[Bug 208424] Review Request: scrot - Screen-shot capture using Imlib2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: scrot - Screen-shot capture using Imlib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208424 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177512] Review Request: mysql-connector-net
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mysql-connector-net https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177512 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 04:01 EST --- Um, it should have. It will be in the next hour... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191743] Review Request: sysprof - a sampling CPU profiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sysprof - a sampling CPU profiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191743 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 04:51 EST --- Package imported and 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 191745] Review Request: sysprof-kmod - kernel module for the sysprof profiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sysprof-kmod - kernel module for the sysprof profiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191745 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 04:53 EST --- Thanks Thorsten, I used that as a template and the build was (mostly) flawless. Closing -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191743] Review Request: sysprof - a sampling CPU profiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sysprof - a sampling CPU profiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191743 Bug 191743 depends on bug 191745, which changed state. Bug 191745 Summary: Review Request: sysprof-kmod - kernel module for the sysprof profiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191745 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189188] Review Request: sqlgrey - postfix grey-listing policy service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sqlgrey - postfix grey-listing policy service https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189188 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 05:47 EST --- I'm planning to work on it again on Tuesday (10/10). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209259] Review Request: beryl-core - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: beryl-core - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209259 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 06:18 EST --- A few comments : - autoreconf is traditionnaly done in %prep - why the versioned dependency on gnome-session ? - why the versioned dependency on xorg-x11-server-Xorg ? - I've built it on FC-5 without the BuildRequires on gnome-desktop-devel, control-center-devel and intltool = 0.35. Are those really needed ? (I needed to add startup-notification-devel though) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207793] Review Request: flite - Small, fast speech synthesis engine (text-to-speech)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: flite - Small, fast speech synthesis engine
(text-to-speech)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207793
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 06:23 EST ---
(In reply to comment #8)
* package builds in mock (FC-5, i386)
It doesn't build on x86_64 and this is a blocker.
But it can be simple fixed by removing %{?_smp_mflags} from `make`.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209025] Review Request: xfce4-dev-tools - Xfce developer tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xfce4-dev-tools - Xfce developer tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 07:02 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) This package appears to have been imported and built, but I don't see it in owners.list yet. ;) It wasn't in comps.xml ether. ;( Thanks for the reminder, both fixed 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 204700] Review Request: njb-sharp - C# bindings to libnjb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: njb-sharp - C# bindings to libnjb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204700 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 08:06 EST --- OK, thanks A LOT Paul, I would never have sorted this out myself: Spec URL: http://www.df.lth.se/~triad/krad/fc/njb-sharp-0.3.0-3.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://www.df.lth.se/~triad/krad/fc/njb-sharp.spec Only cosmetics on Pauls patch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209112] Review Request: gspca - v4l2 kernel module driver for webcams
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gspca - v4l2 kernel module driver for webcams https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209112 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||208686 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 204700] Review Request: njb-sharp - C# bindings to libnjb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: njb-sharp - C# bindings to libnjb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204700
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 08:43 EST ---
Okay, the next tasks are these
1. Standardise the macros. I've used %{_bindir} and %{buildroot}. Your original
version used %_bindir et al. You need to have them all as %{} or %_
2. Have you tested to see if the parallel make fails or was this from a
different spec file?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204513] Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204513
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 09:57 EST ---
In my opinion, the name may be xcalc and not xorg-x11-xcalc.
Indeed the xorg-x11- prefix is used for collection of softwares,
or to disambiguate with regard with other implementations, so
I guess here it is not required. Therefore you can, if you prefer,
use xcalc as name and Provides: xorg-x11-xcalc.
For the provides, you can also use the %{version} to avoid having to change
it at each release:
Provides: xcalc = %{version}
You don't have to define the x11_app_defaults_dir, you can, at your
will define it like you did, or simply have in %files:
%{_datadir}/X11/app-defaults/XCalc
%{_datadir}/X11/app-defaults/XCalc-color
In %files, I personally prefer to use glob for man pages extensions, to
catch the case of no compression or compression using different schemes.
