[Bug 218230] Review Request: php-pear-Image-Canvas - Common interface to image drawing

[bugzilla]

Please 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-Image-Canvas - Common interface to image 
drawing
Alias: pear-Image-Canvas

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218230





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-09 01:59 EST ---
> I think it would be better to add a php-pecl-pdflib package to Extras. 
> I think the license should be okay.

php-pecl-pdflib is PHP License
It's the "PDFlib Lite License" which is a special 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 218230] Review Request: php-pear-Image-Canvas - Common interface to image drawing

[bugzilla]

Please 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-Image-Canvas - Common interface to image 
drawing
Alias: pear-Image-Canvas

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218230





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-09 01:55 EST ---
Tests works. Example doesn't because it's use MS Windows Fonts.

REVIEW
* source files match upstream:
41dd36fb05436159fb6fccca02cb7aaa  /tmp/Image_Canvas-0.3.0.tgz
41dd36fb05436159fb6fccca02cb7aaa  ../SOURCES/Image_Canvas-0.3.0.tgz
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible (LGPL).
* latest version is being packaged (0.3.0)
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development).
* package installs properly
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides are sane:
php-pear(Image_Canvas) = 0.3.0
php-pear-Image-Canvas = 0.3.0-2.fc7
* final Requires are sane:
php-pear(Image_Color) -> php-gd
* %check is not present; 
* owns the directories it creates
=> own directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets are OK (pear install)
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

MUST :
- not own /usr/share/pear/Image which is owned by php-pear-Image-Color (required
, remplace with 
%file /usr/share/pear/Image/Canvas*

SHOULD : 
- also remove /usr/share/pear/test/Image_Canvas/tests/pdf.php
- add a information (in description or a README.fedora) about "PDF not 
available"


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 218230] Review Request: php-pear-Image-Canvas - Common interface to image drawing

[bugzilla]

Please 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-Image-Canvas - Common interface to image 
drawing
Alias: pear-Image-Canvas

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218230


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776  |163778
  nThis||




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 208420] Review Request: conky - A system monitor for X originally based on the torsmo code

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: conky - A system monitor for X originally based on the 
torsmo code


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208420





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-09 00:45 EST ---
(In reply to comment #27)

> It is clearly not GPL compatible due to the restrictions on commercial
> use. Maybe the author could accept to relicense it under a GPL
> compatible license? You could also consider adding the isbn to
> the license notice. Seems to be 1565924533.

OK. I removed the hash modules from the project completely and reprogrammed 
using GLib's GHashTable.  Conky 1.4.5 will reflect this change.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 23:06 EST ---
rpmlint is much happier now.  Here is the output on the srpm and rpm:

W: ecryptfs-utils summary-not-capitalized eCryptfs mount helper and support
libraries
W: ecryptfs-utils devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libecryptfs.so

Package mock-builds for FC6.

As far as the first one, just to keep lint quit, maybe you'd change the summary
from "eCryptfs mount helper ..." to "The eCryptfs mount helper...".

As far as the second regarding libcryptfs.so, it should be removed from the
package if it is a development file and you don't intend to provide a -devel
package.  I see there are still .so files in /usr/lib/ecryptfs although you
never stated their purpose.  Are they dl'opened modules or develop libraries?

It's recommended that the Source directives are direct download links.  It's
also recommended that your first source sould be Source0:
Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils-6.tar.bz2

Since its support in the kernel starts at a specific version number, the package
should require this number or greater.  This is a little more complicated that
it sounds, because although a kernel may have a number like 2.6.18, the kernel
developers might have (probably did) pulled in additional snapshot patches.  You
should check with the upstream RPM developers of the kernel or verify for
yourself what kernel number (exactly which RPM release) ecryptfs support starts 
in.

MUST Items:
- MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. The exception to this are directories listed explicitly
in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard ([WWW]
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html), as it is safe to assume that
those directories exist.

Take ownership of %{_libdir}/ecryptfs via a %dir statement or by recommendation
below.

- MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.

See previous comments regarding .so files.



