[Bug 216723] Review Request: libsieve - A library for parsing, sorting and filtering your mail

[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: libsieve - A library for parsing, sorting and 
filtering your mail


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216723





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-12 02:01 EST ---
Bad URL for srpm.  Try this instead.
SRPM URL:
http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/libsieve-2.1.13-3.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 216723] Review Request: libsieve - A library for parsing, sorting and filtering your mail

[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: libsieve - A library for parsing, sorting and 
filtering your mail


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216723





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-12 01:59 EST ---
Spec URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/libsieve.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/libsieve-2.1.13-3.src.rpm

* Mon Dec 11 2006 Bernard Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 2.1.13-3
- added repotag for anyone who may want to use it
- move ldconfig calls to post and postun with -p
- minor spec file cleanups

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

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

[Bug 218258] Review Request: audacious-docklet - a docklet plugin for Audacious

[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: audacious-docklet - a docklet plugin for Audacious


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218258





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-12 01:26 EST ---
Thank you so much for your carefully review. This is my first time...

I update the spec file as required.
Spec URL: 
SRPM URL: 
Description: 

However, After I change Release tag to "1%{?dist}", there's no "fc6" in the
src.rpm. Is that correct?
  
Thank you again!

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

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

[Bug 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]  2006-12-12 01:00 EST ---
FC6 2.6.18-1.2849: no 2.6.19 git patches
FC6 test 2.6.18-1.2860: no 2.6.19 git patches

So FC6 will probably never support it.

rawhide 2.6.18-1.2849.fc6 (not yet respun)

CVS head holds 2.6.19, so the next rawhide respin will be a 2.6.19 kernel.

Therefore, I think requires >= 2.6.19 is ok for this case.


I re-reviewed your spec and the rpmlint output and I don't see any further 
problems.

One thing to note... In the future, please prepend to your %changelog as you
make any changes.

This ends my 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 219164] Review Request: fontypython - TTF font manager

[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: fontypython - TTF font manager


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219164


[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 219164] Review Request: fontypython - TTF font manager

[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: fontypython - TTF font manager


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219164


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

OtherBugsDependingO|163776  |163778
  nThis||




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-12 00:27 EST ---
Well,

* please check if the dependency a package (python-imaging, ...) should
  be BuildRequires or Requires or _both_ .
  From setup.py, wxPython, python-imaging is needed for BuildRequires,
  surely. And, as I noted in comment #1, these dependency should also
  required by "Requires".
  Note that python-related dependency is currently not checked
  automatically by rpmbuild and we have to check these manually.

  Currently I get the following error:
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ fp
Neither wxgui nor qtgui interfaces could be found. Please consult the help.
-

* Is rpmdevtools required for BuildRequires?

* for desktop files:
  Category Application is deprecated and this is warned by
  desktop-file-utils >= 0.11. Please remove this.

* rpmlint complains about description-line-too-long.
  (rpmlint command is in "rpmlint" rpm in Fedora Extras)
  This means:
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] SRPMS]$ rpmlint -I description-line-too-long
description-line-too-long :
Your description lines must not exceed 79 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.
--

* for src.rpm:
---
W: fontypython strange-permission fontypython.desktop 0600
W: fontypython strange-permission fontypython.spec 0600
---
  Please change the permisson to 0644.

(In reply to comment #4)
> I will contact the author regarding renaming /usr/bin/fp - I believe I'll have
> to edit setup.py in order to make that change.
I think

mv ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_bindir}/fp ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_bindir}/fontypython

meet the demand.

  For mock problem on FC-devel, python-imaging is updated to
  python-imaging-1.1.5-7.fc7 (this is in queue and not published yet)
  and I rebuilt wxPython locally so I can check this by mockbuild.

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

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

[Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command

[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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top 
command


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-12 00:23 EST ---
Once we resolve the .so naming for plugins, I think this resolves all blockers.

One particular thing to consider is whether ntop should be running in /var/ntop
or some other directory (/var/lib/ntop?)


