[Bug 210025] Review Request: openpbx - The truly open source PBX
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: openpbx - The truly open source PBX
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210025
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution||NEXTRELEASE
OtherBugsDependingO|163779 |
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 04:19 EST ---
I'd prefer to keep 'svn co' instead of 'svn export', since that makes it easier
to make patches after editing files in place. But I've improved the comments --
even though if the reader has the wit to replace %{snap} for themselves they
really ought to have been able to manage 'svn' 'co' and 'tar' too :)
Built for devel and branch requested for FC5. Will need to do the new user the
old way for the FC5 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 210025] Review Request: openpbx - The truly open source PBX
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openpbx - The truly open source PBX https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 04:32 EST --- Please keep the blocker on FE-ACCEPT -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210025] Review Request: openpbx - The truly open source PBX
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openpbx - The truly open source PBX https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210025 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 04:40 EST --- OK, sorry. Until when? The FE_ACCEPT summary says 'pending implementation' but this package is implemented 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 210467] Review Request: wallpapoz - Gnome Multi Backgrounds and Wallpapers Configuration Tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wallpapoz - Gnome Multi Backgrounds and Wallpapers Configuration Tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210467 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 05:23 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) ... Kevin, thank you for comments. I've reported to upstream about packaging issue + some other changes I have already added in 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 210025] Review Request: openpbx - The truly open source PBX
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openpbx - The truly open source PBX https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210025 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 05:37 EST --- (In reply to comment #20) OK, sorry. Until when? forever ATM... This might change when the package database is ready, but we'll see The FE_ACCEPT summary says 'pending implementation' but this package is implemented now. 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 211088] New: Review Request: mISDN - Userspace part for Modular ISDN stack
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=211088 Summary: Review Request: mISDN - Userspace part for Modular ISDN stack 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://david.woodhou.se/opbx/mISDN.spec SRPM URL: http://david.woodhou.se/opbx/mISDN-0-1.cvs20061010.fc6.src.rpm Description: mISDN (modular ISDN) is intended to be the new ISDN stack for the Linux 2.6 kernel, from the maintainer of the existing isdn4linux code. This package contains the userspace libraries required to interface directly to mISDN. rpmlint complains of no documentation in subpackages which have none, but is otherwise silent. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210025] Review Request: openpbx - The truly open source PBX
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openpbx - The truly open source PBX https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210025 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 05:59 EST --- mISDN review requested: bug 211088. Once imported, we should build chan_misdn for Asterisk as well as OpenPBX. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205798] Review Request: xine-lib - The Xine 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: xine-lib - The Xine library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205798 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 06:33 EST --- You're right about gdk_pixbuf, I thought you meant you tried on both x86 and x86_64 and it failed only on the latter. - add BR gtk2-devel - remove xineplug_decode_gdk_pixbuf.so from x86-only http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/xine-lib.spec http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/xine-lib-1.1.2-16.src.rpm find -name *mpeg* in the sources dir yields some results, but I don't think it's mpeg decoding code. It looks more like interfacing with ffmpeg or code for the mpg container. In any case, I trust Legal in this. I tried to build the package in mock, and it fails because of an improper selinux label on /usr/lib/libSDL-1.2.so.0.7.2. Is it fixable ? Will it fail in the Fedora Buildsystem ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190029] Review Request: whysynth-dssi - DSSI software synthesizer plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: whysynth-dssi - DSSI software synthesizer plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190029
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 07:03 EST ---
The categories can be added directly to the .desktop file:
--add-category AudioVideo \
--add-category Application \
These Requires should not be used
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?highlight=%28update-desktop-database%29#head-7103f6c38d1b5735e8477bdd569ad73ea2c49bda)
Requires(post): desktop-file-utils
Requires(postun): desktop-file-utils
Here you make a symlink (cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}; ln -s jack-dssi-host
whysynth) but in the fluidsynth-dssi package you did not. I do not really know,
whether or not it is needed but from a user's point of view I think it is better
to be consistent here and either add these symlink or not for dssi plugins.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210189] Review Request: granule - Gtk+-based flashcards program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: granule - Gtk+-based flashcards program
Alias: granule
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210189
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 08:44 EST ---
Bottom part of previous comment is wrong. It breaks because currently
the spec uses %makeinstall instead of make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install.
The %makeinstall macro breaks due to the way $(pkg_datadir) and
$(pkg_xmldir) are defined -- they are not derived from $(datadir)
When not using %makeinstall, the software installs, and the package buids.
