[Bug 209311] Review Request: espeak - Software speech synthesizer (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: espeak - Software speech synthesizer (text-to-speech) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209311 [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 211703] Review Request: nyquist - Sound synthesis and composition language with a Lisp syntax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nyquist - Sound synthesis and composition language with a Lisp syntax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211703 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-03 02:50 EST --- Okay, this package meets the demand by http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines --- This package (nyquist) is APPROVED by me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213432] Review Request: kaffeine - Xine-based media player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kaffeine - Xine-based media player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213432 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-03 02:30 EST --- I will like to review this package. Update package by solving mockbuild error. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213511] Review Request: gxine - Gnome frontend for the xine multimedia 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: gxine - Gnome frontend for the xine multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213511
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-03 02:03 EST ---
Update
Spec : http://www.c100c.com/fedora/gxine.spec
Rrpm : http://www.c100c.com/fedora/gxine-0.5.8-2.src.rpm
i patch it for use free logo.ogg
some fix
help for :) %{name}.theme.mo 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 213432] Review Request: kaffeine - Xine-based media player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: kaffeine - Xine-based media player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213432
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-03 00:59 EST ---
you gave old package link.
Also new package is not building under mock
you need to change chmod line in SPEC as chmod is not able to find all those
files that need to be chmod
chmod -x %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/AUTHORS \
%{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/Changelog \
%{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/INSTALL \
%{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/TODO
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212836] Review Request: fwfstab - a graphical file system table (fstab) editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fwfstab - a graphical file system table (fstab) editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212836 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 23:59 EST --- Don't Forget to CLOSE this bug once you import this package in 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 212836] Review Request: fwfstab - a graphical file system table (fstab) editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fwfstab - a graphical file system table (fstab) editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212836 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 23:54 EST --- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386) for FC6. + rpmlint is silent for RPM and SRPM. + source files match upstream. fb87e760037a9497b1e8f47c8715e65d fwfstab-0.01.1.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written but NOT properly indented. + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. + %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required. + %doc does not affect runtime. + COPYING included in %doc. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc files. + no -devel subpackage exists + no .la files. + no translations available + Provides: config(fwfstab) = 0.01.1-1.fc6 + Requires: /bin/bash /usr/bin/python config(fwfstab) = 0.01.1-1.fc6 pygtk2 pygtk2-libglade python(abi) = 2.4 redhat-artwork usermode + owns the directories it creates. + doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Desktop file installed succesfully + Desktop file is handled correclty in SPEC file. + GUI app + Followed python packaging guidelines. 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 212836] Review Request: fwfstab - a graphical file system table (fstab) editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fwfstab - a graphical file system table (fstab) editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212836 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 23:46 EST --- Now this package looks ok in its packaging and its functioning. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213180] Review Request: tcl-thread - Thread extension for Tcl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tcl-thread - Thread extension for Tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213180 [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 213180] Review Request: tcl-thread - Thread extension for Tcl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tcl-thread - Thread extension for Tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213180 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 23:39 EST --- np. I'm a sucker for Tcl package reviews, and I'm interested to see how well this works with tclhttpd. Is there another review on the way that depends on 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 212692] New package: libgnomekbd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: New package: libgnomekbd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212692 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 23:29 EST --- Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde-3.1.3-5.src.rpm I agree with your suggestions, and have implemented all of them. Note that rpmlint now complains with conffile-without-noreplace on the .dist and .xml files in /etc, but I have explained it in a note in the %files secion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213180] Review Request: tcl-thread - Thread extension for Tcl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tcl-thread - Thread extension for Tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213180 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 23:20 EST --- Thanks much for the review. I'll get those items fixed up, including the x86_64 issue, tomorrow. I should have fixed the MUSTFIXes before submitting, sorry about that. That's what I get for copying the initial spec from a different 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 213594] Review Request: eclipse-phpeclipse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eclipse-phpeclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213594 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 23:01 EST --- Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/eclipse-phpeclipse.