[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] 2006-09-24 02:18 EST --- (In reply to comment #18) No call to gputils ;) (In reply to comment #19) OK, these probably contain calls to gputils. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 03:21 EST --- So, who is currently reviewing 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 207761] Review Request: xpdf - A PDF file viewer for the X Window 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: xpdf - A PDF file viewer for the X Window System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207761 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 04:32 EST --- It is almost right from my point of view, but I still have some comments... * Using the acroread png for xpdf seems quite wrong to me, it may even be a trademark violation (but I don't know that subject a lot). I found an icon which should be much more suitable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Xpdf-icon.PNG the acroread.png could, however be used for pdf files in my opinion. However I guess such icons are allready shipped with fedora. * Maybe the config files for the different languages in /etc/xpdf should have a %lang() in %files -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206487] Review Request: jd - A 2ch browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jd - A 2ch browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206487 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207763] Review Request: ddd - GUI for several command-line debuggers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ddd - GUI for several command-line debuggers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207763 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 04:51 EST --- * desktop-file-install vendor should be fedora * many BR are allready indirectly required: lesstif-devel requires libXext-devel libXp-devel libXt-devel libXt-devel requires libX11-devel libSM-devel libSM-devel requires libICE-devel * is the .gz needed in the install info snippet? Wouldn't it be better without? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207761] Review Request: xpdf - A PDF file viewer for the X Window 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: xpdf - A PDF file viewer for the X Window System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207761 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 05:07 EST --- Yet another, I think that Requires(post): desktop-file-utils Requires(postun): desktop-file-utils should be replaced by BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207082] Review Request: perl-Feed-Find - Syndication feed auto-discovery
Please 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-Feed-Find - Syndication feed auto-discovery https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207082 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 07:22 EST --- Thanks for the review. I imported in cvs after removing the test in %prep. It built in devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-09-24 07:31 EST --- I'm unsure. Does Scott have fedorabugs membership? I can't verify, because the site is timing out on me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207839] New: Review Request: lush - An object-oriented Lisp interpreter and compiler
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=207839 Summary: Review Request: lush - An object-oriented Lisp interpreter and compiler 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://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/spec/lush.spec SRPM URL: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/lush-1.2-1.src.rpm Description: Lush is an object-oriented programming language designed for researchers, experimenters, and engineers interested in large-scale numerical and graphic applications. Lush is designed to be used in situations where one would want to combine the flexibility of a high-level, loosely-typed interpreted language, with the efficiency of a strongly-typed, natively-compiled language, and with the easy integration of code written in C, C++, or other languages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 173459] Review Request: initng
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: initng https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173459 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #136952|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 07:50 EST --- Created an attachment (id=137015) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=137015action=view) initng 0.6.8-3 spec file - Fix up permissions of .so files - Remove the rpath stuff that works out-of-the-box with recent cmake - Include Enrico's patch to check if there is any selinux (Thanks a lot for that one Enrico!) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207798] Review Request: perl-Test-File - Test file attributes
Please 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-Test-File - Test file attributes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207798 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 08:00 EST --- Also built for FC-5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-09-24 08:01 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) I'm unsure. Does Scott have fedorabugs membership? I can't verify, because the site is timing out on me. It seems. Here are some of the main details about this user: muerte is Scott Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Their GPG key ID is 7b709def. Comments: Member of groups: cla_done(user/approved) fedorabugs(user/approved) cvsextras(user/approved) Umm.. I don't know why Scott's mail address differs However, this is surely him because the user (muerte) is the maintainer of qcomicbook (bug 204343) and in the bug he uses the mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207795] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic - Critique Perl source code for best-practices