Spec URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/ntop.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/ntop-3.2-5.fc6.src.rpm

* Mon Dec 11 2006 Bernard Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 3.2-5
- use ntop.conf.sample with some modifications
- change default syslog facilty to daemon in init file
- add repo tag for those who want to use it
- install as-data by default, at least for now
- fix package detection of gdome library
- remove extraneous ldconfig call


E: ntop non-standard-gid /var/ntop/dnsCache.db ntop
E: ntop non-standard-gid /var/ntop/rrd/interfaces ntop
E: ntop non-standard-dir-perm /var/ntop/rrd/interfaces 0775
E: ntop non-standard-gid /var/ntop/ntop_pw.db ntop
E: ntop non-standard-gid /var/ntop/macPrefix.db ntop
E: ntop non-standard-gid /var/ntop ntop
E: ntop non-standard-dir-perm /var/ntop 0775
E: ntop non-standard-gid /var/ntop/rrd/graphics ntop
E: ntop non-standard-dir-perm /var/ntop/rrd/graphics 0775
E: ntop non-standard-gid /var/ntop/prefsCache.db ntop
E: ntop non-standard-gid /var/ntop/fingerprint.db ntop
E: ntop non-standard-gid /var/ntop/rrd ntop
E: ntop non-standard-dir-perm /var/ntop/rrd 0775
E: ntop non-standard-gid /var/ntop/addressQueue.db ntop
E: ntop non-standard-gid /var/ntop/rrd/flows ntop
E: ntop non-standard-dir-perm /var/ntop/rrd/flows 0775
E: ntop non-standard-gid /var/ntop/LsWatch.db ntop
W: ntop non-standard-dir-in-var ntop

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

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

[Bug 218844] Review Request: python-yadis - Relying party support for the Yadis service discovery protocol

[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-yadis - Relying party support for the Yadis 
service discovery protocol


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218844


Bug 218844 depends on bug 218831, which changed state.

Bug 218831 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

   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 218852] Review Request: python-openid - Python OpenID libraries

[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-openid - Python OpenID libraries


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218852


Bug 218852 depends on bug 218831, which changed state.

Bug 218831 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

   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 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|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-12 00:02 EST ---
OK, now that python-pycurl has been built, I've pushed builds for python-urljr.
 They should be available in the next push.

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

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

[Bug 206398] Review Request: php-pecl-Fileinfo - libmagic bindings

[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-pecl-Fileinfo - libmagic bindings


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206398





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 23:54 EST ---
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 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]  2006-12-11 22:37 EST ---
Others considerations:
I run rpmlint command and the output:

$ rpmlint mybashburn-1.0-2.noarch.rpm 
W: mybashburn conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mybashburnrc
E: mybashburn script-without-shebang
/usr/share/mybashburn/lang/Swedish/iso_menu.lang
E: mybashburn script-without-shebang
/usr/share/mybashburn/lang/Czech/convert_mp3s.lang
[...]

--> I can't understand how fix it.

E: mybashburn world-writable /etc/mybashburnrc 0666
---> Note that this is good and is necessary for the package,  see comment #3

E: mybashburn standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/bin
E: mybashburn wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/mybashburn/lang/Polish/multi.lang

--> WTF?.

That's a new one to me. These are apparently false positives?, Thanks for
spending time 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 216536] Review Request: FuzzyOcr - Checks for specific keywords in image attachments, using gocr

[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: FuzzyOcr - Checks for specific keywords in image 
attachments, using gocr


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216536





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 22:16 EST ---
I'm afraid I'm getting swamped and I'm getting put off by how crappy gocr
appears to be.  If someone else want to drive this, I'd be more than happy.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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]  2006-12-11 22:09 EST ---
Now, I'm a little confused with presence  of %build section, without this
rpmlint is silent, with it is necessary to make %{buildroot}/usr/lib/debug
directory.

Also remember that i need a sponsor. ;)

All other suggestions have been implemented:
Updated to 1.0-2 -- package at:
http://www.fedora-ve.org/mybashburn/downloads/mybashburn.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.fedora-ve.org/mybashburn/downloads/mybashburn-1.0-2.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 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

OtherBugsDependingO|163776  |201449
  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 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

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution||NOTABUG




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 21:53 EST ---
Since the qt bindings will soon be included in the Core package, and AFAIK, 
nothing currenty needs/uses the qt4 bindings (yet), I withdraw this Review 
request.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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]  2006-12-11 21:33 EST ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> I'll crack on with it, but my buildsys is currently broken due to the ongoing
> Python problems.

Ah... actually I also use rawhide and I had to rebuild
several packages against python 2.5.
* If you have trouble with mock, please see:
  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219029
* Additional info: If you have trouble with plague, please see:
  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214687

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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]  2006-12-11 20:39 EST ---
If ``2.6.18'' is really ``2.6.19-rc6,'' then yes, it does support eCryptfs. I'll
ask around about 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 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]  2006-12-11 20:08 EST ---
I think you missed what I meant regarding kernel versions.  Here's an example of
a kernel spec file for a version of kernel-2.6.18:

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/kernel/devel/kernel-2.6.spec?rev=1.2834&only_with_tag=kernel-2_6_18-1_2834_fc7&view=markup