If you like it you can change to
%{_mandir}/man1/xcalc.1x*
The COPYING file is empty, so the licence should be found by reading
the individual file licences. All of the files are under the X11 licence,
except math.c which don't have a licence, but some authors, which are
also copyright owners unless otherwise stated. As the default licence is
like a proprietary licence, this is not good for inclusion in fedora.
It is likely, however, that before the split, this package was included
in a package with proper COPYING and licence information. My personnal
opinion is that upstream should be asked for clarification, and otherwise
licence information from older releases should be found and used.
libXaw-devel requires libXt-devel and libXpm-devel, libXt-devel requires
libSM-devel and libX11-devel, so, optionally, you can remove
libXt-devel, libXpm-devel, libSM-devel and libX11-devel
from BuildRequires.
The only blocker item is the license issue for math.c.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204513] Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204513 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 10:41 EST --- I would assume that the appropriate license is here: ftp://ftp.x.org/pub/X11R7.0/doc/LICENSE The X11R6.9.0 license is here: ftp://ftp.x.org/pub/X11R6.9.0/doc/LICENSE As stated here: ftp://ftp.x.org/pub/X11R6.9.0/doc/README R6.9 and R7.0 are in fact the same, but R7.0 has a reorganzied tree. R6.9 packaged xcalc as part of the larger tarball with the above licenses. Therefore, I believe it is safe to assume that the above license is accurate and does not require conferral with upstream. Anyone have comments on this? If there is no issue, do I patch in the license then? Or do I simply have it as a source file? I removed libX11-devel from the BuildRequires list. I tried removing the others, but mock builds fail when I do. (Not sure why that would be the case, but it is.) So I put them back in. I removed x11_app_defaults_dir for simplicity and am now using globbing for the man pages. Due to popular demand, the package name has been renamed to xcalc. Now that the name of the package is xcalc, does it still need a corresponding provides? Spec URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc.spec SRPM URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc-1.0.1-3.fc5.i386.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 204513] Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204513 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 10:44 EST --- Oops, SRPM URL should be: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc-1.0.1-3.fc5.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204513] Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204513 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 10:44 EST --- Oops, SRPM URL should be: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc-1.0.1-3.fc5.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208915] Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests
Please 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-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208915 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-10-08 12:30 EST ---
Well, from my viewpoint:
1. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines :
* rpmlint
- rpmlint is not silent.
E: itpp-debuginfo script-without-shebang
/usr/src/debug/itpp-3.10.5/itpp/base/itpp_version.h
- This is because the permission of this file is incorrect.
W: itpp-devel no-documentation
- I think this can be ignored.
W: itpp undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libitpp.so.2.2.0
_ZTVN10__cxxabiv117__class_type_infoE
W: itpp undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libitpp.so.2.2.0
_ZTISt13basic_fstreamIcSt11char_traitsIcEE
W: itpp undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libitpp.so.2.2.0
_ZNSt13basic_fstreamIcSt11char_traitsIcEED1Ev
W: itpp undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libitpp.so.2.2.0
_ZNSt13basic_fstreamIcSt11char_traitsIcEED0Ev
W: itpp undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libitpp.so.2.2.0
_ZThn8_NSt13basic_fstreamIcSt11char_traitsIcEED1Ev
W: itpp undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libitpp.so.2.2.0
_ZThn8_NSt13basic_fstreamIcSt11char_traitsIcEED0Ev
W: itpp undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libitpp.so.2.2.0
_ZTv0_n12_NSt13basic_fstreamIcSt11char_traitsIcEED1Ev
W: itpp undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libitpp.so.2.2.0
_ZTv0_n12_NSt13basic_fstreamIcSt11char_traitsIcEED0Ev
. (continued)
- Linkage is incorrect. You can check this by:
$ ldd -r /usr/lib/libitpp.so.2.2.0
Some people say that this is not a blocker, while
other perple say this is a blocker. My opinion is, since this is a
library
and is thought to be used by other package, this warning IS a blocker for
this package.