Please 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-Perl-Critic - Critique Perl source code for best-practices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207795 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 08:02 EST --- Just built for FC-5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207796] Review Request: eventlog - Syslog-ng v2 support 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: eventlog - Syslog-ng v2 support library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207796 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 08:07 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) It's not necessary to have: Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig since you are using the %post -p /sbin/ldconfig form for your scriptlets. Not a blocker, of course, but /sbin/ldconfig does show up four times in the dependency list. The redundant requirements were removed. Package imported and built for FC-5 and devel. 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 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] 2006-09-24 08:41 EST --- gputils is the name of the package that is a set of tools, not of the binaries. The binaries that are called are gpasm, gpdasm, gplib, gplink -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 173459] Review Request: initng
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: initng https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173459 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 09:06 EST --- ok, both initng and initng-ifiles are ACCEPTed - remaining rpmlint warnings can be ignored - basic checks on my system show that 'initng' works -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207047] Review Request: ed2k_hash - Ed2k file hash calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ed2k_hash - Ed2k file hash calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207047 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 09:48 EST --- http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/ed2k_hash.spec http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/ed2k_hash-0.4.0-2.src.rpm - added dist tag - converted AUTHORS to utf8 - added an icon from ed2k-gtk-gui -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207047] Review Request: ed2k_hash - Ed2k file hash calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ed2k_hash - Ed2k file hash calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207047 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 10:36 EST --- Well, one thing to be fixed. All %post, %postun scriptlets should be for gui package. I want to check this package once more to check if the icon installed appear on GNOME menu. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207782] Review Request: itpp - C++ library for math, signal/speech processing, and communications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: itpp - C++ library for math, signal/speech processing, and communications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207782 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 10:43 EST --- Hi Ralf, heres an update where I've tried to address all of the items in the two above comments: http://mitgcm.org/eh3/fedora_misc/itpp-3.10.5-3.src.rpm Also, I found that the --disable-dependency-tracking shaved the build time by 5% on my otherwise inactive laptop (6.33min vs. 6.02min). I didn't add it to the spec file this time but probably will soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 12:17 EST --- I can contact Chip to clarify the license. Since FC5 and FC6 both still seem to have rpm-4.4.2, I assume we still want to get this into extras, yes? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185423] Review Request: php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging: make-rpm-spec command for PEAR Alias: php-pear-PCP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185423 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 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 207846] New: Review Request: perl-Finance-YahooQuote - Perl interface to get stock quotes from Yahoo! Finance
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=207846 Summary: Review Request: perl-Finance-YahooQuote - Perl interface to get stock quotes from Yahoo! Finance 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 http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/perl-Finance-YahooQuote-0.21-1.src.rpm http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/perl-Finance-YahooQuote.spec Description: Perl interface to get stock quotes from Yahoo! Finance -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 13:13 EST --- I wrote this and RPM::Specfile while at red hat. The license is the same as perl itself: Perl5 is Copyright (C) 1993-2005, by Larry Wall and others. It is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either: a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option) any later version, or b) the Artistic License. from: http://dev.perl.org/licenses/ A lawyer or two from RH contacted me and I've told them the above on a few occasions. I'll look into making new CPAN releases of these modules with a clear license as well. HTH -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207806] Review Request: evolution-bogofilter - A plugin for bogofilter support in evolution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: evolution-bogofilter - A plugin for bogofilter support in evolution https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207806 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 14:18 EST --- when trying to build on x86_64 I get: checking for BF_EPLUGIN... configure: error: Package requirements ( glib-2.0 evolution-plugin-2.8 camel-provider-1.2 gconf-2.0 ) were not met: Package camel-provider-1.2 was not found in the pkg-config search path. Perhaps you should add the directory containing `camel-provider-1.2.pc' to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable Package 'camel-provider-1.2', required by 'evolution-plugin', not found Consider adjusting the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable if you installed software in a non-standard prefix. Alternatively, you may set the environment variables BF_EPLUGIN_CFLAGS and BF_EPLUGIN_LIBS to avoid the need to call pkg-config. See the pkg-config man page for more details. Solution: The package needs to BR: evolution-data-server-devel -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-09-24 14:25 EST --- This is what I'll upload: SPEC: http://chitlesh.funpic.de/rpm/ktechlab.spec SRPM: http://chitlesh.funpic.de/rpm/ktechlab-0.3-3.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 207846] Review Request: perl-Finance-YahooQuote - Perl interface to get stock quotes from Yahoo! Finance
