kdmtheme - Theme Manager for KDM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdmtheme - Theme Manager for KDM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196177 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 10:36 EST --- Good work, 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 189004] Review Request: irsim
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: irsim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189004 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 11:07 EST --- Ping. Please comment in a week if you are still interested in packaging this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189004] Review Request: irsim
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: irsim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189004 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 11:12 EST --- I haven't got any spare time, so I can't do it. Sorry. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 179758] Review Request: Eiciel (ACL editor) [Seeking Sponsor]
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Eiciel (ACL editor) [Seeking Sponsor] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179758 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG OtherBugsDependingO|163778, 177841 |201449 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 11:20 EST --- Ticket closed due to lack of submitter response as per the stalled review policy (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Policy/StalledReviews). If someone would like to submit a new version of this package for review, please mark this ticket as a duplicate of the new one so that reviewers of the new ticket can easily find the work that was done on this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192310] Review Request: PySyck
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: PySyck https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192310 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 11:23 EST --- Ping. Please comment in a week if you are still interested in packaging this. I notice that a blog has replaced the spec and srpm URLs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192310] Review Request: PySyck
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: PySyck https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192310 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 11:30 EST --- My mail filter must have missed the earlier two replies -- my apologies. Following the traffic on yaml-core for PyYAML (which is picking up considerably), I don't think packaging this is neccessary. I personally don't like the way YaML is growing in complexity, but it appears there is much more active development there in the 1.1 stuff after all -- and given that, I don't think we really want a bunch of users piling on a dead-end codebase. The application that needed this as a prereq has moved on to other serializing options. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192310] Review Request: PySyck
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: PySyck https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192310 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 11:37 EST --- The Packaging Committee discussed this naming briefly on the fedora-packaging mailing list and decided that it was the maintainer's discretion how to format this portion of the package name. Some upstream packages might name their packages a specific way (pastescript.tar.gz or paste-scripts.tar.gz) in which case it would be good to following upstream's lead is a good indicator. But the maintainer has final say as to what makes the most sense. FWIW, Debian seems to have adopted the same policy, with some packages with a dash (python-twisted-conch) and others not (python-pastescript). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 169704] Review Request: mosml - Moscow ML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mosml - Moscow ML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169704 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 11:58 EST --- Doesn't build on x86_64 devel, however, something about *** glibc detected *** ../camlrunm: munmap_chunk(): invalid pointer: 0x00633000 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 169704] Review Request: mosml - Moscow ML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mosml - Moscow ML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169704 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 11:59 EST --- Created an attachment (id=134570) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=134570action=view) Build log -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 12:16 EST --- Thanks for looking into the naming issue Toshio. http://people.redhat.com/lmacken/python-paste-script-0.9-3.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/lmacken/python-paste-script.spec * Sat Jul 29 2006 Luke Macken [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.9-3 - Require python-paste-deploy * Wed Jul 26 2006 Luke Macken [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.9-2 - Rename to python-paste-script - Use consistent buildroot variables - Fix docs inclusion -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198288] Review Request: python-pastedeploy - Load, configure, and compose WSGI applications and servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-pastedeploy - Load, configure, and compose WSGI applications and servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198288 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 12:15 EST --- So, the name is up to you. In the mean time the guidelines about ghosting .pyo have somehow changed, it seems like they shouldn't be ghosted now. As it is still a draft, I don't make that a blocker. 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 192310] Review Request: PySyck
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: PySyck https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192310 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 12:32 EST --- http://people.redhat.com/lmacken/python-paste-script-0.9-4.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/lmacken/python-paste-script.spec * Mon Aug 21 2006 Luke Macken [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.9-4 - Include .pyo files instead of ghosting them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198288] Review Request: python-pastedeploy - Load, configure, and compose WSGI applications and servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-pastedeploy - Load, configure, and compose WSGI applications and servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198288 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 12:45 EST --- * Mon Aug 21 2006 Luke Macken [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.5-3 - Include .pyo files instead of ghosting them. Imported into CVS, added to owners.list, FC-5 CVS branch requested, tagged and built for devel. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198287] Review Request: python-paste - Tools for using a Web Server Gateway Interface stack
Please 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-paste - Tools for using a Web Server Gateway Interface stack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198287 Bug 198287 depends on bug 198288, which changed state. Bug 198288 Summary: Review Request: python-pastedeploy - Load, configure, and compose WSGI applications and servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198288 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 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 OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 12:52 EST --- Looks fine, builds fine, see review in comment 1. 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 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|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 13:16 EST --- Imported into CVS, added to owners.list, requested FC-5 CVS branch, tagged and built for devel. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198288] Review Request: python-pastedeploy - Load, configure, and compose WSGI applications and servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-pastedeploy - Load, configure, and compose WSGI applications and servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198288 Bug 198288 depends on bug 198289, which changed state. Bug 198289 Summary: Review Request: python-pastescript - A pluggable command-line frontend https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198289 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 198287] Review Request: python-paste - Tools for using a Web Server Gateway Interface stack
