[Bug 198711] Review Request: splint - An implementation of the lint 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: splint - An implementation of the lint program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198711 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|RAWHIDE |CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version||5.0.0 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-22 01:32 EST --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4.91]$ pwd /mnt/redhat/rel-eng/RHEL5-Server-20060919.1/4.91 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4.91]$ find . -name "splint*" -print ./i386/os/Server/splint-3.1.1-16.el5.i386.rpm ./i386/debug/splint-debuginfo-3.1.1-16.el5.i386.rpm ./ppc/os/Server/splint-3.1.1-16.el5.ppc.rpm ./ppc/debug/splint-debuginfo-3.1.1-16.el5.ppc.rpm ./x86_64/os/Server/splint-3.1.1-16.el5.x86_64.rpm ./x86_64/debug/splint-debuginfo-3.1.1-16.el5.x86_64.rpm ./ia64/os/Server/splint-3.1.1-16.el5.ia64.rpm ./ia64/debug/splint-debuginfo-3.1.1-16.el5.ia64.rpm ./s390x/os/Server/splint-3.1.1-16.el5.s390x.rpm ./s390x/debug/splint-debuginfo-3.1.1-16.el5.s390x.rpm ./source/SRPMS/splint-3.1.1-16.el5.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198839] Review Request: sear - WorldForge client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sear - WorldForge client Alias: sear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198839 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163776 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-22 00:20 EST --- Is there any reason why this is only being built for FC6? I don't think I should be reviewing this package if it is only for FC6 as I would have no way of actually testing it unless I installed FC6. I'm going to go ahead and set this back to FE-NEW since I have no way of testing this package. 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 195683] Review Request: smarteiffel - The GNU Eiffel Compiler and Libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: smarteiffel - The GNU Eiffel Compiler and Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195683 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 23:54 EST --- After running through my checklist, the only remaining issue I have is that the installed package is about 91MB, but 68MB of that is documentation which does bring up the question of whether the documentation should be in a subpackage. What do you think? (Honestly I'd prefer not to have to build this again, but there really is a big pile of documentation there.) 68128 ./usr/share/doc 81508 ./usr/share 91228 ./usr 91244 . * source files match upstream: 77b3ab3895c6fced2cb1649b4ca80547 SmartEiffel-2-2.tar.bz2 * 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) * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo would be empty and is disabled. * rpmlint has only acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: config(smarteiffel) = 2.2-4.fc6 smarteiffel = 2.2-4.fc6 = /bin/sh config(smarteiffel) = 2.2-4.fc6 * %check is not present; no runnable test suite. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * 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. * headers (and various source files) are installed as appropriate for a compiler. * 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 191389] Review Request: oooqs2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: oooqs2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191389 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 22:40 EST --- ok built on all arches 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 196434] Review Request: ren
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ren https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196434 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 22:15 EST --- Excellent - rpmlint's clean on both SRPM and binary 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 188400] Review Request: ssmtp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ssmtp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188400 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 22:10 EST --- No problem - rpmlint now's clean, I looked over the spec and it seems valid. Clean by as far as I can tell! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177583] Review Request: zaptel-kmod
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zaptel-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177583 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 21:47 EST --- Licensing is not the issue at all, dual licensing is perfectly acceptable. The issue at hand is merging zaptel into Linus's tree. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196434] Review Request: ren
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ren https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196434 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 21:43 EST --- Thank you for your review. New versions are available at http://wdl.lug.ro/linux/rpms/ren/ren.spec and http://wdl.lug.ro/linux/rpms/ren/ren-1.0-9.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 188400] Review Request: ssmtp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ssmtp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188400 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 21:38 EST --- Thank you for the review. I am sorry for the annoyance due to reorganizing the web site. New spec and src.rpm are available at http://wdl.lug.ro/linux/rpms/ssmtp/ssmtp.spec and http://wdl.lug.ro/linux/rpms/ssmtp/ssmtp-2.61-6.src.rpm respectively -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205075] Review Request: fwbackups - a user backup program, with support for automated backups and on-demand backups
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fwbackups - a user backup program, with support for automated backups and on-demand backups https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205075 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 20:42 EST --- I've added the pygtk2-libglade %requires. Spec URL: http://www.diffingo.com/downloads/FWBackups/fwbackups.spec SRPM URL: http://www.diffingo.com/downloads/FWBackups/fwbackups-1.42-5.src.rpm rpmlint on SRPM only warns of mixed space/tabs, nothing to worry about, and rpmlint is silent on binary. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207612] Review Request: zidrav - Zorba's Incredible Data Repairer And Verifier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zidrav - Zorba's Incredible Data Repairer And Verifier https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207612 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 20:24 EST --- I uploaded a testing spec version by mistake, fixed. You can clearly see that this was done so in .src.rpm (I'm not reuploading it since nothing was changed except the 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 196434] Review Request: ren
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ren https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196434 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 19:45 EST --- I'm not a reviewer, as I'm waiting to be sponsored, but I can help out: rpmlint still shows warning on the RPM, I'm not sure if you're absolutely required to fix these as they're minor, but they're there nonetheless: W: ren setup-not-quiet You should use -q to have a quiet extraction of the source tarball, as this generate useless lines of log ( for buildbot, for example ) W: ren macro-in-%changelog defattr Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. W: ren macro-in-%changelog _mandir Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188400] Review Request: ssmtp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ssmtp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 19:32 EST --- I'm not a review but I'm waiting on the sponsor of my package so I'll help... Just so you know your SRPM link gives a 404, it seemed to be moved into a "rpms" folder. I ran rpmlint on your SRPM, and it gave only warnings, no errors, which is good but if you'd like to clear them up anyways, here it is: W: ssmtp macro-in-%changelog files Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. W: ssmtp macro-in-%changelog postun Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. W: ssmtp macro-in-%changelog buildroot Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. W: ssmtp mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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: 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: Flexible WebServer
Alias: Cherokee
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201149
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 18:45 EST ---
I just took a look into http://manuel.todo-linux.com/cherokee/spec/cherokee.spec
and there is a lot that should be fixed. Please read
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
%configure already sets these options:
--prefix=%{_prefix} \
--sysconfdir=%{_sysconfdir} \
--mandir=%{_mandir} \
--sbindir=%{_sbindir} \
So they are not needed here. (see rpm --eval "%configure")
%configure also sets CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"
So you should set CFLAGS="-O0 -g3" before the invocation of %configure to make
sure that $RPM_OPT_FLAGS are honourd. Do you really need debug level 3 and no
optimization?