Please 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-Finance-YahooQuote - Perl interface to get stock quotes from Yahoo! Finance Alias: finance-YahooQuote https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207846 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: perl- |Review Request: perl- |Finance-YahooQuote - Perl |Finance-YahooQuote - Perl |interface to get stock |interface to get stock |quotes from Yahoo! Finance |quotes from Yahoo! Finance Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| Alias||finance-YahooQuote -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193867] Review Request: klamav - Clam Anti-Virus on the KDE Desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: klamav - Clam Anti-Virus on the KDE Desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193867 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 14:34 EST --- ping ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207846] Review Request: perl-Finance-YahooQuote - Perl interface to get stock quotes from Yahoo! Finance
Please 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-Finance-YahooQuote - Perl interface to get stock quotes from Yahoo! Finance Alias: finance-YahooQuote https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207846 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 14:40 EST --- BuildRequires needs perl(HTTP::Request::Common) in order for mock to run %check. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199108] Review Request: gutenprint: Printer Drivers Package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gutenprint: Printer Drivers Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 14:59 EST --- I would like to add that I would very much like to see this in FC6 core. I have been hand compiling and installing gutenprint for over a year now in order to support a printer that isn't properly supported by gimp-print. This has been very irritating to do, and I've gotten parts of it wrong leading to the need to configure printers through the ipp web interface instead of using system-config-printers and having garbage i18n characters show up in ipp. I'm thinking of moving a couple of friends I support to Ubuntu just because they have gutenprint. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206487] Review Request: jd - A 2ch browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jd - A 2ch browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206487 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 15:08 EST --- * missing Requires: gtkmm24 -bash-3.1# rpm -ivh jd-170-0.1.b_060914.fc5.i386.rpm error: Failed dependencies: libatkmm-1.6.so.1 is needed by jd-170-0.1.b_060914.fc5.i386 libgdkmm-2.4.so.1 is needed by jd-170-0.1.b_060914.fc5.i386 libgtkmm-2.4.so.1 is needed by jd-170-0.1.b_060914.fc5.i386 libpangomm-1.4.so.1 is needed by jd-170-0.1.b_060914.fc5.i386 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207805] Review Request: skey - one-time password crap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: skey - one-time password crap https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207805 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 15:32 EST --- You rpmlint listing contains some messsages line 'no-url-tag' which vaiolates the packaging guidelines. If you may fix it, I will be willing to review your package. Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207805] Review Request: skey - one-time password crap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: skey - one-time password crap https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207805 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 15:45 EST --- As I said in the original comment, there is no appropriate URL to give. I suppose I could give 'file:/dev/null' or repeat the download tarball filename, but that seems strange. The guidelines don't really mandate the presence of a URL, do they? I'm looking at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines -- neither of which say that there must be a URL, unless I'm being particularly dim this evening. Thanks for the review, btw. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207853] New: Review Request: tclabc - A Tcl interface and a Tk GUI to the ABC notation
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=207853 Summary: Review Request: tclabc - A Tcl interface and a Tk GUI to the ABC notation 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://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/spec/tclabc.spec SRPM URL: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/tclabc-1.0.7-1.src.rpm Description: Tclabc is designed to help on writing music in ABC notation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207846] Review Request: perl-Finance-YahooQuote - Perl interface to get stock quotes from Yahoo! Finance