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/eclipse-phpeclipse-1.1.8-9.src.rpm Done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213193] Review Request: gaim-rhythmbox - Rhythmbox plugin for GAIM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gaim-rhythmbox - Rhythmbox plugin for GAIM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213193 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 22:38 EST --- Changes look good. 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 213193] Review Request: gaim-rhythmbox - Rhythmbox plugin for GAIM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gaim-rhythmbox - Rhythmbox plugin for GAIM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213193 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 22:16 EST --- http://hircus.org/fedora/gaim-rhythmbox/gaim-rhythmbox-2.0-0.3.beta3.src.rpm http://hircus.org/fedora/gaim-rhythmbox/gaim-rhythmbox.spec Fixed. Sorry about %description, I copied it from upstream and did not think to reformat 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 213193] Review Request: gaim-rhythmbox - Rhythmbox plugin for GAIM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gaim-rhythmbox - Rhythmbox plugin for GAIM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213193 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 21:40 EST --- GOOD * rpmlint output clean * Package named appropriately * Source matches upstream: a9e836986dae7857b408120782264d5a gaim-rhythmbox-2.0beta3.tar.gz * Builds in mock on FC6-i386, FC6-x86_64, FC7-i386, FC7-x86_64 * GPL license ok, license file included * Spec file legible and in Am. English. * Runs without crashing. Seems to work as expected with my AIM account. * No missing BR: * No locales * Not relocatable * Not a gui app; no need for a .desktop file * No need to run ldconfig; .so files are application plugins that aren't part of the system linker path. * Directory ownership ok * No duplicate %files * No need for -doc or -devel subpackages MUSTFIX === * Inconsistent use of the custom 'prever' macro. You only use it once in %prep, but not at all in Source0 or Release. Either use it in all 3 places, or not at all. NOTES = * You could also include AUTHORS and README in %doc * There's no need to split each sentence in %description into a separate paragraph. It just adds unnecessary whitespace and doesn't make it any easier to read. * Send the configure patch upstream so that it can be included in the final release. * I wouldn't worry about the shared library dependencies in the .so file. If you run ldd on the gaim executable itself, you'll see an almost-identical list of dependencies. Not much here. Just fix the use of the prever macro and you're good to go. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184011] Review Request: nickle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nickle https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 21:15 EST --- pong. http://hircus.org/fedora/nickle/nickle-2.54-1.src.rpm http://hircus.org/fedora/nickle/nickle.spec Sorry for the late response! Changed the %ghost to %exclude and avoided using %dir and then listing everything under 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 213193] Review Request: gaim-rhythmbox - Rhythmbox plugin for GAIM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gaim-rhythmbox - Rhythmbox plugin for GAIM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213193 [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 197754] Review Request: perl-Perl6-Bible
Please 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-Perl6-Bible https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197754 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 20:25 EST --- Apparently my first mail was incorrectly addressed, and gmail's spam filter ate the second one, but TPF President Bill Odom eventually noticed it and gave me this answer: Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 09:13:01 -0600 From: "Bill Odom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Steven Pritchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: documentation license question In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Steve: Okay, here's the definitive word from Allison, who's been immersed in the legal and licensing side for far longer than any one person should ever have to be: On 10/31/06, Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The Perl 6 Bible is the Apocalypses, Exegeses, and Synopses. ... >They'll be under the same terms as the production release of Perl 6, >which is: > - they are covered by the author's contributor agreement to TPF > - the compilation copyright is owned by TPF > - authors retain their individual copyright in individual pieces > - Artistic 2.0 license Does that give you what you need, or should I do some more digging? Thanks, Bill -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213193] Review Request: gaim-rhythmbox - Rhythmbox plugin for GAIM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gaim-rhythmbox - Rhythmbox plugin for GAIM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213193 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 19:58 EST --- Jochen's no longer CC'ed, so I guess you get to review it. http://hircus.org/fedora/gaim-rhythmbox/gaim-rhythmbox-2.0-0.2.beta3.src.rpm http://hircus.org/fedora/gaim-rhythmbox/gaim-rhythmbox.spec I'm creating a mock tree right now to test it further - ldd /usr/lib64/gaim/gaim-rhythmbox.so disturbingly claims that the .so file requires anything from Xinerama to libxml2. Is that normal? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213180] Review Request: tcl-thread - Thread extension for Tcl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tcl-thread - Thread extension for Tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213180 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213798] New: Review Request: python-alsaaudio - Python Alsa Bindings