* Requires:
- Check the Requires for -devel packages (see the section Requires of
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines: For -devel package,
dependency for the package should be checked manually).
* BuildRequies:
- redundant BuildRequires is found.
* perl (included in mimimal buildroot)
* tetex, tetex-dvips - required by tetex-latex
* Timestamps
- cp AUTHORS ChangeLog NEWS README TODO \
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}
* Use cp -p
2. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines :
* MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s)...
- Include COPYTING in main package. This is a MUST item.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-08 13:18 EST --- Hi Mamoru, thanks for the feedback. I'll fix the license inclusion, the redundant BRs and the time-stamp issue and will post another SRPM. So how did you get rpmlint to produce all the undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings? When I run rpmlint against all of the rpms generated here on my system, I only get these two lines: W: itpp-devel no-documentation E: itpp-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/itpp-3.10.5/itpp/base/itpp_version.h which, in my opinion, are both safe to ignore. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-08 13:58 EST ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Hi Mamoru, thanks for the feedback. I'll fix the license inclusion, the
redundant BRs and the time-stamp issue and will post another SRPM.
So how did you get rpmlint to produce all the undefined-non-weak-symbol
warnings?
Try: rpmlint itpp (with itpp installed). This rpmlint can be gained
only when used for installed rpms. See:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-September/msg00825.html
Well, for now these warning can be ignored because I tried to link
against libitpp.so and it succeeded so this is NOT a blocker.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] PROGRAM]$ cat itpp-check.cpp
int main(){
return 0;
}
[EMAIL PROTECTED] PROGRAM]$ g++ -Wall -O2 -o itpp-check itpp-check.cpp
`itpp-config --libs` -L/usr/lib/atlas
However, I recommend that you report this to upstream.
Anyway, fix the dependency for -devel package.
When I run rpmlint against all of the rpms generated here on
my system, I only get these two lines:
W: itpp-devel no-documentation
E: itpp-debuginfo script-without-shebang
/usr/src/debug/itpp-3.10.5/itpp/base/itpp_version.h
which, in my opinion, are both safe to ignore.
The first one (no-documentation issue) can be ignored, I think too.
The latter one is because:
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 1542 Jul 12 18:33
/usr/src/debug/itpp-3.10.5/itpp/base/itpp_version.h
The permission should be 0644, not 0755.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209948] New: Review Request: telepathy-feed - Galago feed 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=209948
Summary: Review Request: telepathy-feed - Galago feed 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-feed.spec
SRPM URL:
http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/telepathy/telepathy-feed-0.13-1.src.rpm
Description: A Galago feed for Telepathy
Note: This will only build on Rawhide currently until libgalago is updated in
FC5. Also, this package will need to require a galago-filesystem package since
multiple packages now use '%{_libdir}/galago/'
Spec URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/telepathy/galago-filesystem.spec
SRPM URL:
http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/telepathy/galago-filesystem-0.0.1-1.src.rpm
Description: Galago filesystem layout
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200700] Review Request: clipsmm - A C++ interface to the CLIPS 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: clipsmm - A C++ interface to the CLIPS library Alias: clipsmm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200700 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 14:12 EST --- Yes. Sorry for the slow reply, but things have been hectic and I was hoping to have some time to finish up an 0.0.7 release this weekend or next. There won't be anything that really modifies the spec file though... just API changes. When I release 0.0.7, I'll double check the md5sums. As for the '# Target: fedora-5' line, the only reason I'd like to keep it in there is that I have autotools make the specs automatically and with multiple specs for Fedora 4, 5, 6 (and soon to be 7) as well as SuSE 10.0 and 10.1 it makes it easier to see which spec is which if the files are outside the directories. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-08 14:15 EST ---
Yes, I agree that the ldd -r ... business is not a blocker because I'm
building custom software that uses the itpp header and libraries and it
doesn't just compile and link -- it actually runs. ;-)
And please be more explicit about your fix the dependency for -devel
package comment. The SRPM already has the line:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
for the -devel sub-package so what exactly needs to be fixed?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-10-08 14:18 EST ---
Some remark:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] PROGRAM]$ cat itpp-check.cpp
int main(){
return 0;
}
[EMAIL PROTECTED] PROGRAM]$ g++ -Wall -O2 -o itpp-check itpp-check.cpp
`itpp-config --libs` -L/usr/lib/atlas
The reason I had to add -L/usr/lib/atlas is that liblapack.so is
under /usr/lib/atlas but you deleted -L/usr/lib/atlas from
itpp-config and itpp.pc. -L/usr/lib/atlas is actually needed so
re-add this.