A couple of recommendations:

This is redundant, as make install will do it for you:
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/sbin
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/ecryptfs
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir}
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man7

These lines:
%{_libdir}/ecryptfs/libecryptfs_pki_passphrase.so
%{_libdir}/ecryptfs/libecryptfs_pki_openssl.so
can be replaced with:
%{_libdir}/ecryptfs
which will include the files and directory and solve the directory ownership
problem above.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 218360] Review Request: evolution-plugin-remove-duplicates - Evolution plugin for removing duplicate mails

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: evolution-plugin-remove-duplicates - Evolution plugin 
for removing duplicate mails


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218360





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 20:54 EST ---
Nice. Mock build is successfully building package.
working fine.
Will post review later on.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 20:38 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=143200)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=143200&action=view)
specfile patch

This patch makes rpmlint happy and the package more inline with both Fedora and
Mozilla standards. There is still room for improvement, e.g. eliminating the
major/minor/subminor macros, but I wouldn't block on that. Please test this
together with Toshio's new svrcore package (e.g. through the SDK acceptance
test).

* Fri Dec  8 2006 Axel Thimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 6.0.0-2
- Rename to mozldap.
- move configure step to %%build section.
- clean up excessive use of %%defines, make more Fedora like.
- fix mismatching soname issue.
- generic specfile cosmetics.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 20:30 EST ---
Going with the Mozilla library naming conventions is OK, but these don't suggest
adding a more or less artificial .6.0.0 suffix (artificial since it's part of
the packaging layer and not upstream intention). If you check NSPR and NSS they
keep the soname as is, e..g don't add a versioning suffix, and thus the
respective devel file has no library parts at all, not even symlinks.

So it's a) in comment #14. I played a bit with the specfile and implemented a),
I'll post the patch in the next comment.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 19:01 EST ---
Bernard -

Thanks for taking the time to look over the package. I have made updates in
response to your comments. The new SPEC file is at
.
The new source RPM is at
.

In response to your question, eCryptfs is in the 2.6.19 mainline kernel.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 218839] Review Request: pyflakes - A Lint-like tool for Python

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: pyflakes - A Lint-like tool for Python


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218839





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 18:40 EST ---
SVN/CVS versions are generally frowned upon unless they provide significant bug
fixes (that would not be easily provided with patch) or significant features or
functionality that dependent packages rely on.

I would prefer that you first verify against the release version if you are
providing such fixes are features before we take the path of introducing a
snapshot into FE.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 217197] Review Request: MyBashBurn 1.0-1 - burn data and songs.

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: MyBashBurn 1.0-1 - burn data and songs.
Alias: MyBashBurn

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217197





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 18:31 EST ---
Parag okeys.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 218839] Review Request: pyflakes - A Lint-like tool for Python

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: pyflakes - A Lint-like tool for Python


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218839





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 18:07 EST ---
I'll stick with the SVN snapshot since it's what I've tested with.

Spec URL:
http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/pyflakes-0.2.1-1.10526svn.fc6.spec
SRPM URL:
http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/pyflakes-0.2.1-1.10526svn.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 207202] Review Request: bes - Back-end server software framework for OPeNDAP

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: bes - Back-end server software framework for OPeNDAP


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207202





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 17:52 EST ---
(In reply to comment #5)

> Corrected in:
> 
> http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/bes-3.2.0-2.src.rpm

Sorry, it is in:
http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/bes-3.2.0-3.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 207202] Review Request: bes - Back-end server software framework for OPeNDAP

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: bes - Back-end server software framework for OPeNDAP


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207202





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 17:26 EST ---
Indeed, it seems to be LGPL. I really dunno how I managed to 
miss that! Thanks. I'll also mention that the COPYING file is missing
to upstream when I contact them.

Corrected in:

http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/bes-3.2.0-2.src.rpm

- set License to LGPL


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 218839] Review Request: pyflakes - A Lint-like tool for Python

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: pyflakes - A Lint-like tool for Python


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218839





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 17:14 EST ---
Check me on this, but I believe it would then be considered a snapshot release,
and your version numbering would need to be different based off the prior
release number.  See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-cfd71146dbb6f00cec9fe3623ea619f843394837

Perhaps you want to revert to the released package.

Either way, fix it up, and I'll 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 207202] Review Request: bes - Back-end server software framework for OPeNDAP

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: bes - Back-end server software framework for OPeNDAP


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207202


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

OtherBugsDependingO|163778  |163776
  nThis||




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 17:08 EST ---
I am providing you a review, but I do not have a contributor account (no
sponsor), so I can't assign the bug to myself.

rpmlint is quiet on all files
mock-build FC6 is successful

MUST Items:
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual 
license.