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=213798 Summary: Review Request: python-alsaaudio - Python Alsa Bindings 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/alsaaudio/python-alsaaudio.spec SRPM URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/alsaaudio/python-alsaaudio-0.2-1.src.rpm Description: The Python-AlsaAudio package contains bindings for the ALSA sound API. Note: rpmlint gives an error on the license, which is Python Software Foundation license. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 211548] Review Request: fluxstyle - Graphical style manager for fluxbox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fluxstyle - Graphical style manager for fluxbox https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211548 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 19:01 EST --- I dont know.. I just did a make build so I guess that will fix it. I did find out about the about dialog not closing when you click close, the gtk2 code changed so now I have to handle this with my own code instead of relying on it to "just work" like it did in older versions. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213193] Review Request: gaim-rhythmbox - Rhythmbox plugin for GAIM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gaim-rhythmbox - Rhythmbox plugin for GAIM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213193 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 18:58 EST --- You're missing a couple of build requirements: BR: gtk2-devel dbus-glib-devel dbus-devel I'll pick up the full review tonight if Jochen doesn't get to it earlier. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 18:28 EST --- No, I talked to Christopher about taking ownership of Jokosher also, since he didn't have time to work on it. I've done some initial work on this, but it makes sense to wait for 0.2 to come out since most of the outstanding issues will be fixed 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 213600] Review Request: tinyca2 - Simple graphical userinterface to manage a small CA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tinyca2 - Simple graphical userinterface to manage a small CA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213600 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 18:07 EST --- Sorry, I have mixed BuildRequires with Requires in the last part of the review. I intented to say that you must add perl-gettext to the Requires line, which should become Requires: openssl tar zip perl-gettext ... unless I have made an evaluation error here and yum automatically picks and solves the dependencies for the needed perl modules. I for one I had to use yum search in order to find out which package provides perl-Locale-gettext. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213180] Review Request: tcl-thread - Thread extension for Tcl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: tcl-thread - Thread extension for Tcl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213180
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 18:04 EST ---
GOOD
* Package and spec named appropriately: The upstream name is the simply
'thread', which is far too generic. Following the examples for python
and perl modules, the name tcl-thread is acceptable.
* Spec file is legible and in Am. English
* Source matches upstream:
3c69b4a891590f23bb79a1fa98d879f7 thread2.6.5.tar.gz
* No unnecessary BuildRequires
* No locales
* No shared libraries in the default linker path; the shared library
that is produced is loaded by Tcl via dlopen.
* RPM_BUILD_ROOT cleaned where appropriate
* Not relocatable
* No duplicate %files
* File permissions look ok
* No need for a -devel subpackage
* Not a gui program; no need for a .desktop file
* Package loads into Tcl as expected and passes its own test suite.
* Consistent use of macros
* Does not own any directories that it should not own.
MUSTFIX
===
* License does not match upstream. Should be BSD.
* License file 'license.terms' not included.
* Add the README and ChangeLog files to %doc
* Does not own all directories that it creates. In %files, change
%{_libdir}/thread%{version}/*
to
%{_libdir}/thread%{version}
* Does not build properly on x86_64 in mock. The attached patch
fixes the problem.
* The dependency on gdbm is picked up automatically. You can drop
Requires: gdbm.
SHOULDFIX
=
* Missing a %check section for running the unit tests.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213600] Review Request: tinyca2 - Simple graphical userinterface to manage a small CA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: tinyca2 - Simple graphical userinterface to manage a
small CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213600
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 17:54 EST ---
Not an official review since I am just a rookie.
- rpmlint gives one warning on the src: tinyca2 mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs. A
quick glance makes me think that the indentation used in the %description and
for the sed lines (in %setup) might be the culprit
- the buildroot line does not respect the preferred value for FE
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)). Since this is
just a PREFERRED not a MUST, should not be a blocker
- MUST: package is named according to the guidelines
- MUST: spec file name matches the base package name
- MUST: license field matches actual license
- MUST: the program is licensed under GPL but upstream did not include the
actual text of the license is the source, just the reference to it. I guess you
should ping upstream to add the license to the provided tar files.
- MUST: spec file is in American English
- MUST: spec file is legible
- MUST: source matches upstream, md5sum being a7f63806dbdc38a34ed58e42e79f4822
for both
- MUST: builds fine in mock/i386. Since the content is actually just a perl
script + some message (.po) files which are formatted during the build phase, I
assume it would succesfully build on any platform; created rpm is noarch
- MUST: %find_lang macro is correctly used to pick locales
- MUST: no libraries are installed, so there is no need for calling ldconfig in
%post/%postun
- MUST: package is not relocatable
- MUST: owns all directories (and files) that it creates
- MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing
- MUST: %clean is correct
- MUST: makes consistent use of macros
- MUST: no forbidden code/content included
- MUST: large documentation does not exist, so no need for a separate -doc
- MUST: the content of %doc is a small CHANGES file, so runtime functionality is
not affected
- MUST: no header or static files, no pkgconfig(.pc), no library files with a
suffix, no ibtool archives, so no need for -devel
- MUST: IS a GUI application; correctly includes %{name}.desktop (provided by
upstream) and properly installs it with desktop-file-install; someone more
experienced please comment if the "--add-category=X-Fedora" is still required
(according to yesterday's FESCO:
=== Packaging Committee Report ===
* Voting to stop using the X-Fedora category in the desktop file is
currently underway via email.)