Anyway, fix the dependency for -devel package.
What I mean is:
$ itpp-config --libs
-litpp -lfftw3 -llapack -latlas -lblas -lgfortranbegin -lgfortran -lm -lgcc_s
(as said in above, -L/usr/lib/atlas should be added).
This means that itpp-devel should also require
fftw-devel atlas-devel and gcc-gfortran .
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 14:42 EST --- Re: comment #12 Yes, I agree that the ldd -r ... business is not a blocker Means there are undefined symbols, preventing prelink from functioning. This really should be fixed. Re: comment #13 deps for -devel Related to shared lib undefined symbols, the *library* ought to link against all those things, not itpp-using apps, they ought need only: -litpp -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204513] Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204513
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 15:24 EST ---
(In reply to comment #7)
I would assume that the appropriate license is here:
ftp://ftp.x.org/pub/X11R7.0/doc/LICENSE
But there is no reference to John H. Bradley, or to
the University of Pennsylvania. No licence seems to fit with
math.c. Said otherwise there are a lot of licences in the file, but
none seems to be selectable for math.c.
R6.9 and R7.0 are in fact the same, but R7.0 has a reorganzied tree. R6.9
packaged xcalc as part of the larger tarball with the above licenses.
Therefore, I believe it is safe to assume that the above license is accurate
and
does not require conferral with upstream. Anyone have comments on this? If
there is no issue, do I patch in the license then? Or do I simply have it as
a
source file?
In that case adding a source file, with a full url seems the
best to me. But I disagree that this file closes the issue.
I removed libX11-devel from the BuildRequires list. I tried removing the
others, but mock builds fail when I do. (Not sure why that would be the case,
but it is.) So I put them back in.
That's weird. It may be worth debugging on its own, but it isn't
a blocker for the package.
name of the package is xcalc, does it still need a corresponding provides?