I did not see the license in the source file or on the website.  A review of one
of the source files seems to indicate that it is LGPL.  This would not be
considered "bsd-like".  Please work with upstream on getting the LGPL license
document included in the source file, and then add it to the %doc section.

I think you have a well put together package.  If you have the facilities, in
the future try to mock-build your packages first as that will tend to weed out
the missing BuildRequires.

Do continue to pursue upstream regarding any build issues (broken autotools
etc.) or dependency bloat.

This ends my review.  Flipping you back to FE-NEW so that you can have a
sponsored reviewer make an official 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 218839] Review Request: pyflakes - A Lint-like tool for Python

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: pyflakes - A Lint-like tool for Python


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218839





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 16:50 EST ---
It's post 0.2.1 - I didn't see the old web page at
http://divmod.org/projects/pyflakes before creating these packages so I guess I
just assumed that there hadn't been a 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 218839] Review Request: pyflakes - A Lint-like tool for Python

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: pyflakes - A Lint-like tool for Python


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218839





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 16:32 EST ---
Is this a pre-release of 0.2.1 or a snapshot post 0.2.1?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 208034] Review Request: HippoDraw - Interactive and Python scriptable data analysis application

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: HippoDraw - Interactive and Python scriptable data 
analysis application


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208034





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 16:16 EST ---
configure script fixed.   used AC_CHECK_LIB instaead of AC_CHECK_FILE.

build failure was related and fixed in upstream sources.

URLs
SRPM  
ftp://ftp.slac.stanford.edu/users/pfkeb/hippodraw/HippoDraw-1.19.1-1.src.rpm

SPEC  ftp://ftp.slac.stanford.edu/users/pfkeb/hippodraw/HippoDraw.spec

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 218768] Review Request: poppler-extras - PDF rendering library extras (qt/qt4)

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: poppler-extras -  PDF rendering library extras (qt/qt4)


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218768





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 16:10 EST ---
Ok, I will review it for you after it's modified.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 218176] Review Request: gchempaint - A 2D chemical formulae drawing tool

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gchempaint - A 2D chemical formulae drawing tool


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218176





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 14:04 EST ---
Re-uploaded. un-resolved -> un-defined

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 218176] Review Request: gchempaint - A 2D chemical formulae drawing tool

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gchempaint - A 2D chemical formulae drawing tool


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218176





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 13:48 EST ---
Spec URL: http://www.republika.pl/belegdol/rpmstuff/gchempaint.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.republika.pl/belegdol/rpmstuff/gchempaint-0.6.6-5.src.rpm
New release:
- Added upstream patch #18159, fixing AMD64 startup crash
- Disabled -devel package until unresolved non-weak symbols issue is fixed
- Added hicolor-icon-theme to Requires

I have decided to leave the commented out sections in the spec, as the issue has
been fixed in the development branch of gchempaint and the devel package will
return once 0.8.0 version is released.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 218831] Review Request: python-urljr - A common interface to urllib2 and curl for making HTTP requests

[bugzilla]

Please 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-urljr - A common interface to urllib2 and curl 
for making HTTP requests


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218831


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

OtherBugsDependingO|163778  |163779
  nThis||




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 13:09 EST ---
MUST items:
 * rpmlint is quiet
 * package is named well
 * spec file name is good
 * package meets Packaging Guidelines
 * package is licensed with an LGPL open-source compatible license
 * License field in spec file matches actual license
 * license file isn't included in %doc
 * md5sums are matching (0b120d08dc4538ed5c4ee5c77447b865)
 * BuildRequires listed well
 * no locales
 * no need to %post and %postun sections
 * not relocatable
 * package owns directories well
 * no duplicates in %files
 * %files section includes %defattr 
 * proper %clean section
 * macros used well

In fact, license file isn't included as a COPYING file contains only information
about license, not the license itself. However, guidelines say that:
"If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its 
wn file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package
must be included in %doc." so it's not a blocker.

Package is approved :)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 13:07 EST ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> You can either
> a) go along and *not* do any symlinking on the packaging level. E.g. the 'so's
>remain in the core package and there are no so symlinks in *-devel
> b) clean it up and rename the SONAMEs from lib*ldap60.so -> lib*ldap.so.6 with
>a patch against the build in the tarball.
> 
> a) is quick and dirty and matches current upstream methology, b) is clean and
> proper, but requires you to get the patch submitted upstream, otherwise we'll 
> be
> breaking library ABI.