Why are these commands in %post?
ln -s %{_sysconfdir}/cherokee/sites-available/default \
%{_sysconfdir}/cherokee/sites-enabled/default
mkdir -p /home/httpd
The COPYING file is missing
There is an unneeded Source:, since there is already Source0:
Why is there still a Docdir Tag?
Why don't you use %{?dist} in the release?
The %changelog is still empty.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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 207612] Review Request: zidrav - Zorba's Incredible Data Repairer And Verifier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: zidrav - Zorba's Incredible Data Repairer And Verifier
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207612
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 18:39 EST ---
Don't mean to nitpick but is your CXXFLAGS patch working ? It looks like it is
still compiling with the default options... I think you also need to pass it on
the make call ('make CXXFLAGS=...').
+ unset DISPLAY
+ CXXFLAGS='-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
-fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables'
+ export CXXFLAGS
+ /usr/bin/make -j3
g++ -O2 -Wall -c flayer.cpp
g++ -O2 -Wall -c core.cpp
g++ -O2 -Wall -o zidrav zidrav.cpp flayer.o core.o
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206708] Review Request: acerhk - Acer Hotkey driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: acerhk - Acer Hotkey driver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206708 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 18:11 EST --- I'm not a reviewer, but I can do what I can to help. rpmlint on both the binary (for i686 at least) and SRPMS comes out clean, and they build flawlessly on my machine. I have no complaints here, you have a pretty clean 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 206836] Review Request: TurboJson - Python template plugin that supports json
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: TurboJson - Python template plugin that supports json https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206836 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 18:01 EST --- I'm not a reviewer, but can help you out: I can't seem to build your source RPM, I am getting: File not found by glob: /var/tmp/TurboJson-0.9.9-1-root-admin/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/turbojson/tests/*.py* If I list files in [buildroot]/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/turbojson/ I only see files. Maybe there is an error in the spec? But, on a good note, your rpmlint check is clean. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177583] Review Request: zaptel-kmod
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zaptel-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177583 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 17:56 EST --- I'll try to address your concerns, but understand that we fight this battle every day with people who don't agree with our dual licensing model (or dual licensing in general), so I don't expect to change your minds :-) In regards to the question about Zaptel being GPL and not being usable under other licenses, that is not true. There are parts of Zaptel that are most definitely not derivatives of the Linux kernel and we want to retain the ability to license those parts of Zaptel outside the GPL. Stating that 'Zaptel is GPL' is somewhat of a simplification, because in reality you mean that 'the Zaptel distributed by Digium via their web/FTP servers is GPL', but we have the ability to distribute it via other means as well. As far as the 2.4 kernel issue goes, we definitely do consider that to be a concern, because we have limited kernel developer resources and don't wish to spend their time duplicating efforts, and there is still rather a large population of users running Zaptel on 2.4 kernels (we have received bug reports as recently as this week regarding new drivers we have not building/installing on 2.4). However, that is secondary to the licensing issue in any case. I can tell you that it is highly unlikely that Digium would decide to change the licensing model for Zaptel just so that it can be incorporated into Fedora Extras. While I don't wish to start a flamewar, I do find it somewhat curious that Debian does package Zaptel and they generally seem to be even more restrictive regarding licensing that most other distributions are... but I understand that your concern here is not the licensing issue, but our non-interest in pushing the Zaptel drivers upstream into the mainline kernel. I've added myself to the CC list for this issue; I'm happy to answer your questions and try to provide any technical assistance required, but the licensing issues are what they are. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199780] Review Request: dstat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dstat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199780 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version||0.6.3-5 -- 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 207612] Review Request: zidrav - Zorba's Incredible Data Repairer And Verifier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zidrav - Zorba's Incredible Data Repairer And Verifier https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207612 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 17:48 EST --- My incredibly picky eye can't find anything else wrong with this package. I don't see anything else to fix. 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 207612] Review Request: zidrav - Zorba's Incredible Data Repairer And Verifier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zidrav - Zorba's Incredible Data Repairer And Verifier https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207612 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 17:40 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) > Have you submitted the RPM patch upstream? It's always best to get the source > patched upstream so the RPM isn't required to carry a patch that may get out > of > date. Not yet, but I will. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207612] Review Request: zidrav - Zorba's Incredible Data Repairer And Verifier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zidrav - Zorba's Incredible Data Repairer And Verifier https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207612 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 17:39 EST --- New specfile uploaded: http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/zidrav.spec The patch makes the Makefile use RPM_OPT_FLAGS and adds an install: section with DESTDIR. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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: 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: Flexible WebServer Alias: Cherokee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201149 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 17:37 EST --- (I'm not a reviewer but just helping out) One of the Fedora Extras guidelines and requirements is to run rpmlint on each package - I ran it on your SRPM and it produced: *** output: *** W: cherokee non-standard-group Productivity/Networking/Web/Servers The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". E: cherokee no-changelogname-tag There is no %changelog tag in your spec file. To insert it, just insert a '%changelog' in your spec file and rebuild it. E: cherokee unknown-key GPG#6b9d6523 The package was signed, but with an unknown key. See the rpm --import option for more information. E: cherokee no-cleaning-of-buildroot You should clean $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in the %clean section and just after the beginning of %install section. Use "rm -Rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT". *** end output Don't worry about the GPG warning, it's just because it's signed with a key rpmlint doesn't know. I don't think you need to worry about the invalid group, although I would make it one of the 'standard' ones just for the sake of getting rid of the warning. The E:'s you should look into, especially the changelog. Another requirement is to have a changelog entry for each release you push, so that's a good one to have! Even if all it says is something like "initial build", that's OK. As long as there's an entry for each version you 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. 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 207612] Review Request: zidrav - Zorba's Incredible Data Repairer And Verifier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zidrav - Zorba's Incredible Data Repairer And Verifier https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207612 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 17:36 EST --- Have you submitted the RPM patch upstream? It's always best to get the source patched upstream so the RPM isn't required to carry a patch that may get out of date. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207612] Review Request: zidrav - Zorba's Incredible Data Repairer And Verifier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: zidrav - Zorba's Incredible Data Repairer And Verifier
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207612
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 17:32 EST ---
File matches upstream:
51f90a85723cae6f925efde35ce124c9 zidrav4unix-1.2.0.tar.gz
51f90a85723cae6f925efde35ce124c9 /tmp/zidrav4unix-1.2.0.tar.gz
Licence is GPL - correct
Buildroot is correct
Rpmlint is clean on the binary and source RPM
Make uses SMP flags - good
I would change the "make" and "rm" lines in the install/clean sections %{__make}
and %{__rm}.
What exactly does the rpm-patch 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 207612] New: Review Request: zidrav - Zorba's Incredible Data Repairer And Verifier
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=207612 Summary: Review Request: zidrav - Zorba's Incredible Data Repairer And Verifier 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://rpm.greysector.net/extras/zidrav.spec SRPM URL: http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/zidrav-1.2.0-1.src.rpm Description: ZIDRAV stands for "Zorba's Incredible Data Repairer And Verifier", and is an extremely useful tool for cross-checking files that have been transfered via HTTP, FTP, or some other method. What it does, is generates a checksum file, and then by comparing that checksum with the original file, it creates a patch file that can repair the corrupted file. Very cool, and saves re-downloading. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177583] Review Request: zaptel-kmod
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zaptel-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177583 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 16:53 EST --- (In reply to comment #49) > While there isn't yet a hard rule against modules that don't plan upstream > inclusion, there are a number of folks in FESCo that don't want to approve > modules that don't plan upstream inclusion. > > Any word from Digium if they might change their minds on that point? I haven't heard anything, but I haven't been asking either. I've had to put any work on Asterisk stuff to the side as things at work have gotten very busy lately. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203694] Review Request: rawstudio - digital camera raw-image converter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rawstudio - digital camera raw-image converter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203694 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 16:52 EST --- Sorry for the delay. it seems gmail started tagging as SPAM a lot of fedora related stuff, including bugzilla mails :( I will look at the missing pieces for the cvs access tomorrow THANKS A LOT! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207173] Review Request: pymsn - Python libraries for MSN Messenger network
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pymsn - Python libraries for MSN Messenger network https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207173 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||207607 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 207607] Review Request: telepathy-butterfly - MSN connection manager for Telepathy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: telepathy-butterfly - MSN connection manager for Telepathy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207607 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||207173 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207607] New: Review Request: telepathy-butterfly - MSN connection manager for Telepathy
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=207607 Summary: Review Request: telepathy-butterfly - MSN connection manager for Telepathy 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://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/telepathy/telepathy-butterfly.spec SRPM URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/telepathy/telepathy-butterfly-0.1.0-1.src.rpm Description: An MSN connection manager for Telepathy that handles presence, personal messages, and conversations Notes: 1. This package needs a filesystem package for telepathy to handle ownership of the connection managers directory, since there will be many connection managers in the future. See below for the spec file for this package. 2. Targetted for FC6. To build on FC5 it will need to be patched to find the correct directory for the dbus service file. Spec URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/telepathy/telepathy-filesystem.spec SRPM: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/telepathy/telepathy-filesystem-0.0.1-1.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 192434] Review Request: compiz-quinn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: compiz-quinn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192434 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 16:24 EST --- I tested the fork on a fresh FC5 installation. Here are de dependencies that i have installed (if that can helped somebody): autoconf.noarch 2.59-7 automake.noarch 1.9.6-2 libtool.i386 1.5.22-2.3 libXcomposite-devel.i386 0.2.2.2-2.2 libXdamage-devel.i386 1.0.2.2-2.2 startup-notification-devel.i386 0.8-3.2.1 imake.i386 1.0.1-3 dbus-devel.i386 0.61-3.fc5.1 libcroco-devel.i386 0.6.1-1 libgsf-devel.i386 1.13.3-2.2.1 librsvg2-devel.i386 2.14.4-1.fc5.1 libwnck-devel.i386 2.14.3-1.fc5 The developers does not propose packages yet and wait until a first stable release before providing theirs debian packages. I think that, it would be well if we prepare these packages in advance. Like that once a stable version relesead, we will be able to release 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 196669] Review Request: filesystem-i18n