I will continue there.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 211088] Review Request: mISDN - Userspace part for Modular ISDN stack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mISDN - Userspace part for Modular ISDN stack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211088 [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 211088] Review Request: mISDN - Userspace part for Modular ISDN stack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mISDN - Userspace part for Modular ISDN stack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211088 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 09:39 EST --- * source files match upstream (can't compare MD5 since this package currently uses a CVS snapshot). * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint has only acceptable complaints. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. Asterisk mISDN channel compiles against package (but I can't test since I don't have the appropriate hardware). * shared libraries are present; ldconfig is called properly. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel subpackage. * unversioned .so file is in the -devel subpackage. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 10:19 EST --- I have sent a message to the author for clarification, but I think this messages shodn't not harm the usage of luma. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210467] Review Request: wallpapoz - Gnome Multi Backgrounds and Wallpapers Configuration Tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wallpapoz - Gnome Multi Backgrounds and Wallpapers Configuration Tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210467 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 10:29 EST --- Kevin, I reported to upstream and upstream answered that he want to release new version on Nov 15 (perhaps he want to improve this package functionally) in which my suggestion should be applied. So I want to import this version (0.3) with the fixed by you and me applied. Is it okay? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208208] Review Request: MegaMek - a portable, network-enabled BattleTech engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: MegaMek - a portable, network-enabled BattleTech engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208208 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 11:04 EST --- (In reply to comment #22) Andrew, is there any chance you'd like to co-maintain this with Thomas? I'm willing to vouch for your review and do the sponsor dance. Sure. 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 210467] Review Request: wallpapoz - Gnome Multi Backgrounds and Wallpapers Configuration Tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wallpapoz - Gnome Multi Backgrounds and Wallpapers Configuration Tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210467 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 12:08 EST --- In reply to comment #10: Yeah, you are welcome to go ahead and import/build this version. Once upstream fixes up their install you can update from there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 12:10 EST --- Yeah, I don't have a LDAP server handy here to fully test things, but the UI seems to work fine aside from the template warning. I don't see any further blockers here, 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 to help spread the review load out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 12:43 EST --- thl, I got information from gspca author Why Module is not in mainstream kernel and when it will be in kernel? ==From the first times we have to deal with jpeg hardware, video jpeg (raw jpeg) is not human readable. For some reason kernel people, did not want to play with video decoding in the kernel. That is why, spca50x, spca5xx and now gspca is outside the kernel tree. Now somethings have changed(with change of userspace applications need to understand what a video compressor is) with v4l2, we can forward the raw video to userspace, so maybe one day gspca will go in the kernel. what you think about this information? Is this sufficient or need more? Its clear now that gspca will be coming in future releases of upstream kernel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209615] Review Request: wmcpuload - WindowMaker dockapp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wmcpuload - WindowMaker dockapp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209615 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 12:50 EST --- Comments in Comment #5 weren't blocking. The timestamp of the source file isn't the right one, it is also not blocking. To keep the timestamp, you can use wget -N to download, or spectool -g on the spec file. Seems like an internal version of libdockapp is used. It is a blocker. libdockapp should be packaged in fedora extras and the build of wmcpuload should be arranged to build against the external libdockapp. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208208] Review Request: MegaMek - a portable, network-enabled BattleTech engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: MegaMek - a portable, network-enabled BattleTech engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208208 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 13:11 EST --- I've done the necessary bits; Thomas should now have the necessary privileges so you folks can go ahead and get this checked in 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 208208] Review Request: MegaMek - a portable, network-enabled BattleTech engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: MegaMek - a portable, network-enabled BattleTech engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208208 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 13:13 EST --- (In reply to comment #26) I've done the necessary bits; Thomas should now have the necessary privileges so you folks can go ahead and get this checked in and built. Awesome! Thanks, Jason! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210467] Review Request: wallpapoz - Gnome Multi Backgrounds and Wallpapers Configuration Tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wallpapoz - Gnome Multi Backgrounds and Wallpapers Configuration Tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210467 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 13:33 EST --- Well: * Imported to FE-devel, rebuild succeeded * SyncNeeded is requested for FE-5 * added to owners.list, comps-fe6.xml.in Now I close this bug as CLOSED NEXTRELEASE. Thank you for reviewing and approving this 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 210824] Review Request: harminv - Program and library for solving the harmonic inversion problem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: harminv - Program and library for solving the harmonic inversion problem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210824 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 13:34 EST --- Hi Mamoru, thank you for the speedy feedback! Here's a re-spin that hopefully fixes everything you listed: http://mitgcm.org/eh3/fedora_misc/harminv-1.3.1-5.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 210781] Review Request: libctl - Guile-based support for flexible control files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libctl - Guile-based support for flexible control files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210781 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 13:40 EST --- Hi Jason, thank you for the review! It built successfully for FC-5 and devel so I'm closing this bug. Thanks again! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210781] Review Request: libctl - Guile-based support for flexible control files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libctl - Guile-based support for flexible control files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210781 [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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 13:41 EST --- Reply out of order: (In reply to comment #1) Its clear now that gspca will be coming in future releases of upstream kernel. Well, so maybe one day will go in the kernel doesn't sound as if there are actual plans to work on the integration. A more clear statement would be much more helpful. what you think about this information? Is this sufficient or need more? I can forward it to FESCo and we can discuss it. I suppose it's enough to get some people rise their hands for we allow this module in Extras. But there will also be some people that won't like this. I already know one particular member that will say this is not enough, I don't want this module in extras. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209082] Review Request: scanbuttond - Scanner Button tools to SANE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: scanbuttond - Scanner Button tools to SANE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209082 [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 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] 2006-10-17 15:20 EST --- OK sorry for taking so long: Spec URL: http://www.df.lth.se/~triad/krad/fc/njb-sharp-0.3.0-4.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://www.df.lth.se/~triad/krad/fc/njb-sharp.spec I fixed the escapes nevertheless, doesn't hurt. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210087] Review Request: pekwm - Light weight window 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: pekwm - Light weight window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210087
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 16:13 EST ---
The rpmlint error is ignorable. This executable in etc is
something we want.
I still think that the summary would be better without
'based on the aewm++ window manager', but it is not a blocker.
The dot missing at the end of the %description is a blocker
(although one easy to fix).
Not a blocker, but I would have requires xprop and not xorg-x11-utils.
What about the procps Requires?
* rpmlint gives
E: pekwm executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/pekwm/start
which is ignorable.
* free software. License not included, should be asked upstream,
especially since in files it is referred to that file.
* name right
* follow guidelines
* spec legible
* build on x86
* buildrequires mostly right, missing pcre-devel
* sane provides:
Provides: config(pekwm) = 0.1.5-3
* files right except for an unowned directory
* source match upstream:
fe3e0d77250d27963991994f83ccb4ea pekwm-0.1.5.tar.bz2
MUSTFIX:
unowned directory, must add
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/themes/
dot at end of %description
BR pcre-devel
SHOULDFIX:
handle properly UTF-8. I won't make it a bloker, but having a
graphical app which don't accept UTF8 accents in menu is not
right in fedora.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210087] Review Request: pekwm - Light weight window 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: pekwm - Light weight window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210087
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 16:39 EST ---
(In reply to comment #7)
The rpmlint error is ignorable. This executable in etc is
something we want.
OK
I still think that the summary would be better without
'based on the aewm++ window manager', but it is not a blocker.
Done
Not a blocker, but I would have requires xprop and not xorg-x11-utils.
Done
What about the procps Requires?
What do you mean here?
MUSTFIX:
unowned directory, must add
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/themes/
Done
dot at end of %description
Done
BR pcre-devel
Added
SHOULDFIX:
handle properly UTF-8. I won't make it a bloker, but having a
graphical app which don't accept UTF8 accents in menu is not
right in fedora.
I will ask upstream about plans for 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 210087] Review Request: pekwm - Light weight window 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: pekwm - Light weight window manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210087 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 16:44 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) (In reply to comment #7) What about the procps Requires? What do you mean here? procps is required because of pkill used in some script. Currently it is required by initscripts, but this may change, and with initng I don't know if initscript will be required. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-17 16:48 EST ---
Okay, I'll build this in a minute.
Quick review notes.
1. The macro for %{monodir} is only temporary until FC5 mono is brought in line
with FC6
2. You need to be consistent with your macros - you have %{name} and %name as
well as %buildroot and %{buildroot}.
3. You need to remove the comment about parallel makes being broken - they're
not as it builds fine with them on.