Note that mozldap follows the Mozilla library naming conventions that are used
by NSPR and NSS which have been in Fedora for a while now (e.g. libnspr4.so,
libnss3.so, etc.).  So, unless there are plans to also convert those libraries
to the proper naming convention, I think it suffices to stick with
libldap60.so.6.0.0.  It should not be a big deal to put the proper so name in
the shared libraries, so that the main package will have 
libldap60.so.6.0.0
and the devel package will have
libldap60.so


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 218831] Review Request: python-urljr - A common interface to urllib2 and curl for making HTTP requests

[bugzilla]

Please 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-urljr - A common interface to urllib2 and curl 
for making HTTP requests


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218831


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776  |163778
  nThis||




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 12:51 EST ---
I'll review 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 196393] Review Request: svrcore

[bugzilla]

Please 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
Alias: svrcore

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196393





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 12:40 EST ---
New srpm:
http://www.tiki-lounge.com/~toshio/fedora/svrcore-4.0.2.02-0.src.rpm

I've gone through the #ifdefs now and made a few minor changes.  I think this
tarball is good to go as far as replacing coreconf with autotools.  It will need
some tweaking from your end (documentation, runtime testing, etc) but is largely
complete.

Changes:
* configure.ac: We don't have any fallbacks in code for missing string.h,
termios.h, or unistd.h so Have configure error if any of those are missing.

* ntgetpin.c, user.c: Code was using both #ifdef WIN32 and #ifdef _WIN32. 
Changed all to the _WIN32 form.

* user.c: Instead of checking if we're building on XP_UNIX, check that we aren't
building on _WIN32.  This matches with code later in the file that uses the
functions define here if we are not on _WIN32.


I'll post this to the upstream bugzilla as well.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 180092] Review Request: NRPE - Monitoring agent for Nagios

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: NRPE - Monitoring agent for Nagios


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180092





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 12:36 EST ---
Sure thing, I'll have them built by tonight.  Should be on the mirrors in the
next couple of days.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 180092] Review Request: NRPE - Monitoring agent for Nagios

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: NRPE - Monitoring agent for Nagios


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180092





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 12:17 EST ---
Mike,

Could you also build it for FC-5 and FC-6 ?

Tia,
jpo

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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

[bugzilla]

Please 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
Alias: svrcore

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196393





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 11:37 EST ---
i tested the build of Toshio's build on Aurora Corona  the equivelant of FC-6 
sparc.  build was ok  but i have not tested runtime or building against 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 190189] Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190189





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 11:30 EST ---
Here's a quick-n-dirty workaround:
export PATH=/usr/lib/qt4/bin:$PATH (or /usr/lib64/qt4/bin if on x86_64)
before running qtdemo.py


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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

[bugzilla]

Please 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
Alias: svrcore

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196393





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 11:11 EST ---
Yes, Windows is a requirement.  I can take care of building on Windows.

Here is the upstream bug for the work that you guys have done:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=363168



-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 218839] Review Request: pyflakes - A Lint-like tool for Python

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: pyflakes - A Lint-like tool for Python


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218839





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 10:15 EST ---
Spec URL:
http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/pyflakes-0.0-1.10526svn.fc6.spec
SRPM URL:
http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/pyflakes-0.0-1.10526svn.fc6.src.rpm

That should fix the naming problem...

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 190189] Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190189





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 10:13 EST ---
Root cause of problems running with "Show Documentation", is that it assumes the
presence of qt4's assistant, which we install as assistant-qt4 (to avoid file
conflicts with qt(3)'s assistant).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 190189] Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190189





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 10:11 EST ---
OK, it's qt-devel's 'assistant' running interference (not qt's qtdemo) 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 196393] Review Request: svrcore

[bugzilla]

Please 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
Alias: svrcore

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196393


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: svrcore-|Review Request: 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 190189] Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190189





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 10:02 EST ---
rpm -q qt-devel-docs
package qt-devel-docs is not installed


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 190189] Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190189





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 09:59 EST ---
you may also have qt-devel-docs installed (?), which may be interfering (they
both provide something called qtdemo).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 190189] Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190189





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 09:57 EST ---
rpm -q qt4-doc
qt4-doc-4.2.2-1.fc6

Must be some other problem.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 190189] Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190189





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 09:53 EST ---
AFAICT, the qtdemo.py example likely only works 100% if you have qt4-doc
installed (it worksforme).  Then, you can compare qtdemo.oy against how
qtdemo-qt works (it should be identical).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 196393] Review Request: svrcore-devel