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: filesystem-i18n https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196669 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 16:16 EST --- I'll get to it... need to go play with repoquery. -- 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 196669] Review Request: filesystem-i18n
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: filesystem-i18n https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196669 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 16:14 EST --- Bill, are you really gonna take this, or should Robert be the one to submit a new/updated package to review? -- 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 192434] Review Request: compiz-quinn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: compiz-quinn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192434 [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 187433] Review Request: acx-kmod - Open ACX100/ACX111 wireless NIC driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: acx-kmod - Open ACX100/ACX111 wireless NIC driver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187433 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 15:13 EST --- Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~athimm/fedorasubmit/libFoundation/libFoundation.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~athimm/fedorasubmit/libFoundation/libFoundation-1.1.3-10.at.src.rpm * Wed Sep 20 2006 Axel Thimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 1.1.3-10 - With the FHS changes some %%_includedir entries appeared as duplicates. Addresses the open issues from comment #4. Wrt to moving includedirs around I prefer not to. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 175433] Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175433 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 15:09 EST --- Although tsocks issues were discussed some comments above already, I will remove torify for now and add it back when tsocks exists. * Thu Sep 21 2006 Enrico Scholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 0.1.1.23-2 - simplified things yet more and removed tsocks/torify too - build -lsb unconditionally http://ensc.de/fedora/tor/ -- 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 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 14:53 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) > Yet another case of a package polluting /usr/include. > > IMO, /usr/include/extensions definitely is too general to be acceptable, the > headers in /usr/include/ are arguable. > > I strongly recommend to move all /usr/include/* to a subdirectory. I'm inclined to agree. Axel? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 175433] Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175433 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 14:45 EST --- it might just be me but does the tsocks package require... tsocks? -- 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 175433] Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175433 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 14:38 EST --- Ok, you won: * Do Sep 21 2006 Enrico Scholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 0.1.1.23-0.1 - simplified spec file and removed -initng and -minit stuff http://ensc.de/fedora/tor/ -- 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 175433] Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175433 [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 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 175433] Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175433 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 14:12 EST --- > - We've never had a policy for systematically splitting packages Exactly, there is no policy which says when to split a package. Until then, it is packager's choice whether he splits or does not split. My choice is, to split. > - If we were to use your strict splitting policy on all Fedora packages, > the total number of packages in Fedora would be multiplied by 3 or > 4. There's an inherent cost associated with increasing the number of > packages at the yum/rpm level. Is this cost measured in KB, seconds, used lines on display or bananas? Wouldn't they be outweighted by lesser dependencies and a smaller system? E.g. monolithic 'tor' might bring in initscripts, lvm2, udev... while a splitted tor brings only tor-core. Splitting seems to reduce inherent costs on yum/rpm level for me... Splitting will perhaps increase needed blocksize (1-4K) in the repository by one or two. The Used diskspace on the repository is cheap. Much cheaper than the bloat introduced by unneeded dependencies. > - Simplicity. Keep It Simple. Ok, I can remove the initscript stuff completely and provide single 'tor-lsb' and 'tor-initng' packages. Would just add two more reviews and people would complain that 'tor' main package does not have an initscript. As a compromise: I will keep -lsb in main package (as is) and remove only the -minit and -initng part. Would you accept this? > - Consistency to me is an important issue. What would bring you consistency here? Using 'yum install tor' installs consistently a 'tor' daemon with the appropriate initscripts; both with the splitted and bloated variant. > Consistency across other distributions for second. Package is for Fedora Extras; I do not request a review for Debian or Mandriva. > Not even 2M in size. Size of package does not matter for dependencies issues. A 20 byte perl script can bring in 50 MB of perl. > - Your refusal to collaborate with reviewers is hurting Fedora. Come on. Your refusal to accept views of packagers is hurting Fedora. = > 1) most, if not all other packages work like that. In Germany we have a proverb: "millions of flies can not err: shit tastes great". When you are new it might be good idea to follow the masses. But at some time you should turn on the brain and think yourself. > 2) you are insisting on custom non-FE requirements Ok, as written above, I will remove the -initng and -minit subpackage when this helps. I really do not want to continue this meta-discussion which consists only of personal views and unproved statements like "entire community". -- 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 206985] Review Request: perl-Device-SerialPort
Please 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-Device-SerialPort https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206985 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 13:44 EST --- Checked in and built and added to owners.list. Thanks for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205886] Review Request: perl-File-MMagic-XS - Guess file type with XS