Notice these patches:
Patch1: patch-2.6.19-rc6.bz2
Patch2: patch-2.6.19-rc6-git10.bz2

Does this mean that a 2.6.18 kernel supports ecryptfs?  Probably, I dunno.  But
that's what I'm looking for in a Require:  Remember you're requires is against
the functionality of the RPM, not what was released 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 216536] Review Request: FuzzyOcr - Checks for specific keywords in image attachments, using gocr

[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: FuzzyOcr - Checks for specific keywords in image 
attachments, using gocr


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216536





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 19:42 EST ---
Still there Orion?  Maybe someone else that is looking at this would like to 
help with getting the required perl modules into Extras.  Maybe get the 
attention of Fedora's perl SIG somehow...

In 3.5.0-rc1 perl-Tie-Cache is also needed (enables some functionality in MLDBM-
Sync - not in Extras - rpmforge packages it currently).  It has a few 
dependancies - perl-Tie-Cache-LRU (not in Extras - rpmforge packages it 
currently), perl-enum (not in Extras - rpmforge packages it currently), perl-
Carp-Assert (in Extras).  

Our cvs is updated with a spec file for 3.5.0-rc1 (on EL4).  Ignore the netpbm 
patches, you won't need them for FC6/7.

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

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

[Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command

[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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top 
command


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 19:37 EST ---
Spec URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/ntop.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/ntop-3.2-4.fc6.src.rpm

* Mon Dec 11 2006 Bernard Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 3.2-4
- fix detection of glib-2.0 and gdome2
- remove Requires: entries to let rpm figure them out
- remove BR libxml2, zlib-devel as they are pulled by other packages
- added scriplet requires for /sbin/chkconfig
- add logrotate to requires
- add BR dependency on pkgconfig since patch to fix missing files depends 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 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command

[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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top 
command


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 19:03 EST ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Anyway leaving /etc/logrotate.d unowned by any pacakge is
> wrong. You should either

I don't disagree with you on that point. I was just pointing out that a
discussion of how to to resolve this issue has not been finalized.

> *for now* and my thought is this package (ntop)
> should require logroate.

Agreed.  For now, this is the answer, but it may change in the future.

> Leaving symlinks as they are is sufficient. Please check:
> -
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ for f in /usr/lib/*/*.so ; do  if [ -L $f ] ; then echo
> $f ; fi ; done
> -
> I don't think removing version info is a good idea.

Because of the way the software works (it loads all files/links in the
.../plugins directory), we can have either a versioned file
(libnetflowPlugin-3.2.so) or unversioned (libnetflowPlugin.so).  We can not have
a symbolic link, because that would cause the plugin to load twice. 

Why do you think it's so important to keep the versioning?  There are no
dependencies on these files - they are dlopened by the application.

>   scriptlets like these need corresponding requirement as
>   Requires(post) or so. Please check the section "Services" of
>   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets

Fixed.
 
> By the way, is this okay?
> xmldumpPlugin.c:53:2: warning: #warning Missing header files, disabling 
> xmldump
> plugin

No, it just took me awhile to figure out the problem.  Fixed now.

Still the pid file is being written to /var/ntop although the config seems to
indicate it should go elsewhere.  Not sure why.  Looking into that.

Also, the syslog should be logged at facility=daemon.



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

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

[Bug 219164] Review Request: fontypython - TTF font manager

[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: fontypython - TTF font manager


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219164





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 18:59 EST ---
I see that python-imaging and wxpython are on the broken packages list...

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

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

[Bug 218258] Review Request: audacious-docklet - a docklet plugin for Audacious

[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: audacious-docklet - a docklet plugin for Audacious


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218258


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request:  -   |for Audacious
 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO||177841
  nThis||




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 18:40 EST ---
Adding the FE-NEEDSPONSOR tracker.

Some initial comments on you specfile:

- please don't use %define rel and ver.

- don't repeat the name of the package in Summary, just use "A docklet plugin
for Audacious".

- the release tag is wrong, should be "1%{?dist}", which will result in 
audacious-docklet-0.1.1-1.fc6.src.rpm. Please read
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-5ea39bbc33cf351b41b51325ac3527eff4c58dac
and 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-beca3bf84972f19a384cc2e5091ed47c2b3cebc7

- BuildRoot should be
"%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)", see 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-f196e7b2477c2f5dd97ef64e8eacddfb517f1aa1

- no BuildRequires are certainly not correct

- %description should be more elaborate while it's only the summary again. You
should describe the features of the program a little.

- remove the link to the website from %description, rpm has it's own tag "URL"
for that, which is missing in your specfile.