- MUST: does not take ownership of foreign files/directories
- SHOULD: includes available translations
- SHOULD: as specified above, builds fine in mock
- SHOULD: on a RHEL4 system the rpm installed fine but the program did not run,
failing with:
error: Failed dependencies:
perl(Gtk2) is needed by tinyca2-0.7.5-2.noarch
perl(Gtk2::SimpleMenu) is needed by tinyca2-0.7.5-2.noarch
perl(Locale::gettext) is needed by tinyca2-0.7.5-2.noarch
On FC6 it detected the missing Requires, but failed to get installed even after
installing perl-Gtk2 and gettext:
error: Failed dependencies:
perl(Locale::gettext) is needed by tinyca2-0.7.5-2.noarch
It seems that the correct Requires should be perl-gettext rather then gettext.
The program runs successfully after installing perl-Gtk2 and perl-gettext.
- SHOULD: no scriplets at all, so neither unsane scriptlets
Bottom line
- cosmetic fixes: make rpmlint happy by replacing multiple spaces with tab (non
blocker)
- make reviewers happy by using the recommended build root line (non blocker)
- use a correct Requires line (perl-gettext instead of gettext) (BLOCKER)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 211703] Review Request: nyquist - Sound synthesis and composition language with a Lisp syntax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nyquist - Sound synthesis and composition language with a Lisp syntax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211703 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 17:52 EST --- Oops, it should be: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/6/i386/SRPMS.gemi/nyquist-2.31-3.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213180] Review Request: tcl-thread - Thread extension for Tcl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: tcl-thread - Thread extension for Tcl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213180
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 17:47 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=140195)
--> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=140195&action=view)
Look for gdbm library in %{_libdir}
This patch modifies the configure script to properly look for the gdbm library
in $libdir, instead of only looking in /usr/lib.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 211729] Review Request: museek+ - Soulseek network filesharing client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: museek+ - Soulseek network filesharing client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211729 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |fc6 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 17:45 EST --- I have updated the SPEC to comply with the Packaging Guidelines (or I think I have). SPEC URL: http://www.republika.pl/belegdol/temp/museek+.spec SRPM URL: http://www.republika.pl/belegdol/temp/museek+-0.1.12-2.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 212079] Review Request: freefont - Free UCS Outline Fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: freefont - Free UCS Outline Fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212079 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 17:39 EST --- Checked in and built for devel. Added to owners.list. FC5 and FC6 branches requested. Thanks for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213765] Review Request: alex4 - Alex the Allegator 4 - Platform game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: alex4 - Alex the Allegator 4 - Platform game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213765 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 17:31 EST --- Two quickies. 1. why no _smp_mflags on the make? If it's down to a race condition, can you comment it please 2. --add-category X-Fedora is causing problems for me big style on rawhide. if you enclose it with a conditional that the branch of fedora is < "7", then I'm happy rpmlint is quiet, so that's good :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213180] Review Request: tcl-thread - Thread extension for Tcl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: tcl-thread - Thread extension for Tcl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213180
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 17:25 EST ---
This does not build properly on x86_64 in mock. It seems that the configure
script is written to only look for libgdbm.so in /usr/lib, not /usr/lib64. You
might try adding '--with-gdbm=%{_libdir}' to %configure, or modifying the
configure script to look for the library in ${libdir}.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 211728] Review Request: stklos - Scheme Interpreter/Compiler System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stklos - Scheme Interpreter/Compiler System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211728 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 17:20 EST --- rpmlint warnings SRPM : clean RPM : you have multiple files in the main rpm which should be in the -devel package DEBUGINFO : clean You need to create a -devel package for 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 206877] Review Request: bzr-gtk - Bazaar plugin for GTK+ interfaces to most Bazaar operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bzr-gtk - Bazaar plugin for GTK+ interfaces to most Bazaar operations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206877 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 17:15 EST --- Could you please close this bug if it has been imported? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212836] Review Request: fwfstab - a graphical file system table (fstab) editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fwfstab - a graphical file system table (fstab) editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212836 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 17:12 EST --- Sorry for the troubles - I edited the 'add' function but not the 'edit' one... I tested both on my machine, it should work as it should now. Your right it is, but considering I have 0 downloads (apart from here) I just re-created the tarball... Anyways, I made a new release: SPEC: http://www.diffingo.com/downloads/fwfstab/fwfstab.spec SRPM: http://www.diffingo.com/downloads/fwfstab/fwfstab-0.01.1-1.src.rpm RPM: http://www.diffingo.com/downloads/fwfstab/fwfstab-0.01.1-1.noarch.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 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 17:08 EST --- I think you'll find that was for gnonlin - or at least that's how I read 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 213765] Review Request: alex4 - Alex the Allegator 4 - Platform game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: alex4 - Alex the Allegator 4 - Platform game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213765 [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 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 17:05 EST --- Brian Pepple (above) has agreed to take ownership of this and I imagine he is waiting on the 0.2 release... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-11-02 17:05 EST --- Anything happening on 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 184011] Review Request: nickle