4. Does this generate mono debug info as well as ELF debug info? This is just a
query as monodebugger can then handle it ;-)
5. The rm -f *a line needs to be *.a - *a means any text that ends in a
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-10-17 16:50 EST --- parallel build is broken on x86 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209536] Review Request: oki4linux - OKIPAGE (4w, 4w Plus, 6w, 8w, 8w Lite, 8z), OL400w printer driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: oki4linux - OKIPAGE (4w, 4w Plus, 6w, 8w, 8w Lite, 8z), OL400w printer driver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209536 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 16:54 EST --- Thank you for the speedy review. Package imported and built for devel/fc6. FC5 branch requested. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209536] Review Request: oki4linux - OKIPAGE (4w, 4w Plus, 6w, 8w, 8w Lite, 8z), OL400w printer driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: oki4linux - OKIPAGE (4w, 4w Plus, 6w, 8w, 8w Lite, 8z), OL400w printer driver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209536 [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 211214] New: Review Request: mod_revocator
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=211214 Summary: Review Request: mod_revocator 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://directory.fedora.redhat.com/built/rpm_review/rcritten/mod_revocator.spec SRPM URL: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/built/rpm_review/rcritten/mod_revocator-1.0.2-1.src.rpm Description: Automatic CRL retrieval and installation module for the Apache HTTP server The mod_revocator module retrieves and installs remote Certificate Revocate Lists (CRLs) into an Apache web server using the NSS crypto engine (mod_nss). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210320] Review Request: perl-File-BaseDir - Use the freedesktop basedir spec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-File-BaseDir - Use the freedesktop basedir spec https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210320 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 17:31 EST --- Thanks for the quick review. Built in FC5, devel, owner added. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210322] Review Request: perl-File-MimeInfo - Determine file type
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-File-MimeInfo - Determine file type https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210322 Bug 210322 depends on bug 210320, which changed state. Bug 210320 Summary: Review Request: perl-File-BaseDir - Use the freedesktop basedir spec https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210320 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210320] Review Request: perl-File-BaseDir - Use the freedesktop basedir spec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-File-BaseDir - Use the freedesktop basedir spec https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210320 Bug 210320 depends on bug 210323, which changed state. Bug 210323 Summary: Review Request: perl-File-DesktopEntry - Object to handle .desktop files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210323 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210322] Review Request: perl-File-MimeInfo - Determine file type
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-File-MimeInfo - Determine file type https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210322 Bug 210322 depends on bug 210323, which changed state. Bug 210323 Summary: Review Request: perl-File-DesktopEntry - Object to handle .desktop files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210323 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210322] Review Request: perl-File-MimeInfo - Determine file type
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-File-MimeInfo - Determine file type https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210322 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 17:32 EST --- And thanks for that one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210757] Review Request: magicor - Push ice blocks around to extenguish all fires
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: magicor - Push ice blocks around to extenguish all
fires
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210757
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 17:40 EST ---
Sorry for the delay on this review
Good
Docs included
Upstream and current md5sums check
Consistent use of macros
Software installs and runs as it should
No dependancy and provides problems (sane)
Compliant with the python packaging rules
Correct use of scriptlets
Has a desktop icon
spec file in American English and is sane
needs work
Under %files
non-conffile-in-etc /etc/magicor.conf - needs %config (noreplace) before the
%{_sysconfdir)
needs a %build section (even if it's empty - I'll need to check on this though)
Fix the %config bit under needs work and I'm happy to let it in.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210087] Review Request: pekwm - Light weight window 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: pekwm - Light weight window manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210087 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 17:41 EST --- OK All done. http://errr.fluxbox-wiki.org/fedora_stuff/pekwm/4/pekwm.spec http://errr.fluxbox-wiki.org/fedora_stuff/pekwm/4/pekwm-0.1.5-4.