[bugzilla]

Please 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196393


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Alias|svrcore-devel   |svrcore




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 196401] Review Request: mozldap

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: mozldap
Alias: mozldap

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196401





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 09:46 EST ---
You need to BR cyrus-sasl-devel

@@ -28,2 +29,3 @@
 BuildRequires:%{svrcore_name} >= %{svrcore_version}
+BuildRequires:cyrus-sasl-devel
 
Wrt lib*ldap60.so: Upstream seems to prefer to disambiguate the library by
changing the core name (the embedded "60") and therefore sees no urge to use
properly versioned libraries.

You can either
a) go along and *not* do any symlinking on the packaging level. E.g. the 'so's
   remain in the core package and there are no so symlinks in *-devel
b) clean it up and rename the SONAMEs from lib*ldap60.so -> lib*ldap.so.6 with
   a patch against the build in the tarball.

a) is quick and dirty and matches current upstream methology, b) is clean and
proper, but requires you to get the patch submitted upstream, otherwise we'll be
breaking library ABI.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 217836] Review Request: vimoutliner - set of vim macros for editing outlines

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: vimoutliner - set of vim macros for editing outlines


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217836





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 09:41 EST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> * Please specify all sources.
I meant "Please specify URLs of all sources"

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 217836] Review Request: vimoutliner - set of vim macros for editing outlines

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: vimoutliner - set of vim macros for editing outlines


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217836


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 09:37 EST ---
A quick glance at your spec file and

* Please specify all sources.

* cp -f %{SOURCE5} README.Fedora
  - Use 'cp -p -f' to keep timestamp.

* Why does this package call "update-desktop-database" though
  no desktop file is included?

* helpztags %{_datadir}/vim/vimfiles/doc
  - What does this do?
  = If this script creates some files, the files (created by helpztags)
should be included in this package with marked as 
%ghost %verify(not md5 size mtime), for example.
  = If this script changes some files included in this package, the
files to be modified should marked with %verify(...)
  = If this script changes some files included in other packages,
it shouldn't unless the files are marked with %verify(not ...) or
%config or so.

* %preun
  helpztags %{_datadir}/vim/vimfiles/doc
  - What does this do? At %preun stage, all files in this package
still exist, so I think this does nothing (though I don't
know what helpztags actually does..)

By the way, does any sponsor watching 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 196393] Review Request: svrcore-devel

[bugzilla]

Please 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]  2006-12-08 09:31 EST ---
I tested the build of Toshio's new tarball/spec on FC6 for i386/x86_64/ppc and
all have a

o clean rpmlint output (aside from missing doc warnings in the devel 
subppackage)
o sane buildlogs, e.g. both confugure and make output looks fine for all archs
o mozldap builds against it

I didn't test any runtime behaviour, but I think it's already worthwhile to
submit Toshio's changes upstream. I think that's also the only place where
Windows builds could be tested, if that's a requirement.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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

[bugzilla]

Please 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]  2006-12-08 09:22 EST ---
svrcore-devel was the old name, only because this was a static only library in
the past.  svrcore should be the new .src.rpm name.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 207202] Review Request: bes - Back-end server software framework for OPeNDAP

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: bes - Back-end server software framework for OPeNDAP


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207202





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 09:05 EST ---
If you review the package, you should set its state to ASSIGNED, and 
add yourself in the 'Rassign bug to' box.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 207202] Review Request: bes - Back-end server software framework for OPeNDAP

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: bes - Back-end server software framework for OPeNDAP


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207202





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 09:04 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I will provide you a review.  As I understand it, since you already have
> packages in FE, you do not need a sponsor.

Yes, I own some packages ;-)

> rpmlint on the srpm is clean.

It is also clean on the binary rpms, isn't it?

> When I try to mock-build the package (FC6), the build terminates with:
> checking for a readline compatible library... no
> configure: error: I could not find the readline library!
> error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.14834 (%build)

Yep, missing BR on readline-devel. I also added one on openssl-devel
since bes depends on openssl-devel, even though there is already an
indirect dependency (through libdap-devel -> curl-devel -> openssl-devel).

http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/bes-3.2.0-2.src.rpm

- add BuildRequires for readline-devel and openssl-devel



I had a look at configure.ac, and there is a (broken) macro to look for
kerberos, but after a look in the code, it doesn't seems to be used. 
kerberos is also pulled in as indirect dependency anyway.