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nickle https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184011 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 16:58 EST --- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 16:58 EST --- Has there been anymore progress on 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 213765] New: Review Request: alex4 - Alex the Allegator 4 - Platform game
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=213765 Summary: Review Request: alex4 - Alex the Allegator 4 - Platform game Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/alex4.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/alex4-1.0-1.src.rpm Description: In the latest installment of the series Alex travels through the jungle in search of his kidnapped girlfriend. Plenty of classic platforming in four nice colors guaranteed! --- Hmm I just realised this needs work to work properly on PPC (I had to fix some file loading issues on x86_64, but there are endian issues in there too I realise now). I'll report back here with an updated version for PPC soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213180] Review Request: tcl-thread - Thread extension for Tcl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tcl-thread - Thread extension for Tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213180 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 211703] Review Request: nyquist - Sound synthesis and composition language with a Lisp syntax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nyquist - Sound synthesis and composition language with a Lisp syntax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211703 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 16:32 EST --- Here is the package which includes the fix (spec at the same place): http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/6/i386/SRPMS.gemi/nyquist-2.31-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196393] Review Request: svrcore-devel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: svrcore-devel Alias: svrcore-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196393 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 16:29 EST --- (In reply to comment #18) > When upstream ships only static libs it is not a blocker not to > have shared libs. Plus, it's only a -devel package, not a runtime package (or perhaps that's redundant). On the other hand, we (the Fedora DS team) are the upstream for svrcore-devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213596] Review Request: tclcompiler - Tcl bytecode compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tclcompiler - Tcl bytecode compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213596 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 16:23 EST --- Added missing license file: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/tclcompiler.spec http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/tclcompiler-1.5-2.20061030cvs.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 213595] Review Request: tbcload - Tcl bytecode loader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tbcload - Tcl bytecode loader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213595 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 16:23 EST --- Added the missing license file: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/tbcload.spec http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/tbcload-1.4-2.20061030cvs.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 196393] Review Request: svrcore-devel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: svrcore-devel Alias: svrcore-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196393 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 16:20 EST --- When upstream ships only static libs it is not a blocker not to have shared libs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197867] Review Request: iscsitarget (includes kernel module)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: iscsitarget (includes kernel module) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197867 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 15:51 EST --- whats the current status of 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 213662] Review Request: openmpi - Upstream MPI package with native InfiniBand support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openmpi - Upstream MPI package with native InfiniBand support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213662 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||203299 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212894] Review Request: libopm - Blitzed open proxy monitor 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: libopm - Blitzed open proxy monitor library Alias: libopm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212894 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 14:25 EST --- Okay, hopefully fixed everything; new: Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libopm.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libopm-0.1-3.20050731cvs.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 212692] New package: libgnomekbd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: New package: libgnomekbd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212692 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 14:22 EST --- Package added to dist-fc7, please close bug when built for rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213511] Review Request: gxine - Gnome frontend for the xine multimedia 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: gxine - Gnome frontend for the xine multimedia library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213511 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|188267 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 14:06 EST --- Accidentally moved it to the wrong bug tracker -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196393] Review Request: svrcore-devel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: svrcore-devel Alias: svrcore-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196393 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 13:48 EST --- "we hope to have other apps use it in the future" should be a motivator to do it right (shared libraries). I'm not seeing a valid reason to permit static libraries 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 209311] Review Request: espeak - Software speech synthesizer (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: espeak - Software speech synthesizer (text-to-speech) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209311 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 13:43 EST --- Thanks for the feedback! New build: Spec URL: http://dialogpalette.sourceforge.net/extras/fedora/espeak.spec SRPM URL: http://dialogpalette.sourceforge.net/extras/fedora/espeak-1.16-2.src.rpm Changes: - Added "install" target to makefile (makefile_install_target.patch) - Added patch to fix AMD64 sizeof(char *) assumption bug (upstream request ID 1588938) - Changed "portaudio" BuildRequires to "portaudio-devel" - Added patch to makefile to allow RPM_OPT_FLAGS - Added patch to replace all references to "speak" binary with "espeak" - Moved header files to /usr/include/espeak A few comments: Development headers: As mentioned in the ReadMe, the speak_lib.h provides the entire API to the libespeak shared library, and it references no other espeak-specific headers, so it is unecessary to include any other .h files. Binary voice