The
Provides: xcalc = %{version}
is certainly unneeded, but you can add, if you like,
Provides: xorg-x11-xcalc = %{version}
In my opinion, the licence is still an issue.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204513] Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204513 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 15:29 EST --- There is a missing handling of desktop file: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-254ddf07aae20a23ced8cecc219d8f73926e9755 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-08 15:33 EST --- Here's a re-spin: http://mitgcm.org/eh3/fedora_misc/itpp-3.10.5-5.src.rpm It should address everything mentioned in this review except the unresolved symbols. I just don't have the time this weekend to delve into them. If someone (anyone?) wants to submit patches to do the linking then by all means please do so! :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204513] Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204513 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 16:09 EST --- I found that the xbitmaps package is needed because of the resource: XCalc.IconPixmap: calculator so maybe you could use /usr/include/X11/bitmaps/calculator to generate an icon suitable for use in .desktop using convert (I would propose a conversion to png) and add it as a Source. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204513] Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204513 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 16:14 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) But there is no reference to John H. Bradley, or to the University of Pennsylvania. No licence seems to fit with math.c. Said otherwise there are a lot of licences in the file, but none seems to be selectable for math.c. I have reached out to John H. Bradley (who is also the author of xv) to see what the license is. I assume that if I get an answer, this can be considered the definitive answer? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204513] Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204513 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 16:31 EST --- I have reached out to John H. Bradley (who is also the author of xv) to see what the license is. I assume that if I get an answer, this can be considered the definitive answer? Of course. If it isn't free software, then we're in trouble... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204513] Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204513 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 16:53 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) There is a missing handling of desktop file: Done. (In reply to comment #12) so maybe you could use /usr/include/X11/bitmaps/calculator to generate an icon suitable for use in .desktop using convert (I would propose a conversion to png) and add it as a Source. Done. I believe that I've addressed everything outside of the license issue in this latest update. Spec URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc.spec SRPM URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc-1.0.1-4.fc5.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193103] Review Request: Listen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: Listen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193103
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 17:33 EST ---
http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SPECS/listen.spec
http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SRPMS/listen-0.5-3.beta1.src.rpm
mpeg3 playback in Listen uses Gstreamer, mp3 can be read without python-mad if
you have installed the right gstreamer plugins from third party repositories or
Fluendo mp3 plugin.
Found a new desktop-file-install trick: --remove-mime-type , audio/mp3 cie
mimetypes were removed.
The rights issue with trackedit.glade was fixed thanks to Martin.
- $ rpmlint -i listen-0.5-3.beta1.fc5.i386.rpm
$
@Martin Sourada: debug infos aren't correctly stripped, you should fix the
rights of mmkeys.so
chmod +x $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/%{name}/mmkeys.so
You should think using sed one-liners instead of patches for small fixes, it
will ease the maintenance of your 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 204513] Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204513
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 17:39 EST ---
Still some issues:
* in the .desktop file I think the Version doesn't seems to be for the
software version, but maybe to show conformance to a specification
version. Just remove it or have a look at the freedesktop standard.
* the icon is not placed rightly. It should better be in
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/xcalc.png
* you should then use the scriplet
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=showredirect=ScriptletSnippets#head-7103f6c38d1b5735e8477bdd569ad73ea2c49bda
* this is only a remark, not a blocker, but I prefer using
install over cp, since with install you can set explicitely
the permissions you want with -m.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201437] Review Request: Glom - Database designer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Glom - Database designer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 17:42 EST --- Checked in and build. Thanks!! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204513] Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204513
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 18:02 EST ---
(In reply to comment #16)
* the icon is not placed rightly. It should better be in
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/xcalc.png
Since the icon isnn't exactly high color, really isn't high res, and it seemed
that others (e.g. AbiWord) placed the icon in that directory, I figured that was
the appropriate location. Regardless, icon is now in that directory.
* you should then use the scriplet
Corrected.
* this is only a remark, not a blocker, but I prefer using
install over cp, since with install you can set explicitely
the permissions you want with -m.
Agreed.
I also removed the Version from the .desktop file.