Please 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-MMagic-XS - Guess file type with XS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205886 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 13:40 EST --- Built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205885] Review Request: perl-CGI-Untaint-email - Validate an email address
Please 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-CGI-Untaint-email - Validate an email address https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205885 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 13:39 EST --- Built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177583] Review Request: zaptel-kmod
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zaptel-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177583 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 13:38 EST --- While there isn't yet a hard rule against modules that don't plan upstream inclusion, there are a number of folks in FESCo that don't want to approve modules that don't plan upstream inclusion. Any word from Digium if they might change their minds on that point? (I will send an email to Kevin Fleming about this point) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187508] Review Request: acx-kmod-common - ACX100/ACX111 driver common files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: acx-kmod-common - ACX100/ACX111 driver common files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187508 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 13:31 EST --- The PCMCIA port on my laptop has died, I have no means to test this anymore, so I'm withdrawing 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 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 13:30 EST --- I've updated the spec file and the SRPM. Please see: http://osdn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/hylafax/hylafax.spec http://osdn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/hylafax/hylafax-4.3.0.11-1.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 187433] Review Request: acx-kmod - Open ACX100/ACX111 wireless NIC driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: acx-kmod - Open ACX100/ACX111 wireless NIC driver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187433 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 13:26 EST --- The PCMCIA port on my laptop has died, I have no means to test this anymore, so I'm withdrawing 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 207532] Review Request: kbackup - Back up your data in a simple, user friendly way
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kbackup - Back up your data in a simple, user friendly way https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207532 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 13:21 EST --- > I don't remember where I saw it, but other > language description and summary was a SHOULD My fault, you're right. Please ignore 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 207532] Review Request: kbackup - Back up your data in a simple, user friendly way
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: kbackup - Back up your data in a simple, user friendly
way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207532
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 13:13 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (I'm no official reviewer so the comment is just a proposal)
>
> - Use "%configure --disable-rpath" instead of "./configure --disable-rpath"
Oups... Fixed
> - Not sure about "%{__rm} -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT". PackagingGuidelines and
> ReviewGuidelines are using simple "rm -rf %{buildroot}"
When a macro is available for a command, I prefer use it.
> - Not sure about french description. In ReviewGuidelines it is a must, that
the
> spec is in American English.
I don't remember where I saw it, but other language description and summary
was a SHOULD
Spec URL:
http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SPECS/kbackup.spec
SRPM URL:
http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SRPMS/kbackup-0.4.2-3.src.rpm
%changelog
* Thu Sep 21 2006 Alain Portal 0.4.2-3
- Use macro for configure instead of hardcoding path
- Use macro style instead of variable style
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207532] Review Request: kbackup - Back up your data in a simple, user friendly way
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: kbackup - Back up your data in a simple, user friendly
way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207532
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 12:51 EST ---
(I'm no official reviewer so the comment is just a proposal)
- Use "%configure --disable-rpath" instead of "./configure --disable-rpath"
- Not sure about "%{__rm} -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT". PackagingGuidelines and
ReviewGuidelines are using simple "rm -rf %{buildroot}"
- Not sure about french description. In ReviewGuidelines it is a must, that the
spec is in American English.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207473] Review Request: ruby-activerecord - Implements the ActiveRecord pattern for ORM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-activerecord - Implements the ActiveRecord pattern for ORM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207473 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 11:58 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) > rpmlint says: > E: ruby-activerecord script-without-shellbang > /usr/share/doc/ruby-activerecord-1.14.2/README > > because it gets confused by the first line of the README. No it doesen't, README is installed executable... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195683] Review Request: smarteiffel - The GNU Eiffel Compiler and Libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: smarteiffel - The GNU Eiffel Compiler and Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195683 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 175433] Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175433 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 11:16 EST --- Re: comment 46 , Dennis said: > So please, either > - fold the package into one, so I can review it and let's get this over with > - close this bug and withdraw your review to give someone else the opportunity > to submit it. Also consider the possibility that you (both) can agree to disagree, and remove yourself as reviewer, and let someone else do 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 175433] Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175433 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 11:06 EST --- > Reviewers want the one-package structure but do not give a single argument why > this should be done or why multiple packages are bad. No, you are refusing to hear them. 1) most, if not all other packages work like that. When people introduce initng, if it will happen at all in the future, then that's a good time to redo this package along with the hundreds of other packages 2) you are insisting on custom non-FE requirements 3) your requires are custom and don't take into account the regular FE base install (that includes lvm2 etc, you call bloat) 4) spec file is overly complex (and a reason people are not approving it) 5) You are blowing up a simple package into many subpackages which is completely unneccessary on a FC/FE machine (versus your development box where you need it) I guess the FE new package submission needs a way to DISapprove a package so these deadlocks do not occur. -- 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 207532] New: Review Request: kbackup - Back up your data in a simple, user friendly way