data: The espeak program itself (formerly "speak" ;-) ) cannot compile the binary voice data (using the --compile arg) from source without a binary version of the phoneme tables being present. These phoneme table data files cannot be compiled from source using espeak/speak; they are compiled with a seperate program, "espeakedit", which is an interactive, GUI-based editing tool, also released under the GPL. There is no explicit license file for the binary voice data/phoneme tables, but since the source from which these are compiled is under the GPL, I don't think there are any legal problems. Patches: Depending on the feedback from this package build, I will push the makefile patches upstream (except for the RPM_OPT_FLAGS patch). espeak name: I agree that the "speak" name is troublesome, and have removed it from this rpm, as per suggestion. However, we must remember that some other applications may already be using eSpeak via the "speak" executable (especially since the shared library is a relatively new addition to espeak); this patch may break compatability with such programs. Some HOWTO's and guides on the Internet will also be (very slightly) incompatible with this naming scheme. There are ways around this, naturally, but I'm uncertain whether changing the name in the Fedora package is the best course of action. Nevertheless, depending on the feedback here, I will push upstream for the name change... :-) I've built this package in mock on FC6/i386. rpmlint is silent, except for the no-documentation stuff for the -devel subpackage. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213511] Review Request: gxine - Gnome frontend for the xine multimedia 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: gxine - Gnome frontend for the xine multimedia library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213511 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |188267 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 213511] Review Request: gxine - Gnome frontend for the xine multimedia 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: gxine - Gnome frontend for the xine multimedia library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213511 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 13:21 EST --- So, the error is because the /usr/share/gxine/logo.mpv file that gxine tries to open on startup .. cannot be played without the nonfree codecs. Problem goes away after installing xine-lib-extras-nonfree from Livna, which is not a viable solution for an Extras package. You might want to ask Upstream if they could change the format used for the logo file. Or alternatively, patch gxine not to load the 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 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 13:10 EST --- Builds for FC-5 have been just queued, closing as 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 199405] Review Request: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization 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: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199405 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #139933|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 13:06 EST --- (From update of attachment 139933) OK, I marked the patch in comment #27 as obsolete. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212692] New package: libgnomekbd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: New package: libgnomekbd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212692 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|188267 |188268 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 13:00 EST --- Okay moving to FC-ACCEPT. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212692] New package: libgnomekbd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: New package: libgnomekbd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212692 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 12:57 EST --- Also, aren't reviewers supposed to run rpmlint themselves ? Anyway, it comes up clean -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212692] New package: libgnomekbd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: New package: libgnomekbd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212692 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 12:53 EST --- I don't have a source url, unless you want me to put in the sourceforce download url. Its not in gnome ftp yet. Regarding dbus-glib version, I just copied whatever versions the configure script requires. But if it freaks you out' I'll bump it. The capplet is for configuring the plugins. I know it is slightly ridiculous, thats why I have made it NoDisplay. I was not totally sure about leaving it out. On the one hand, having plugins in a keyboard indicator is nonsense, and we don't ship any in core anyway, but on the other hand there are many flag lovers out there who would maybe install the flags plugin if it was packaged in extras. I guess whoever decides to package the plugins could also package the capplet in extras then. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212692] New package: libgnomekbd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: New package: libgnomekbd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212692 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 12:41 EST --- It says it requires dbus-glib >= 0.34. Is that really right? isn't it at version .7something now? why does this *library* ship a capplet? What does it do? Can we just nuke it and not put it in the package? Also what is the output of rpmlint? any warnings or errors? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212692] New package: libgnomekbd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: New package: libgnomekbd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212692 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 12:35 EST --- I think we have a policy of putting a full URL in the Source line -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212692] New package: libgnomekbd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: New package: libgnomekbd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212692 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|188265 |188267 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212692] New package: libgnomekbd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: New package: libgnomekbd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212692
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 12:33 EST ---
the description has %{name} in it, that's weird