Please 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-Finance-YahooQuote - Perl interface to get stock quotes from Yahoo! Finance Alias: finance-YahooQuote https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207846 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 17:24 EST --- Oops, we need to turn off the %check because a package build must not require network access. Thanks. http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/perl-Finance-YahooQuote-0.21-2.src.rpm http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/perl-Finance-YahooQuote.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 201006] Review Request: HelixPlayer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: HelixPlayer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201006 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 17:55 EST --- Hi Aurelien, Thanks for working on this! Been a bit busy of late :( I am working on juggling things so I can remain a contrib dev and not have to orphan up all my packages. If you don't mind continuing with the packaging this, we can discuss long term maintainership off line once I am back on my feet, if you like? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 18:20 EST --- And I didn't even have to say his name three times! Paul, is the above sufficient, or do you need to wait for the new CPAN release? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206989] Review Request: twinkle - A SIP Soft Phone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: twinkle - A SIP Soft Phone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206989 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 18:53 EST --- ok, new version up: * Sun Sep 24 2006 Kevin Fenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.8.1-2 - Add bind-libbind-devel as a BuildRequires and link against it to fix private glibc symbols. - Add alsa-lib-devel and kdelibs-devel BuildRequires Linking against libbind instead of libresolv seems to solve all the private symbol issues. adding alsa-lib-devel adds ALSA support. adding kdelibs-devel to add KDE support. Spec URL: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/extras/twinkle/twinkle.spec SRPM URL: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/extras/twinkle/twinkle-0.8.1-2.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207805] Review Request: skey - one-time password crap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: skey - one-time password crap https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207805 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 19:30 EST --- http://www.tux.org/pub/net/olaf-kirch/dontuse/linux-skey.lsm says that the license of the utils is unknown. This is clearly unacceptable for Fedora. I personally dislike the presence of the word 'crap' in package summary. What is the point of packaging this, anyway? This software seems to be ancient. Why is it located in a directory named 'dontuse'? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206487] Review Request: jd - A 2ch browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jd - A 2ch browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206487 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 19:59 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) * missing Requires: gtkmm24 -bash-3.1# rpm -ivh jd-170-0.1.b_060914.fc5.i386.rpm error: Failed dependencies: libatkmm-1.6.so.1 is needed by jd-170-0.1.b_060914.fc5.i386 libgdkmm-2.4.so.1 is needed by jd-170-0.1.b_060914.fc5.i386 libgtkmm-2.4.so.1 is needed by jd-170-0.1.b_060914.fc5.i386 libpangomm-1.4.so.1 is needed by jd-170-0.1.b_060914.fc5.i386 As written in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-0711805dd733fe3b31741e9d5236d72941a79d94 requires to satisfy libraries (in this case gtkmm24) is not needed to be written explicitly. rpmbuild automatically adds those libraries' dependency to rpm package and yum will automatically choose other rpms to satisfy libraries' dependency. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207761] Review Request: xpdf - A PDF file viewer for the X Window 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: xpdf - A PDF file viewer for the X Window System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207761 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 23:09 EST --- I disagree on two items: - the lang on the config files, the config files are actually in english. - While the BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils is correct, the Requires(post) and (postun) are also correct due to the scriptlet in %post and %postun (update-desktop-database is called). The icon is a definite mustfix, and I've corrected it in -20. New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/xpdf-3.01-20.fc6.src.rpm New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/xpdf.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 199108] Review Request: gutenprint: Printer Drivers Package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gutenprint: Printer Drivers Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199108 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-24 23:56 EST --- kevin, Can you plz put gutenprint packages for x86_64 for fc5/fc6?? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199108] Review Request: gutenprint: Printer Drivers Package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gutenprint: Printer Drivers Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199108 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-25 00:39 EST --- Sure, I would be happy to... For some reason the x86_64 build isn't working for me now. I get: RPM build errors: File not found: /var/tmp/gutenprint-5.0.0-0.11.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/ cups/filter/rastertogutenprint.5.0 Perhaps some change in core? Any ideas? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207805] Review Request: skey - one-time password crap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: skey - one-time password crap https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207805 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-25 00:48 EST --- There is no requirement for a URL tag; if there is no upstream home page then it would be pointless to include a URL. The word crap does not appear in the package's summary, just this bugzilla ticket. (Check the specfile and you'll see.) One thing that concerns me is that the software is dated 1999, the upstream tarball lives in a directory named dontuse, and the package includes a root-owned setuid binary. I'm not competent to evaluate this software for vulnerabilities, but it would be good to know the potential exposure. However, the license (or general lack thereof) is indeed troubling, and without clarification I think this does render this package unacceptable for extras. The PAM stuff is indicated to be GPL (but carries no license statement that I can see), md5.