The autoconf macros related with kerberos and openssl are broken,
but the libs/headers are in the standard places, and kerberos is unneeded
so everything is right. I'll try to work that out with upstream.

I know that there are many unneeded dependencies on sonames, as
ldd -u -r says, most of them come from libdap flags, I am also working
that out with 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 202528] Review Request: rt2x00-kmod

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: rt2x00-kmod


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202528





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 08:50 EST ---
@Danny Yee
rt2x00 is in development and sould be considered stable when d80211 stack will
be in the kernel tree.. (not until 2.6.21 kernel and rt2x00 should certainly be
integrated with it).
You can try my testing repository here : 
http://kwizart.free.fr/blog/index.php?17
http://kwizart.free.fr/blog/index.php?10
You can try both rt61 and rt2x00 kmod for fc6, try the rt2x00 first and then
rt61.Don't forget the rt61-firmware for it (rt2x00 only!)
(it 's in french but i can provide you support in english!)

In fine it will help the review...

@John W. Linville
I've took theses files to build the d80211 kmod:
http://people.redhat.com/linville/kernels/fc6/patches/jwltest-d80211-backport.patch
http://people.redhat.com/linville/kernels/fc6/patches/jwltest-d80211-backport-fixup.patch
http://people.redhat.com/linville/kernels/fc6/patches/jwltest-cfg80211-fixup.patch

I spent few time upon this question but last time i've found that rt2x00 from
serial monkey do not works with the patches you provides or needs some tweaks.
So the direction i'm involved is to take rt2x00 version from the patches you
provides which is not the same package thought... (but certainly a better
stable... less support?)

wip...


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 218768] Review Request: poppler-extras - PDF rendering library extras (qt/qt4)

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: poppler-extras -  PDF rendering library extras (qt/qt4)


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218768





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 07:59 EST ---
Yes, I'm aware of the guideline.  This is a reasonable exception, which is why I
added the pithy comment. (:

Hold off on reviewing this... the poppler maintainer seems agreeable to adding
-qt to Core (see bug #158941 comment #11), so I'll probably be modifying this
(soon) to include only the -qt4 wrapper.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 190189] Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190189





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 07:50 EST ---
I'm trying /usr/share/doc/PyQt4-devel-4.1/examples/tools/qtdemo/qtdemo.py.

Don't know who's causing this, but view an example, (say, main window), and 
click on "Show Documentation" doesn't work.  Shows raw xml and complains about 
not being able to find stuff under PyQt3-something.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 218839] Review Request: pyflakes - A Lint-like tool for Python

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: pyflakes - A Lint-like tool for Python


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218839


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 07:08 EST ---
Jeffrey, I'll try to do a review of this package and the ones it blocking,
however, the first thing I noticed that the versioning for the package is not
correct.  Please take a look at:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-e104844825856d7c45f2f0241586985c0495966b

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 209511] Review Request: gnbd - global network block device

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gnbd - global network block device


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209511


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776  |163778, 177841
  nThis||




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 06:53 EST ---
I don't see you in the owners list, so I can only provide you an unofficial
review.  I'm flipping the FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker on for you too, since you will
have to have a sponsor do an official review.

rpmlint on all packages is silent.
mock-build on FC6 is successful


Must items:
  - 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.

Include COPYING file in %doc

  - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.

I have not been able to verify this - Source0 should be a URL that points to the
donwloadable file.

  - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to
the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries
during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment
until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the
long explanation with the bug number. (Extras Only) The bug should be marked as
blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues:
[WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-x86, [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-x64, [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-ppc

Document why ExclusiveArch is used.

  - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the
macros section of Packaging Guidelines.

Your macro use is consistent.  However, I would suggest replacing "./configure
--mandir=%{_mandir} --libdir=%{_libdir}" with "%{configure}"



-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 207202] Review Request: bes - Back-end server software framework for OPeNDAP

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: bes - Back-end server software framework for OPeNDAP


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207202


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

OtherBugsDependingO|163776  |163778
  nThis||
 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 06:25 EST ---
I will provide you a review.  As I understand it, since you already have
packages in FE, you do not need a sponsor.

rpmlint on the srpm is clean.