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210187] Review Request: libassa - C++ Object-Oriented network 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: libassa - C++ Object-Oriented network library Alias: libassa https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210187 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 17:44 EST --- Michael, thanks for the APPROVAL. I have renamed assa.spec to libassa.spec in CVS to take care of the error and ran 'sed -i -e 's/\t/ /g' libassa.spec' to fix the warnings. Both the spec and the SRPM have been updated accordingly. Thanks for your help! -Vlad -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203864] Review Request: tripwire - IDS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tripwire - IDS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203864 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 17:47 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) [...] I've submitted a bug to upstream asking them to correct the documentation in the next release. In the mean time, is it Fedora's (and thus ours as the packagers) responsibility to fix silly things like forgetting to bump version numbers in your documentation? Obviously some quick command-line perl will do the job nicely in %pre... what is everyone's feeling on the subject? I think a packager is not obliged but he should at least poke the upstream about that. Of course sending upstream a patch is the best solution. Also, I now echo the contents of README.RPM upon package install to let users know about the next step required to initialize their tripwire database. I don't think this is the best idea, but, as long as it's non-interactive, I don't mind. I'll take this review, because I'm interested in keeping this package in Fedora. I still use it on some servers. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203864] Review Request: tripwire - IDS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tripwire - IDS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203864 [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 203864] Review Request: tripwire - IDS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tripwire - IDS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203864 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 210087] Review Request: pekwm - Light weight window 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: pekwm - Light weight window manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210087 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 17:56 EST --- All the blocking item have been fixed, so this is APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187294] Review Request: gwyddion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gwyddion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187294 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 18:03 EST --- I got one response, of Spot, backing my views: Lemme make this clear. If the user downloads something in your package/subpackage, and it doesn't work because of a missing dependency (e.g. perl/python/ruby) not present, then you screwed up. Don't assume your users have a sane environment, or even that your users possess the faintest amount of clue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210087] Review Request: pekwm - Light weight window 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: pekwm - Light weight window manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210087 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 18:08 EST --- I think it would be right to do what is said in the FAQ entry to have unicode support. 8 bit locales use should be very rare in fedora. It would have been even better to switch depending on the locale, but it is something that should be done upstream. Maybe worth asking upstream, too? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210087] Review Request: pekwm - Light weight window 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: pekwm - Light weight window manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210087 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 18:10 EST --- You can add it after importing to cvs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210464] Review Request: anjuta-2 - A very capable IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: anjuta-2 - A very capable IDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210464 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 18:17 EST --- BR autogen-devel and gettext-devel are both needed to satisfy the configure script. If gettext-devel is not there, anjuta2 completely fails to build. I've fixed the other bits you've mentioned here. Spec URL: http://nodoid.homelinux.org/fedora/anjuta-2.0.2-8.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://nodoid.homelinux.org/fedora/anjuta2.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 187294] Review Request: gwyddion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gwyddion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187294 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 18:30 EST --- The plugin-examples subpackage requies everything necessary to run the programs inside. So either I don't understand the sentence `If the user downloads something in your package/subpackage' or it does work. The model is still the same: to use a Perl program which is incidentally a Gwyddion plug-in, one needs two things: Perl and Gwyddion. Perl is required for all Perl programs and Gwyddion is required because it's Gwyddion plug-in. If this is satisfied, nothing can break. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206708] Review Request: acerhk - Acer Hotkey driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: acerhk - Acer Hotkey driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206708
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 20:31 EST ---
Need to be added since kernel 2.6.18-1.2200.fc5, because like many kmod-package
- including of linux/config.h now is deprecated. (i've pick a recent example
from Ville Skyttä)
%prep
Setup ...
grep -rlF 'linux/config.h' acerhk-%{version} \
| xargs sed -i -e 's|linux/config.h|linux/autoconf.h|'
Any idea when this package will be accepted on extras?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202528] Review Request: rt2x00-kmod
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: rt2x00-kmod
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202528
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 20:49 EST ---
Updated rt2x00-kmod from Ville Skyttä example (madwifi).
It seems to be a quite clean compilation!
%prep
Setup ...
grep -rlF 'linux/config.h' acerhk-%{version} \
| xargs sed -i -e 's|linux/config.h|linux/autoconf.h|'
Any idea when this kmod package will be accepted on extras?