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=207532 Summary: Review Request: kbackup - Back up your data in a simple, user friendly way 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://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SPECS/kbackup.spec SRPM URL: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SRPMS/kbackup-0.4.2-2.src.rpm Description: KBackup is a program that lets you back up any directories or files, whereby it uses an easy to use directory tree to select the things to back up. The program was designed to be very simple in its use so that it can be used by non-computer experts. The storage format is the well known TAR format, whereby the data is still stored in compressed format (bzip2 or gzip). %changelog * Thu Sep 21 2006 Alain Portal 0.4.2-2 - Add patch to fix some typo in fr.po - Add patch to frenchify x-kbp.desktop * Wed Sep 20 2006 Alain Portal 0.4.2-1 - Initial Fedora RPM - Add patch to frenchify kbackup.desktop -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192313] Review Request: koan
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: koan https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192313 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 10:08 EST --- Thanks: - %doc section fixed - typo fixed - INSTALLED_FILES fixed I've made the same fixes to cobbler. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206478] Review Request: Yumdiff - Compares RPMS installed on local and remote systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Yumdiff - Compares RPMS installed on local and remote systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206478 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 09:57 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > What your script basically does at the moment, is fetching > /var/log/rpmpkgs via ssh from a remote host and diff it against the local one. > > 1. This working principle can't work. > 2. Your script produces bogus results (probably bugs) > 3. Your script relies on many preliminaries on the remote host > 4. ... > > All in all, I feel your script to be in a very early stage. I'm considering changing it to call rpm -qa and sort the results directly, rather that relying on the /etc/cron.daily/rpm having run, which would likely address #2. As for #3, I felt if same to assume that most networked Fedora hosts would have ssh running and rpm installed. Could you elaborate on #1? I'm not sure I follow what you mean. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206478] Review Request: Yumdiff - Compares RPMS installed on local and remote systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Yumdiff - Compares RPMS installed on local and remote systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206478 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 09:50 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > I've frozen any changes while working on the submission process. What changes > or improvements do you suggest? I'm open to any suggestions. What your script basically does at the moment, is fetching /var/log/rpmpkgs via ssh from a remote host and diff it against the local one. 1. This working principle can't work. 2. Your script produces bogus results (probably bugs) 3. Your script relies on many preliminaries on the remote host 4. ... All in all, I feel your script to be in a very early stage. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206985] Review Request: perl-Device-SerialPort
Please 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-Device-SerialPort https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206985 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 09:44 EST --- Hmm, that didn't seem to work. Ah, the URL immediately above is wrong; s/1.002-1/1.002-2/ and it's OK. Everything looks good now. 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 206693] Review Request: KTechlab - Development and simulation of microcontrollers and electronic circuits
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: KTechlab - Development and simulation of microcontrollers and electronic circuits https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206693 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 08:41 EST --- Well, (In reply to comment #7) > This is owned by kdebase, hence I should add it as Requires Is kdebase required only for the dependency for /usr/share/config.kcfg/ ? Actually I don't use KDE and currently I don't have kdelibs installed. However, this package seems to work well (at least by checking: ktechlab examples.circuit and examples.circuit is from http://ktechlab.org/screenshots/ ). So, if it is only for the ownership problem that kdelibs should be required, I think that /usr/share/config.kcfg/ should be owned by ktechlab, too and kdebase should not be required. And.. > gputils for assembly: > KTechlab provides integration with gputils for quick assembly and testing of > progams. Well, this means that it is _useful_ that KTechlab is installed together with gputils, however, this does not mean that KTechlab is completely unusable without gputils? For me, executing "ktechlab examples.circuit" seems to work without gputils . Well, I cannot judge correctly if this is working as you desired, however, at least ktechlab seems to launch normally and read circult correctly. IMO, the explicit dependency for gputils, gpsim can be removed. Also, check for BuildRequires and something else. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2
Please 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-RPM2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|fedora-perl-devel-
||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 08:34 EST ---
CC += fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
* I believe Jason is no longer around; maybe Robin Norwood could take over
this and try to contact the Red Hat Legal Department
* The core perl-RPM-Specfile package has the same problem:
- same author (Chip Turner)
- same initial packager (Chip Turner)
- it doesn't contain any copyright information
(http://search.cpan.org/dist/RPM-Specfile/)
- the specfile states the license is "GPL or Artistic"
$ rpm -qp --qf="%{license}\n" perl-RPM-Specfile-1.19-2.1.1.src.rpm
GPL or Artistic
* The upstream RPM package started including the perl RPM[2] module as of 4.4.3.