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212894] Review Request: libopm - Blitzed open proxy monitor 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: libopm - Blitzed open proxy monitor library Alias: libopm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212894 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 12:26 EST --- -For the RPM_OPT_FLAGS, I did not check the actual flags being used. I simply noted it because I did not see it explicitly mentioned in the spec file. I will take a closer look at this issue when I do the formal review. You can leave it out for now if you think it's not needed. - I suggested you use %defattr(-,root,root,-) because all of the examples given use this. It probably doesn't matter much and I wont block the review because of it, but I don't see any harm in adding it either. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines?highlight=%28defattr%29 - The group doesn't matter to me, I can't find anything anywhere defining the groups so you can leave it as is if you like. - I suggested you use --disable-static because of this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-2302ec1e1f44202c9cc4bcce24cb711266557ad7 Which states that static libraries should be disable whenever possible. So unless you got a *really* good reason to keep the static library, then I will allow you to keep it in the package, but you must add a comment in the spec file explaining the *really* good reason for you to keep it. Otherwise this is a blocker and the static library must be removed before I can approve it. - For the version number, I suggested 0.0.0 because this was the version number use in the .so filename. However, if you want to use 0.1, that is fine 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 211548] Review Request: fluxstyle - Graphical style manager for fluxbox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fluxstyle - Graphical style manager for fluxbox https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211548 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 12:06 EST --- It doesn't seems to be in built in devel? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209262] Review Request: beryl-plugins - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager plug-ins
Please 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-plugins - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager plug-ins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209262 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 12:04 EST --- This is a RFE: chitlesh(~)[0]$rpm -qf /usr/share/beryl/cubecaps.png beryl-plugins-0.1.1-2.fc6 from your repo. could you remplace that file with /usr/share/rhgb/main-logo.png ? It's more fedora this way :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213511] Review Request: gxine - Gnome frontend for the xine multimedia 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: gxine - Gnome frontend for the xine multimedia library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213511 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 11:15 EST --- Also, from the INSTALL file provided by gxine, it looks like you might want to BuildReq on several other optional packages: libxext-dev (for DPMS, presumably so gxine can stop your screen from blanking during playback), Xinerama, etc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213511] Review Request: gxine - Gnome frontend for the xine multimedia 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: gxine - Gnome frontend for the xine multimedia library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213511 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 11:12 EST --- Uh, Parag, it looks from your desktop integration errors that you're running gxine as the *root* user? Those are just because the directories you were writing to did not exist. I do get the 'xine-lib: error: The xine engine failed to start.: No demuxer found - stream format not recognized.' errors as well. They keep appearing on stderr, together with a dialog box saying the same thing, until I kill gxine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 11:09 EST --- >From the current repo version, using beryl-manager to switch to compiz fails >for me. Could be a gnome-window-decorator bug since it seems the --replace switch is not replacing emerald. Selecting compiz with COW breaks compiz such that it won't actually work again until you reset the /apps/compiz/general/allscreens/options/active_plugins key to default values. I've had these two problems on both intel and nvidia hardware. I'm not sure if these are upstream bugs or FC6 specific ones. Unfortunately for me, beryl on my dual head nvidia box also seems to make many windows just black (firefox particularly). One reason for me to use it is for better xinerama support. I don't see this black window problem on my single head nvidia box or my intel laptop. Is there a place to talk about problems with these rpms on FC6? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213594] Review Request: eclipse-phpeclipse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eclipse-phpeclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213594 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 10:15 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > The tarball DOES contain an .html version of the license, but I thought an > ASCII > version would be more portable so I manually included it. If you like, I can > just stick the .html in %doc and remove the .txt file. I think that would be best. I'll do a review of your next SRPM. AG -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213594] Review Request: eclipse-phpeclipse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eclipse-phpeclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213594 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 10:06 EST --- Wow that's funny, because all of mine and others' (that I know of) PEAR/PECL packages manually include a copy of the PHP license. The tarball DOES contain an .html version of the license, but I thought an ASCII version would be more portable so I manually included it. If you like, I can just stick the .html in %doc and remove the .txt 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 212704] Review Request: manedit - UNIX Manual Page Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: manedit - UNIX Manual Page Editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212704 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 09:26 EST --- Okay, I added about some comments in %%description stage. http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/manedit.spec http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/manedit-0.7.1-4.src.rpm As I commented about, I mailed upstream about gtk2ization. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213662] New: Review Request: openmpi - Upstream MPI package with native InfiniBand support
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=213662 Summary: Review Request: openmpi - Upstream MPI package with native InfiniBand support Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] The openmpi package is the intended replacement for the aging and deprecated by upstream lam package. It depends on the openib package. The openmpi and openib packages are already in CVS and used in RHEL4 and RHEL5. The openmpi package is already accepted into Fedora Extras. However, that presents a problem for packages like Valgrind that would like to compile against it and are in core. I would like to add openmpi to Fedora Core Development (aka rawhide) and possibly to Fedora Core 6 as an update. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213658] New: Review Request: ibutils - Upstream OFED package to support InfiniBand hardware
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=213658 Summary: Review Request: ibutils - Upstream OFED package to support InfiniBand hardware Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] The ibutils package is a collection of InfiniBand fabrid diagnostic tools. It depends on the openib package. The ibutils and openib packages are already in CVS and used in RHEL4 and RHEL5. I would like to add it to Fedora Core Development (aka rawhide) and possibly to Fedora Core 6 as an update. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213657] New: Review Request: openib - Upstream OFED package to support InfiniBand hardware