* is public domain, and the rest is pretty much indeterminate. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199108] Review Request: gutenprint: Printer Drivers Package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gutenprint: Printer Drivers Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199108 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-25 00:58 EST --- rastertogutenprint.5.0 is a part of gutenprint-cups package. Its building fine on i386. Can you mock build it and check for any errors in build.log? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-09-25 01:13 EST --- MD5Sum a1c6efad2d042b7b54da114852687df4 tor-0.1.0.15-setgroups.patch 33ce7155f545c4d30cb846d7017cc6c2 tor-0.1.1.23.tar.gz e1c9fd2bd8fb03c1f35028fbe7d19585 tor-0.1.1.23.tar.gz.asc 56c122286a73ed67308cf2864a246c7a tor.logrotate fa520d134658dc6919af24a1218b3676 tor.lsb c83c1cb67453e47bf710f899b9e58976 tor.spec 8cef32dff6452c22873846adc6041d86 tor-0.1.1.23-2.fc5x.src.rpm Cosmetic: * The gpg file is nice in that it alerts me to its presence on the upstream download site but unless I have the signing gpg key in my web of trust I'm still going to have to run around the internet verifying that the gpg signature comes from upstream and that the key that made it probably belongs to the developers by which time I've downloaded the file from the internet myself. So the case for including it is only so-so to me. (Not a blocker, though.) Rpmlint: *.src.rpm: W: tor strange-permission tor.lsb 0775 - Ignorable, this is the initscript for SysVinit. E: tor hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/lsb/install_initd E: tor hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/lsb/remove_initd - Ignorable, you're just calling chkconfig via the lsb standard names. W: tor macro-in-%changelog doc - Line 221 has a bare %doc instead of %%doc. W: tor mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs - Cosmetic. Rpmlint: tor: E: tor no-binary - Igorable as this is a meta-package. Romlint: tor-core: E: tor-core non-standard-gid /etc/tor/torrc toranon E: tor-core non-standard-gid /var/log/tor toranon E: tor-core non-standard-uid /var/lib/tor toranon E: tor-core non-standard-gid /var/lib/tor toranon - toranon is fine so these are ignorable. E: tor-core non-readable /etc/tor/torrc 0640 E: tor-core non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/tor 0730 E: tor-core non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/tor 0700 - Should be fine as well. E: tor-core incoherent-logrotate-file /etc/logrotate.d/tor - rpmlint is confused because the package is named tor-core. This is ignorable. Rpmlint: tor-lsb: W: tor-lsb conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/tor E: tor-lsb executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/tor - As explained earlier, this is normal for init scripts. W: tor-lsb no-documentation - Documentation is in the main package. This is ignorable. E: tor-lsb non-standard-uid /var/run/tor toranon E: tor-lsb non-standard-gid /var/run/tor toranon - This is fine. W: tor-lsb hidden-file-or-dir /etc/tor/.have-lsb E: tor-lsb zero-length /etc/tor/.have-lsb W: tor-lsb non-conffile-in-etc /etc/tor/.have-lsb - The .have-lsb file seems to be a marker identifying which set of init scripts is installed for things like the logrotate script. So it's state of the system rather than configuration. So not marking it %config makes sense. But putting it in /var might be better than /etc. Also, is there a reason to make it hidden? If not, perhaps: /var/lib/tor/have-lsb would be better. E: tor-lsb postin-without-chkconfig /etc/rc.d/init.d/tor E: tor-lsb preun-without-chkconfig /etc/rc.d/init.d/tor - You're calling chkconfig by its lsb name, /usr/lib/lsb/install_initd so this is ignorable. W: tor-lsb incoherent-init-script-name tor - Once again, rpmlint is confused by the tor-lsb package name so this is ignorable. Good: * Source and signature matches upstream * Signature verified created by: #28988BF5: Roger Dingledine [EMAIL PROTECTED] and is a valid signature for the source. * Package meets the Naming guidelines * License, BSD, is OSI approved and matches what is documented in the spec. * LICENSE is included in %files. * BuildRequires are listed. * Package has no locales; language files in documentation are marked with the appropriate languages. * No shared libraries. * Not relocatable. * Package owns all the directories it creates. * No duplicate files listed. * Permissions properly set. * Package has a proper %clean section. * Macros used consistently. * Package contains code. * Documentation fits comfortably into the main package. * Documentation does not affect package at runtime. * No libraries. * Not a GUI application. * Package owns all files and directories that it creates and no extraneous ones.* Scriptlets are sane. They use fedora-usermgmt to create and delete a system uid/gid. They install the tor init scripts but don't start the service. * Builds in mock on x86_64. Summary: Fixing the macro in changelog and moving /etc/tor/.have-lsb to /var/lib/tor/have_lsb are the only things I see to be fixed here. If you're okay with those changes I'll approve. I've gone through all the previous comments as well and I think there's a bit of tempest
[Bug 207853] Review Request: tclabc - A Tcl interface and a Tk GUI to the ABC notation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: tclabc - A Tcl interface and a Tk GUI to the ABC
notation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207853
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-25 01:16 EST ---
{Not Official Reviewer}
packaging looks ok.