When I try to mock-build the package (FC6), the build terminates with:
checking for a readline compatible library... no
configure: error: I could not find the readline library!
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.14834 (%build)


RPM build errors:
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.14834 (%build)


Please correct this an repost your spec and srpm.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776  |163778
  nThis||




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 05:19 EST ---
I will provide you a review.  It is not an official review as you need a 
sponsor.

rpmlint -i ecryptfs-utils-5-0.src.rpm 
W: ecryptfs-utils summary-not-capitalized eCryptfs mount helper and support
libraries
Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter.
- This can be ignored.

W: ecryptfs-utils no-url-tag
The URL tag is missing.
-add:
URL: http://ecryptfs.sourceforge.net

W: ecryptfs-utils setup-not-quiet
You should use -q to have a quiet extraction of the source tarball, as this
generate useless lines of log ( for buildbot, for example )
- add "-q" flag to %setup

W: ecryptfs-utils rpm-buildroot-usage %build ./configure
--prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it
will break short circuiting.
- change to "%{_configure}

E: ecryptfs-utils configure-without-libdir-spec
A configure script is run without specifying the libdir. configure
options must be augmented with something like --libdir=%{_libdir}.

E: ecryptfs-utils hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/ecryptfs
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib,
/usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
- change:
  /usr/bin to %{_bindir}
  /usr/lib to %{_libdir}

E: ecryptfs-utils hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/libecryptfs.so.0.0.0
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib,
/usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
- ditto

E: ecryptfs-utils hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/libecryptfs.so.0
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib,
/usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
- ditto

E: ecryptfs-utils hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/libecryptfs.so
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib,
/usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
- ditto

E: ecryptfs-utils hardcoded-library-path in
/usr/lib/ecryptfs/libecryptfs_pki_passphrase.so
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib,
/usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
- ditto

E: ecryptfs-utils hardcoded-library-path in
/usr/lib/ecryptfs/libecryptfs_pki_openssl.so
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib,
/usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
- ditto

E: ecryptfs-utils no-buildroot-tag
The BuildRoot tag isn't used in your spec. It must be used in order to
allow building the package as non root on some systems.
- add:
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)


You might consider installing rpmdevtools and running fedora-newrpmspec to get a
nice template spec file to work from.  Templated spec files make it faster for
reviewers to review.

Additionally:
make does not use smp flags (see template spec file)
make install does not use DESTDIR (see template spec file)
%defattr has missing param (see template spec file)


Question for submitter: Is ecryptfs already in the kernel?  If it's not, this
would be a blocker until it is.

Once these changes are made, here is the probably output from rpmlint on the
binary rpms:
rpmlint -i mock-results/ecryptfs-utils-5-0.i386.rpm 
E: ecryptfs-utils explicit-lib-dependency libgcrypt
You must let rpm find the library dependencies by itself. Do not put unneeded
explicit Requires: tags.
- remove dependency on libgcrypt

W: ecryptfs-utils summary-not-capitalized eCryptfs mount helper and support
libraries
Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter.
- ignore

W: ecryptfs-utils no-version-in-last-changelog
The last changelog entry doesn't contain a version. Please insert the
version that is coherent with the version of the package and rebuild it.
- please add a version to the changelog entry:
* Mon Dec 04 2006 Mike Halcrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 5-0

W: ecryptfs-utils unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/ecryptfs/libecryptfs_pki_passphrase.so
W: ecryptfs-utils unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/ecryptfs/libecryptfs_pki_openssl.so
- I believe the problem here is that they were not chmod a+x so they are not
stripped... however, see below first.

E: ecryptfs-utils library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/libecryptfs.so.0.0.0
This package contains a library and provides no %post scriptlet containing
a 

[Bug 202528] Review Request: rt2x00-kmod

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: rt2x00-kmod


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202528


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 05:18 EST ---
I would love to have a solid rt2x00 package for Fedora Core 6.  I'm currently
running FC 6 with an FC 5 kernel, because I haven't been able to get a stable
system using either the older rt61 driver (which is what I use under FC5) or the
rt2x00 driver.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 208420] Review Request: conky - A system monitor for X originally based on the torsmo code

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: conky - A system monitor for X originally based on the 
torsmo code


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208420





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 04:34 EST ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> (In reply to comment #23)

> > hash.h
> > hash.c

> http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/masteralgoc/chapter/ch08.pdf

The amount of code is such that it doesn't fall in the fair use case.