Spec URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc-1.0.1-4.fc5.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192436] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xgl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xgl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192436 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 19:52 EST --- OK, I finally got it to build and run properly on FC5. Here's what I had to do : - backport libdrm, mesa and xorg-x11-proto-devel from FC6 - add a few missing buildrequires - patch Xgl for the new mesa files and a missing library The necessary backports make it impossible to add this rpm in FC5. In FC6 however, it can be done. Here's a diff to the specfile, I've added the missing BRs, and changed a few lines to be more fedora-policy-complient : http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/xgl/xorg-x11-server-Xgl.spec.diff Here are the patches I needed to add to make it compile and work : http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/xgl/xorg-x11-server-Xgl-1.1.99.1-mesa.patch http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/xgl/xorg-x11-server-Xgl-1.1.99.1-selinux.patch I don't have an FC6 system available yet so I can't tell if those are needed on FC6 too. I'll build it in mock to see if there are more missing BuildRequires. Right now it works fine, except one small problem : my keyboard layout is broken, I need to run xmodmap on each session startup to fix 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 209259] Review Request: beryl-core - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: beryl-core - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209259 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 20:07 EST --- Created an attachment (id=138022) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=138022action=view) Here's what I needed to change to build beryl-core on FC5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209260] Review Request: beryl-manager - Beryl window decorator and theme management utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: beryl-manager - Beryl window decorator and theme management utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209260 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] BugsThisDependsOn||209259 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 20:15 EST --- I needed to add this patch to make it build on FC5 : http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/xgl/beryl-manager-0.1.0-intltool.patch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209259] Review Request: beryl-core - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: beryl-core - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209259 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||209260 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 209959] New: Review Request: tenr.de-styles-pkg - A collection of over 200 styles/themes for fluxbox
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=209959 Summary: Review Request: tenr.de-styles-pkg - A collection of over 200 styles/themes for fluxbox 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://errr.fluxbox-wiki.org/fedora_stuff/tenr/tenr.de-styles-pkg.spec SRPM URL: http://errr.fluxbox-wiki.org/fedora_stuff/tenr/tenr.de-styles-pkg-1.0-1.src.rpm Description: A collection of over 200 styles/themes for fluxbox rpmlint gives a warning about the license but it seems it has nothing about any creative commons licenses in its source. /usr/share/rpmlint/TagsCheck.py -- nothing in here... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193103] Review Request: Listen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Listen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193103 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 21:33 EST --- Excellent. All the blockers I saw are fixed, so this package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this bug NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built. Also, consider reviewing another package thats waiting for review to help spread out the reviewing load. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199905] Review Request: gotmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gotmail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199905
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 21:45 EST ---
Okay. I have updated the spec file. I've left in adjusted the %setup -n option
as I want to use a structure different than gotmail-%{version} - I want to add
%{release} to this also - -n gotmail-%{version}-%{release}.
The link to the spec file is:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/gotmail/gotmail.spec?download
The link to the source rpm is:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/gotmail/gotmail-0.8.9-1.src.rpm?download
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209965] New: Review Request: ruby-bdb - Berkeley DB is an embedded database system that supports keyed access to data
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=209965 Summary: Review Request: ruby-bdb - Berkeley DB is an embedded database system that supports keyed access to data 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://errr.fluxbox-wiki.org/fedora_stuff/bdb/1/ruby-bdb.spec SRPM URL: http://errr.fluxbox-wiki.org/fedora_stuff/bdb/1/ruby-bdb-0.5.9-1.fc5.src.rpm Description: Berkeley DB lib for ruby rpmlint gives: W: ruby-bdb invalid-license Ruby License/GPL W: ruby-bdb setup-not-quiet The license is what is shown for rpm -qi ruby and this module said it was under the same terms as ruby. The second W Im not sure how to solve -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204513] Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204513 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 23:10 EST --- I received a reply from John Bradley. I think we are in the clear. I have copied his reply verbatim below: xcalc, eh? Good lord, I haven't seen or thought about *that* in 15 years or so. Personally, I disavowed all interest in that project when some MIT people rewrote the thing for X11, using Xt. (My original was for X10R3/R4, and used Xlib only.) I've never used Xt, actively disliked it at the time, and have never bothered to look at or otherwise understand the X11 version of the xcalc source. Anyway... I don't care *at all* about xcalc, or any parts thereof that still have my name on them. Anyone's free to do whatever they'd like with it, as far as I'm concerned. X11R7 license? Sure, why not. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204700] Review Request: njb-sharp - C# bindings to libnjb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: njb-sharp - C# bindings to libnjb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204700
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-08 23:51 EST ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Okay, the next tasks are these
1. Standardise the macros. I've used %{_bindir} and %{buildroot}. Your
original
version used %_bindir et al. You need to have them all as %{} or %_
Nope - %{_X} is the quoted version of %_X, they are identical.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