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=213657 Summary: Review Request: openib - Upstream OFED package to support InfiniBand hardware Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] The openib package is already in CVS and used in RHEL4 and RHEL5. I would like to add it to Fedora Core Development (aka rawhide) and possibly to Fedora Core 6 as an update. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213432] Review Request: kaffeine - Xine-based media player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kaffeine - Xine-based media player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213432 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 08:39 EST --- Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kaffeine.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/kaffeine-0.8.2-3.src.rpm %changelog * Thu Nov 02 2006 Rex Dieter 0.8.2-4 - chmod -x AUTHORS ChangeLog TODO - use rel symlinks under %%_docdir All the other rpmlint verbosity is harmless. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196837] Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit3 - PEAR: 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-PHPUnit3 - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests Alias: pear-PHPUnit3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196837 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 08:34 EST --- > Could we install the channel in a %pre section in this package instead? I think this will not help you to build on mock. You prabably have to propose a packaging rules for this "channel" package on [EMAIL PROTECTED] > BTW, Remi, would you like to be co-maintainer with me on this package? "co-maintainer" is a little bit confusing for me with the actual fedora system, but i agree to work with you on 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 208169] Review Request: python-twisted-core - An asynchronous networking framework written in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-twisted-core - An asynchronous networking framework written in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208169 Bug 208169 depends on bug 207265, which changed state. Bug 207265 Summary: Review Request: python-zope-interface - Zope interfaces package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207265 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 207265] Review Request: python-zope-interface - Zope interfaces package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-zope-interface - Zope interfaces package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207265 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 07:53 EST --- Imported and built successfully for FC-5, FC-6, and development. owners.list updated. Thanks for the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212704] Review Request: manedit - UNIX Manual Page Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: manedit - UNIX Manual Page Editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212704 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 06:56 EST --- I think upstream must be contacted about that issue, but I don't think we should wait for this issue to be solved before accepting manedit in fedora extras. the comment in %description seems enough to me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212704] Review Request: manedit - UNIX Manual Page Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: manedit - UNIX Manual Page Editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212704 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 06:33 EST --- Well, perhaps the current way is * wait for upstream's response (I think upstream is learfox[at]twu.net according to http://wolfpack.twu.net/contacts.html .) * or add some comments like "this is gtk+ package and some (especially UTF-8) characters will appear as garbages") , perhaps. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213594] Review Request: eclipse-phpeclipse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eclipse-phpeclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213594 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 06:30 EST --- Brandon: I don't think it's OK to add your own license file to %doc, even if it is the appropriate one. I believe this rule is MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. I tried this once with vkeybd and see where it got me... https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189889 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212704] Review Request: manedit - UNIX Manual Page Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: manedit - UNIX Manual Page Editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212704 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 06:21 EST --- In my opinion, the apostrophe issue is also an utf8 issue, the apostrophe used isn't the ascii apostrophe but an utf8 encoded apostrophe (which is believed to be better looking). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212704] Review Request: manedit - UNIX Manual Page Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: manedit - UNIX Manual Page Editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212704 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 06:18 EST --- For apostrophe issue (I don't know if this is a bug of manedit or gtk+) and gtk2ization, I mailed to perhaps-upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 211626] Review Request: xtide - Calculate tide all over the world
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xtide - Calculate tide all over the world https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211626 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 06:16 EST --- I mailed to upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-11-02 05:39 EST --- Is it possible to go with this ? Requires: gnome-desktop, control-center If not, one who has install kde only will have to install all those dependencies of the gnome-desktop. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213511] Review Request: gxine - Gnome frontend for the xine multimedia 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: gxine - Gnome frontend for the xine multimedia library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213511 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 03:58 EST --- Created an attachment (id=140095) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=140095&action=view) errors i got which i used gxine -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213511] Review Request: gxine - Gnome frontend for the xine multimedia 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: gxine - Gnome frontend for the xine multimedia library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213511 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 03:46 EST --- heres review for your package. Got same results for rpmlint on RPM and SRPM as Michel got. use %find_lang gxine and remove .mo listings under %files Then i installed on my FC6 T3 machine and got errors what may i missings? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