rt2x00-kmod
SRPMS URL:
http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/5/SRPMS/rt2x00-kmod-0.0.0cvs20061017-1.2.6.18_1.2200.fc5.src.rpm
SPEC URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/SPECS/rt2x00-kmod.spec
rt2x00
SRPMS URL:
http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/5/SRPMS/rt2x00-0.0.0cvs20061017-1_FC5.src.rpm
SPEC URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/SPECS/rt2x00.spec
rt61-firmware
SRPMS URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/5/SRPMS/rt61-firmware-1.2-1_FC5.src.rpm
SPEC URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/SPECS/rt61-firmware.spec
rt73w-firmware
SRPMS URL:
http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/5/SRPMS/rt71w-firmware-1.8-1_FC5.src.rpm
SPEC URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/SPECS/rt73w-firmware.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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 21:12 EST --- I poked around in the tarball for gspca. In the gspcav2 directory, which this kmod is being built with, there is a file called ReadMe_First. It contains the following: For developper only !! /*/ Don't used, Can BURN your Linux Box and maybe loss all your data !!! /***/ Enjoy V4L2 :) M.Xhaard That doesn't give me warm fuzzy feelings. Then there is the README-KERNEL-UPTO-2.6.16 file in the Doc directory that talks about conflicts with in-kernel drivers. So given that: 1) The driver appears to be a development version only 2) There is documentation that talks of conflict with drivers that are already in the kernel 3) There is no firm commitment from the driver developers to get this module into the mainline kernel I'm against including this in Extras. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 211242] New: Review Request: scribes-templates - Templates (Snippets) for the Scribes text editor
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=211242 Summary: Review Request: scribes-templates - Templates (Snippets) for the Scribes text editor 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://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/scribes-templates.spec SRPM URL: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/scribes-templates-20061017-1.src.rpm Scribes is a simple and sleek text editor for the the GNOME desktop. It focuses on keeping the working environment free from distractions, and providing strong automation of mundane, repetitive tasks. One of its greatest features is a dynamic templating system (popularly called Snippets) to automate the creation of various types of files following the same general format. This package contains a collection of various pre-made templates for Scribes. rpmlint is silent on both the noarch binary RPM and the source 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 210087] Review Request: pekwm - Light weight window 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: pekwm - Light weight window manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210087 [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 210824] Review Request: harminv - Program and library for solving the harmonic inversion problem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: harminv - Program and library for solving the harmonic inversion problem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210824 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 22:14 EST --- Hello: I saw that you added blas-devel, lapack-devel to BuildRequires to fix x86_64 compilation problem. However this is incorrect because: on i386: Requires: libatlas.so.3 libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libcblas.so.3 libf77blas.so.3 libgcc_s.so.1 libgfortran.so.1 libharminv.so.2 liblapack.so.3 libm.so.6 libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) rtld(GNU_HASH) Processing files: harminv-devel-1.3.1-7.fc6 on x86_64: Requires: libblas.so.3()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgfortran.so.1()(64bit) libharminv.so.2()(64bit) liblapack.so.3()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ... linkage is different between i386/ppc and x86_64. The main problem is not BuildRequires. It is that on x86/64 the needed libraries are under /usr/lib64/atlas, not under /usr/lib/atlas . Please fix the linkage so that harminv is linked against the same libraries on i386/ppc x86_64. Then I think adding blas-devel, lapack-devel is not needed (and should be avoided for this case). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210824] Review Request: harminv - Program and library for solving the harmonic inversion problem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: harminv - Program and library for solving the harmonic inversion problem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210824 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-17 23:15 EST --- Good catch! Its fixed. I'll close after the FC-5 build succeeds. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210826] Review Request: genius - An arbitrary precision integer and multiple precision floatingpoint 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: genius - An arbitrary precision integer and multiple precision floatingpoint calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210826 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-18 00:14 EST --- OK, the -2 release now builds with mock! needswork: - rpmlint reports: E: genius-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/genius-0.7.6.1/mpfr/mul.c W: genius-devel no-documentation W: gnome-genius no-documentation the warnings are harmless and can be ignored but the error can be fixed by changing the file's permissions within the build dir. good: + spec is legible + source matches upstream + license looks good and is correctly included + spec file looks sane and is legible + builds in mock on FC-5 i386 + uses %find_lang macro correctly + dir ownership look OK + appears to have no shared libs + permissions look good (except for the one exception above) + has proper clean section and command + proper use of devel + code not content + no *.la files + scripts appear to be sane + proper use of desktop-file-install + consistent use of macros + installs and runs without seg-faulting on i386 FC-5 I don't see any blockers here so its APPROVED. Please fix the permissions on that one file before submitting the first build. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210826] Review Request: genius - An arbitrary precision integer and multiple precision floatingpoint 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: genius - An arbitrary precision integer and multiple precision floatingpoint calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210826 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-10-18 00:22 EST --- Some notes from me: Requires(post): shared-mime-info, desktop-file-utils, scrollkeeper Requires(postun): shared-mime-info, desktop-file-utils, scrollkeeper All this requires should be for gnome-genius. Please fix 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