- linking to http://nedudu.hu/?page_id=11 is a bad idea, for it's not a
permanent link. In a feew weeks this will be on page 12 and so on. The permalink
for this entry is http://nedudu.hu/index.php?entry=entry060828-105151, but I
suggest you use http://nedudu.hu/static.php?page=audacious instead.

So you would insert
"URL: http://nedudu.hu/static.php?page=audacious"; somewhere, e. g. below 
License:

- simplyfy the %clean section to "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT"

- you should clean the built-root at the beginning of %install, too:
  %install
  rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install

- %defattr should be (-,root,root,-)

- remove INSTALL and ABOUT-NLS from %doc, not needed if the programm is
installed via rpm

- the %files is not ok, simply using %{_datadir} will result in directories
which are owned by multiple packages.

- locales need to be handled with %find_lang, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-8c605ebf8330f6d505f384e671986fa99a8f72ee

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

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

[Bug 219164] Review Request: fontypython - TTF font manager

[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: fontypython - TTF font manager


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219164





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 18:12 EST ---
Spec URL: http://cr33.is-a-geek.com/RPMS/fontypython.spec
SRPM URL: http://cr33.is-a-geek.com/RPMS/fontypython-0.2.0-2.src.rpm

%changelog
* Mon Dec 11 2006 Chris Mohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0.2.0-2
- Added wxPython, python-imaging to build requires
- Removed copyright notice from description

Thanks for reminding me about mock.

Mock build completes in fedora-6, but not in fedora-devel (should the
bug/package version be fc6?)  I'm not sure it's a problem with the package -
I've pasted sections of the root.log from the devel build below:

...
Executing /usr/sbin/mock-helper yum --installroot
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386-core/root resolvedep  'python
-imaging' 'desktop-file-utils' 'python-devel' 'rpmdevtools' 'wxPython'
0:python-imaging-1.1.5-6.fc6.i386
0:desktop-file-utils-0.12-1.fc7.i386
0:python-devel-2.5-3.fc7.i386
0:rpmdevtools-5.3-1.fc6.noarch
0:wxPython-2.6.3.2-2.fc6.i386
...
Executing /usr/sbin/mock-helper yum --installroot
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386-core/root install  'python-im
aging' 'desktop-file-utils' 'python-devel' 'rpmdevtools' 'wxPython'
Error: Missing Dependency: python(abi) = 2.4 is needed by package python-imaging
Error: Missing Dependency: python(abi) = 2.4 is needed by package wxPython
...

I will contact the author regarding renaming /usr/bin/fp - I believe I'll have
to edit setup.py in order to make that change.

My BZ account won't let me view the sponsor list, I've added 'FE-NEEDSPONSOR' to
the blocks section.

I could use pointers on getting it to compile im mock 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 219164] Review Request: fontypython - TTF font manager

[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: fontypython - TTF font manager


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219164


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

OtherBugsDependingO||177841
  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 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]  2006-12-11 17:28 EST ---
Updated SPEC is here:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils.spec?use_mirror=osdn

Updated SRPM is here:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils-7-0.src.rpm?use_mirror=osdn

I will have to get in touch with the kernel package maintainers about eCryptfs
in older kernel versions, but I am almost positive that eCryptfs is not in Red
Hat kernels prior to 2.6.19, since that would involve some backport work. For
now, I have set the kernel version requirement to 2.6.19 or greater. I have also
added a -debug package for the header file and the libecryptfs.so file. The
libraries in /usr/lib/ecryptfs are dlopen'd.

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

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

[Bug 219087] Review Request: perl-Geo-Ellipsoids - Standard Geo:: ellipsoids

[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: perl-Geo-Ellipsoids - Standard Geo:: ellipsoids


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219087


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 16:28 EST ---
Thanks for the review.

Package imported and built for FC-5, FC-6, and 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 219087] Review Request: perl-Geo-Ellipsoids - Standard Geo:: ellipsoids

[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: perl-Geo-Ellipsoids - Standard Geo:: ellipsoids


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219087


Bug 219087 depends on bug 219086, which changed state.

Bug 219086 Summary: Review Request: perl-Geo-Functions - Standard Geo:: 
functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219086

   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 219086] Review Request: perl-Geo-Functions - Standard Geo:: functions

[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: perl-Geo-Functions - Standard Geo:: functions


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219086


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




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

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

[Bug 219086] Review Request: perl-Geo-Functions - Standard Geo:: functions

[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: perl-Geo-Functions - Standard Geo:: functions


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219086





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 16:19 EST ---
Thanks for the review.