Please 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-paste - Tools for using a Web Server Gateway Interface stack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198287 Bug 198287 depends on bug 198289, which changed state. Bug 198289 Summary: Review Request: python-pastescript - A pluggable command-line frontend https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198289 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 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 14:09 EST --- URL in comment #43 should be http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/pulseaudio/pulseaudio-0.9.4-1.src.rpm (-1 not -2) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193110] Review Request: python-sexy
Please 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-sexy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193110 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 14:40 EST --- Issues 2-5 look good and corrected. I would prefer to have clarification on the License before approving the package. I would be unfortunate for us to try and distribute it under the wrong license. Any word from the upstream authors on License issues? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203042] Review Request: jakarta-oro (RENAME ONLY)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jakarta-oro (RENAME ONLY) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||188265 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203042] Review Request: jakarta-oro (RENAME ONLY)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jakarta-oro (RENAME ONLY) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|188265 |188268 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 15:10 EST --- Since epoch is 0, you don't need to list that as part of our Provides. (or in the spec at all) Do you really need to define name, version, and release, just to fill them in at Name: Version: and Release:? Please don't do that. Othewise looks ok, for a java package (: Please create an srpm with the new name and import it as jakarta-oro. We'll stop using the 'oro' module. This would be a good time to change the release string to remove the _. Added to dist-fc6. Please close when built into rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203274] Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203274 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 15:12 EST --- http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/lesstif-0.95.0-3.src.rpm - BuildRequires libGLw-devel - remove openmotif Obsoletes/Provides - add versioning to the Obsoletes/Provides for lesstif-clients -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193110] Review Request: python-sexy
Please 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-sexy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193110 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 15:22 EST --- I got an answer from Christian Hammond 08/17 , he thinks that all bindings to libesexy should be licensed under LGPL, but since he doesn't hold copyright on all the code it's up to Raphael Slinckx who still hasn't answered my mail. If he hasn't answered later this week, I'll ping him again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203042] Review Request: jakarta-oro (RENAME ONLY)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jakarta-oro (RENAME ONLY) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 15:27 EST --- Yes, the duplicate definition for name, version and release had already been removed from the package in the latest upstream release, which incorporated GCJ AOT bits (otherwise the same), so I merged that in. All new packages are being rebuilt without the '_NNfc' -- this one will be a .1 (as the first of our builds from this upstream release). The only thing that was not yet done was the removal of Epoch as we are trying to get it removed from all upstream packages so that the next round only have the Epoch 1 ones specified. -- 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 203042] Review Request: jakarta-oro (RENAME ONLY)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jakarta-oro (RENAME ONLY) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187326] Review Request: smokeping - Network latency grapher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: smokeping - Network latency grapher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187326 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 16:14 EST --- Tibbs, sure. I've just gotten back from my vacation... Care to do a review after I updated the package to current versions? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196177] Review Request: kdmtheme - Theme Manager for KDM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdmtheme - Theme Manager for KDM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196177 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196003] Review Request: Kmenu-gnome
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Kmenu-gnome https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187326] Review Request: smokeping - Network latency grapher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: smokeping - Network latency grapher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187326 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 17:00 EST --- I am just in the need for a packaged smokeping, so I'd gladly review it if tibbs is bored :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187326] Review Request: smokeping - Network latency grapher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: smokeping - Network latency grapher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187326 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 17:19 EST --- sounds good. ;D Just gimme a day or four... ;D -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203274] Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203274 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 17:37 EST --- oops I forgot http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/lesstif-0.95.0-4.src.rpm - BuildRequires fontconfig-devel -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203274] Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203274 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 17:41 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) (In reply to comment #6) I have at work some legacy Motif apps: if you think it is useful I could try rebuilding them against this new package. Indeed it would be usefull (but wait until it is certain that lesstif will replace openmotif...). Are these 1.x or 2.x motif apps? Additionally, since in their FAQ [1] I can see: Q: Will Motif be made Open Source in the future? A: Yes, we hope to be able to make a distribution under a license complying with the Open Source guidelines sometime in the future. For now this is as close as to Open Source as we could get. maybe we could try to bugging them for a real Open Source release, otherwise it will be removed from Fedora ASAP That would be a good idea, but I won't do that. I don't feel speaking in the name of fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 179040] Review Request: socat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 19:48 EST --- Everything builds fine and now rpmlint is silent. The issues I had are fixed. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|m) |
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 21:52 EST ---
I think there must be some sort of communication problem here. The way this
works is that reviewers make comments and point out things that need to be
changed. You should either make the indicated changes or discuss why you think
those changes shouldn't be made. Instead, you seem to be ignoring most of the
comments.
The following issues have not been addressed:
Still owns %{_datadir}/pixmaps.
%description still says Gstm instead of gSTM.
In addition, could you also comment on Laurent's comment that gaskpass should be
in a separate package? (I admit to not understanding the issue here; perhaps
Laurent could elaborate.)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187326] Review Request: smokeping - Network latency grapher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: smokeping - Network latency grapher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187326 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 22:00 EST --- Axel, there are plenty of other packages I can review so please do take this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202379] Review Request: perl-Gnome2-GConf
Please 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-Gnome2-GConf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202379 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 23:13 EST --- The package now builds and the debuginfo subpackage looks good. The only issues I had have been addressed. 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