It now generates a rpm-perl subpackage (http://wraptastic.org/pub/rpm-4.4.x/)
$ rpm -qpl rpm-perl-4.4.3-1.i386.rpm
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7/i386-linux-thread-multi/RPM2.pm
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/RPM2
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/RPM2/RPM2.so
/usr/share/man/man3/RPM2.3pm.gz
$ rpm -qpl rpm-perl-4.4.6-1.i386.rpm
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/RPM.pm
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/RPM
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/RPM/RPM.so
/usr/share/man/man3/RPM.3pm.gz
Note: the rpm maintainer has renamed the perl module (RPM2 -> 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 175433] Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175433 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 08:24 EST --- (In reply to comment #46) > - Your refusal to collaborate with reviewers is hurting Fedora. You're > essentially blackballing a number of useful packages from entering Fedora, > since > you're holding a temporary monopoly on those particular package reviews. That's the rule of the game. Maybe it could be changed, but I don't think this example call for that change. It is not a refusal to cooperate, but a disagreement. I haven't looked deeply at this, but I tend to think that both approaches are valid (split and unsplit) each with pros and cons. The dependencies are better isolated with Enrico approach while it is simpler and more generic unsplit. > The fact that the entire community doens't support your splitting proposal, > and > the fact that no other distros does it should *at least* give you a hint that > something is wrong with your reasoning. You can't be serious if you think > you're > right and everyone else is wrong. That's a wrong assumption. The number isn't a proof of correctness. Especially when the people having looked at the issue is only a subset of the community. And given the rules, Enrico needs only to find one reviewer who backs up his view. Anybody disagreeing might then throw the issue on the extras list, but currently 2 people may be against all the other packagers (not that I consider that to be a healthy situation). -- 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 206478] Review Request: Yumdiff - Compares RPMS installed on local and remote systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Yumdiff - Compares RPMS installed on local and remote systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206478 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 07:15 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > Jon, are you actively working on improving yumdiff? > > I am having serious doubts if this script in its current shape is ready for > inclusion in FE. I've frozen any changes while working on the submission process. What changes or improvements do you suggest? I'm open to any suggestions. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 175433] Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175433 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 07:11 EST --- (In reply to comment #46) > - Enrico, nobody is doubting your technical expertise, but I just think your > reasoning doesn't fall within the scope of what Fedora is. Fedora is not a > distro targetted at the embedded world, and mock seems to work pretty well is > it > now, so I don't understand the quest for the smallest system possible. Given that Fedora is heavily involved in the OLPC project, I suspect that bloated dependency chains are likely to become more of an issue and get more attention in the FC7 timeframe. Enrico is a little "ahead of the game" here but I can see the approach of splitting packages up to fine-tune dependencies becoming more common in the near future. -- 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 207473] Review Request: ruby-activerecord - Implements the ActiveRecord pattern for ORM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-activerecord - Implements the ActiveRecord pattern for ORM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207473 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||207472 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 07:04 EST --- rpmlint says: E: ruby-activerecord script-without-shellbang /usr/share/doc/ruby-activerecord-1.14.2/README because it gets confused by the first line of the README. Should b ignorable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207472] Review Request: ruby-activesupport - Utility classes and extension to Ruby's standard library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-activesupport - Utility classes and extension to Ruby's standard library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207472 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||207473 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207473] New: Review Request: ruby-activerecord - Implements the ActiveRecord pattern for ORM
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=207473 Summary: Review Request: ruby-activerecord - Implements the ActiveRecord pattern for ORM Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/spec/ruby-activerecord.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/SRPMS/ruby-activerecord-1.14.2-1.src.rpm Description: Implements the ActiveRecord pattern (Fowler, PoEAA) for ORM. It ties database tables and classes together for business objects, like Customer or Subscription, that can find, save, and destroy themselves without resorting to manual SQL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207472] Review Request: ruby-activesupport - Utility classes and extension to Ruby's standard library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-activesupport - Utility classes and extension to Ruby's standard library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207472 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 06:59 EST --- Output from rpmlint: E: ruby-activesupport non-executable-script /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/active_support/vendor/builder/xmlbase.rb 0644 E: ruby-activesupport non-executable-script /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/active_support/vendor/builder/blankslate.rb 0644 E: ruby-activesupport non-executable-script /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/active_support/vendor/builder/xmlmarkup.rb 0644 E: ruby-activesupport non-executable-script /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/active_support/vendor/builder/xmlevents.rb 0644 E: ruby-activesupport non-executable-script /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/active_support/vendor/builder.rb 0644 While these files all start with #!/usr/bin/ruby, they are mainly used as a library, and included by the toplevel active_support.rb, so I think this warning should be ignored -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207472] New: Review Request: ruby-activesupport - Utility classes and extension to Ruby's standard library