> I believe the licensing falls under the O'Reilly policy stated here:
> 
> http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/ask_tim/2001/codepolicy.html

It is clearly not GPL compatible due to the restrictions on commercial
use. Maybe the author could accept to relicense it under a GPL
compatible license? You could also consider adding the isbn to
the license notice. Seems to be 1565924533.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 208420] Review Request: conky - A system monitor for X originally based on the torsmo code

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: conky - A system monitor for X originally based on the 
torsmo code


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208420





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 04:28 EST ---
(In reply to comment #24)

> Yes, conky uses glib directly in audacious.c, i.e. #include .
> The audacious status interface allocates gchar * strings that must be
> freed by the client with g_free() -- song titles, etc.

Oops, I missed it. A Buildrequires on glib2-devel would be appropriate
(but not mandatory, since audacious-devel also brings it in).


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 218768] Review Request: poppler-extras - PDF rendering library extras (qt/qt4)

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: poppler-extras -  PDF rendering library extras (qt/qt4)


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218768


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 04:15 EST ---
Rex- 

> # yes, this file is owned by 2 packages, deal.  -- Rex

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines?highlight=%28Packaging%29#head-a5931a7372c4a00065713430984fa5875513e6d4
Packages must not own files already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb
here is that the first package to be installed should own the files that other
packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora
should ever share ownership with any of the files owned by the filesystem or man
package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time.

I think this is meant more to address having entirely different packages owning
the same file, rather than a collection of related packages sharing a file, but
I thought I'd get your take on 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 218176] Review Request: gchempaint - A 2D chemical formulae drawing tool

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gchempaint - A 2D chemical formulae drawing tool


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218176





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-08 03:37 EST ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Comment from Jean Brefort:
> Hmm, not easily fixed. 
> 
> So, is fixing this bug a requirement? Al for the patch, I'll add it later 
> today.

Yes, I know fixing this issue is not a easy work. My opinion is:
* If providing *-devel package* is necessary, this issue should be fixed
* If not (i.e. providing -devel package is not neccesary *for now*,
  which means that the library included in gchempaint rpm
  are only needed by binaries in gchempaint rpm),
  just dropping -devel package and leaving this issue as it is
  can be allowed.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Bug 218907] New: Review Request: search4files - A handy file search tool

[bugzilla]

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=218907

   Summary: Review Request: search4files - A handy file search tool
   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://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/search4files.spec
SRPM URL: 
http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/search4files-0.1c-1.src.rpm
Description: 

A handy file search tool using different backends which is 
configurable via the command line.

This program acts as a frontend for different file search engines. 
The interface is intentionally lightweight and simple. But it takes 
configuration options from the command line.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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

[bugzilla]

Please 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]  2006-12-08 03:08 EST ---
http://www.tiki-lounge.com/~toshio/fedora/svrcore-4.0.2.01-0.src.rpm

Initial work to port this to autotools.
There's a tarball and x86_64 rpms in that directory as well.  Please be warned
that I am pretty good with autotools but I don't know svrcore or the netscape
build system at all.  I have no programs to test this against.  Therefore, this
could be totally borked (most likely, borked on certain archs but not other as
replacing the buildsystem usually hits portability hacks).

That said, here's the status as I currently see it:
* New layout.  The tarball contains two directories.  svrcore-VERSION/ with
supporting files (README, LICENSE, etc) and svrcore-VERSION/src with the source
code.
* Autotools configures and builds shared and static libraries on linux-x86_64.
* Autotools take care of generating the pkgconfig file as well.
* Running make distcheck passes and creates distribution tarballs.
* Cleaned up the rpm spec file a bit for the new build system.  Commented a
bunch of the env variable defining as I've only done an initial read through to
figure out if it was necessary.
* Documentation needs to be updated: NEWS, AUTHORS, and ChangeLog are new files
that can be filled with useful information :-)  INSTALL needs to be updated with
the new install proceedures.
* configure.ac has an email address for bug reports in one of its macros.  Just
need to replace what's there with the proper address.
* I don't have a Windows box so I don't know how autotools works on Windows (or
if this is something you place a high priority on.)
* I need to run ifnames on the source files and figure out where all the cpp
variables get set.  Most of them looked Windows specific so there's a high
probablility things work on *nix boxes but not Windows.  We need to figure out
hy these defines are set and implement tests in configure.ac to set them
instead.  This is where talkign with someone who understands svrcore/coreconf
would be helpful.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review