+ Mockbuild is successfull for i386 FC6
- rpmlint on source rpm is not silent
W: tclabc 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.
+ rpmlint on binary rpm is silent
- dist tag is NOT present
+ Buildroot is correct
+ source URL is correct
+ BR is correct
+ License used is GPL
+ License file LICENSE is included
+ MD5 sum on tarball is matching upstream tarball
34dbcb0177e11888d23ca7fa2304fb17 tclabc-1.0.7.tar.gz
+ No duplicate files
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207853] Review Request: tclabc - A Tcl interface and a Tk GUI to the ABC notation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tclabc - A Tcl interface and a Tk GUI to the ABC notation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207853 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-25 01:19 EST --- You may like to use sed -i -e 's|\t| |g' tclabc.spec to remove that rpmlint warning -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199108] Review Request: gutenprint: Printer Drivers Package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gutenprint: Printer Drivers Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199108 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-25 01:24 EST --- It looks like it's installing that under /usr/lib on x86_64, instead of /usr/ lib64... ;( grep rastertogutenprint.5.0 build.log: /bin/sh ../../libtool --mode=install /usr/bin/install -c 'rastertogutenprint.5.0' '/var/tmp/gutenprint-5.0.0-0.11.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/ lib/cups/filter/rastertogutenprint.5.0' /usr/bin/install -c .libs/rastertogutenprint.5.0 /var/tmp/gutenprint-5.0.0- 0.11.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib/cups/filter/rastertogutenprint.5.0 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/gutenprint-5.0.0-0.11.fc6-root-mockbuild/ usr/lib/cups/filter/rastertogutenprint.5.0 error: File not found: /var/tmp/gutenprint-5.0.0-0.11.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/ lib64/cups/filter/rastertogutenprint.5.0 File not found: /var/tmp/gutenprint-5.0.0-0.11.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/ cups/filter/rastertogutenprint.5.0 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207839] Review Request: lush - An object-oriented Lisp interpreter and compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: lush - An object-oriented Lisp interpreter and compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207839
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-25 01:30 EST ---
{Not Official Reviewer}
- Mockbuild is Failed for i386 FC6
unix.c:1072: warning: ignoring return value of 'fgets', declared with attribute
warn_unused_result
gcc -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DNO_DEBUG -Wall -O3 -march=i686
-mmmx -msse -I../include -pthread -I/usr/include/freetype2 -c dldbfd.c
dldbfd.c: In function 'init_global_symbol_table':
dldbfd.c:686: error: too few arguments to function 'bfd_hash_table_init'
dldbfd.c: In function 'link_archive_members':
dldbfd.c:2725: error: too few arguments to function 'bfd_hash_table_init'
dldbfd.c: In function 'dld_find_executable':
dldbfd.c:3188: warning: ignoring return value of 'getcwd', declared with
attribute warn_unused_result
make[1]: *** [dldbfd.o] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/lush-1.2/src'
make: *** [all] Error 2
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.32198 (%build)
- rpmlint on source rpm is not silent
W: tclabc 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.
Use sed -i -e 's|\t| |g' lush.spec
to remove that rpmlint warning
+ dist tag is present
+ Buildroot is correct
+ source URL is correct
+ License used is GPL
+ License file COPYING is included
+ MD5 sum on tarball is matching upstream tarball
95010c360350bf0a489ddb4d4cfa089f lush-1.2.tar.gz
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199108] Review Request: gutenprint: Printer Drivers Package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gutenprint: Printer Drivers Package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199108
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-25 01:49 EST ---
when i check RPMMacros wiki page i found
%{_libdir} extracts to /usr/lib only not /usr/lib64 as %{_lib} evaluates to lib
do we need separate SPEC or there is some trick to make same SPEC work on x86_64
arch??
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