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=207472 Summary: Review Request: ruby-activesupport - Utility classes and extension to Ruby's standard library Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/spec/ruby-activesupport.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/SRPMS/ruby-activesupport-1.3.1-1.src.rpm Description: Utility classes and extension to the standard library that were required by Rails, but found of general use. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 175433] Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tor - Anonymizing overlay network for TCP (The onion router) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175433 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 06:31 EST --- > Reviewers want the one-package structure but do not give a single > argument why this should be done or why multiple packages are bad. Sure, let's give it a shot. - We've never had a policy for systematically splitting packages strictly based on a couple of fairly common packages. The policy is mostly based on common-sense, i.e. when the subpackage has a real dependency bloat issue such as bringing in the entire java stack, or gstreamer, or 25 perl packages. - If we were to use your strict splitting policy on all Fedora packages, the total number of packages in Fedora would be multiplied by 3 or 4. There's an inherent cost associated with increasing the number of packages at the yum/rpm level. Yum is improving all the time but it has enough work to do as it is. - Simplicity. Keep It Simple. I'm looking at the tor tarball, and it's dreadfully simple. No complicated dependencies, very small number of installed files. Not even 2M in size. So the complexity you're introducing in the spec file doesn't match the complexity of the upstream project. - Consistency to me is an important issue. Consistency across Fedora for one. To use more or less similar guidelines for packages split. Consistency across other distributions for second. - Your refusal to collaborate with reviewers is hurting Fedora. You're essentially blackballing a number of useful packages from entering Fedora, since you're holding a temporary monopoly on those particular package reviews. - Enrico, nobody is doubting your technical expertise, but I just think your reasoning doesn't fall within the scope of what Fedora is. Fedora is not a distro targetted at the embedded world, and mock seems to work pretty well is it now, so I don't understand the quest for the smallest system possible. The SysV init is the default and only init system available right now, so isolating that dependency right now doesn't make sense. Especially since we'll end up with a subpackage containing a single 1.8 Kbytes shell script. The fact that the entire community doens't support your splitting proposal, and the fact that no other distros does it should *at least* give you a hint that something is wrong with your reasoning. You can't be serious if you think you're right and everyone else is wrong. So please, either - fold the package into one, so I can review it and let's get this over with - close this bug and withdraw your review to give someone else the opportunity to submit 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 192313] Review Request: koan
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: koan https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192313 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 05:49 EST --- Looks good; some more comments which won't hold up the review: - Include COPYING (and README. maybe AUTHORS) in the rpm with '%doc COPYING README' - The description has a small type (s/Koan standards/Koan stands/) - Remove the INSTALLED_FILES business from %install, since it's not used anymore I'll approve this as soon as you've been sponsored. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202946] Review Request: aqsis - 3D Rendering system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202946 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 05:19 EST --- Okay, let's go with 1) for now, to finish this review. I'd like aqsis to make it into FE when FC6 comes out, so that we have the k3d/aqsis pair available. Let me know if there are still things you want me change. After the package approval, I'll start working on a new version based on a CVS snapshot. Ubuntu uses a snapshot from 2005/08/15 (a year old!). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: hylafax
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-21 04:07 EST ---
The %changelog is very out-of-date.
> %define faxspool%{_var}/spool/hylafax
Since /var is hardcoded pretty much everywhere, e.g. in the initscript,
using %{_var} here doesn't add any safety. Just use /var unless
it were possible to propagate the value of %{_var} into all relevant
files.
> %install
> [ "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" != "/" ] && rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> %clean
> [ "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" != "/" ] && rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Both checks are not needed by default and are not reliable.
Simply "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" has been used in thousands
of packages for many many years.
> %makeinstall -e \
If %configure is not used, using %makeinstall makes no sense either.
Prefer "make install ..." just like it's correct for most other packages.
>>>
# Starting from 4.1.6, port/install.sh won't chown/chmod anymore if the current
# user is not root; instead a file root.sh is created with chown/chmod inside.
#
# If you build the rpm as normal user (not root) you get an rpm with all the
# permissions messed up and hylafax will give various weird errors.
#
# The following line fixes that.
#
[ -f root.sh ] && sh root.sh
<<<
If this is true, there are packaging errors left somewhere. This
comment in the spec file doesn't sound right at least. The rpm must
build as normal user and must not rely on chown/chmod. Make sure the
%attr(...) settings are complete for any files that really need them
and without depending on any execution of chown/chmod.
*If*, however, (and I believe you do) you only intended to justify
why "root.sh" must be executed when installing Hylafax from tarball
as non-root user, the comment is just misleading/confusing.
> $ rpm -qlvp hylafax-debuginfo-4.3.0.3-1.i386.rpm
> (contains no files)
This is because in root.sh (and maybe elsewhere, too) the executables
are stripped, which should not be done, and which makes the debuginfo
package useless.
> drwxr-xr-x uucp uucp 0 /var/spool/hylafax/bin
> -rw-r--r-- uucp uucp 14072 /var/spool/hylafax/etc/lutRS18.pcf
Wouldn't root:root ownership suffice?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