Package imported and built for FC-5, FC-6, and 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 219086] Review Request: perl-Geo-Functions - Standard Geo:: functions

[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: perl-Geo-Functions - Standard Geo:: functions


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219086


Bug 219086 depends on bug 219084, which changed state.

Bug 219084 Summary: Review Request: perl-Geo-Constants - Standard Geo:: 
constants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219084

   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 219084] Review Request: perl-Geo-Constants - Standard Geo:: constants

[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: perl-Geo-Constants - Standard Geo:: constants


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219084


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 16:17 EST ---
Thanks for the review.

Package imported and built for FC-5, FC-6, and 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 219036] Review Request: perl-Roman - Roman module from CPAN

[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: perl-Roman - Roman module from CPAN


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219036


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

OtherBugsDependingO|163778  |163779
  nThis||




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 15:47 EST ---
APPROVED


MD5SUMS:
df12af9eef0433eb70f89c43c05e  perl-Roman-1.1-1.src.rpm

7c93de8cd3de204072b194a561368629  perl-Roman.spec
67b0e6affdc50fdf28cfc438c045fd9b  Roman-1.1.tar.gz

Sources:
* Roman-1.1.tar.gz: MD5 digest matches the CPAN tarball

Good:
* Package name follows standard
* URL and Source url are OK
* License verified (main pod page and License file)
* perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_xxx) requirement present
* the requirements are sane
* the provides are sane
* perl vendor libs macros present
* File permissions are ok
* Builds without problems in FC-6
* (Un)installs without problems in FC-6
* Runs on FC-6
  (perl -MRoman -e 'print Roman(1004);')
* No opened tickets in
  http://rt.cpan.org/Public/Dist/Display.html?Name=Roman


Random notes about this module:
* no Makefile.PL/Build.PL
* no testsuite
* no VERSION variable


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 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]  2006-12-11 15:46 EST ---
I'll crack on with it, but my buildsys is currently broken due to the ongoing
Python problems.

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

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

[Bug 219104] Review Request: mussh - Multihost SSH wrapper

[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: mussh - Multihost SSH wrapper


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219104


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 14:47 EST ---
Thanks for the review... imported and built for devel, fc5/fc6 branches 
requested.
Closing this request now. 

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

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

[Bug 219164] Review Request: fontypython - TTF font manager

[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: fontypython - TTF font manager


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219164


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: FontyPython |Review Request: fontypython
   |- TTF font manager  |- TTF font manager




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 13:33 EST ---
And:

* I think /usr/bin/fp should be renamed.
( to /usr/bin/fontpython, for example )

* Copyright clause in %description is not necessary.

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

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

[Bug 219164] Review Request: FontyPython - TTF font manager

[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: FontyPython - TTF font manager


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219164





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 13:27 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=143309)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=143309&action=view)
Mock build log of fontpython 0.2.0-1

Well,
* I cannot find your name in owners.list. If this package is
  the first package you try to import to Fedora Extras, then
  you have to get sponsored. Please check:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored

For general packaging information, please check:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines

Then:
* mockbuild fails on FC-devel i386. Perhaps some
  BuildRequires are missing.
  Note: for FC-devel (rawhide), python is 2.5!
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpm -q python
python-2.5-2.fc7
-
  Please make it sure that your spec file works well for
  both python 2.4/2.5 .

* Please check the dependency for this package and add
  the needed Requires correctly.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] fontypython]$ ( for f in *py ; do grep import $f ; done ) |
grep -v ^# | sort | uniq
import re
import wxversion
from  fontitem import *
from basicfontlist import *
from emptyview import *
from folder import *
from optparse import OptionParser
from pathcontrol import * 
from pog import *
from pubsub import *
from wx.lib.splitter import MultiSplitterWindow
gui = __import__ ( "fontypython." + chosengui ) 
if fpsys.config.max: import dialogues
import  wx.html as  html
import Image, ImageFont, ImageDraw 
import cli
import fontybugs
import fpsys
import fpsys # Global objects
import fpversion
import imp
import os
import pathcontrol
import pathcontrol 
import strings
import sys
import sys, os
import sys, os, pickle
import wx
import wx.lib.scrolledpanel
import wx.lib.statbmp
try: import Image, ImageFont, ImageDraw 
try: import wx
---

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

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

[Bug 219119] Review Request: pyscript - Postscript graphics with 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: pyscript - Postscript graphics with Python


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219119





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 13:15 EST ---
MUST items:
!* rpmlint output:
W: pyscript macro-in-%changelog python_sitelib
W: pyscript macro-in-%changelog ghost
W: pyscript macro-in-%changelog __python
W: pyscript macro-in-%changelog _libdir
E: pyscript no-binary
E: pyscript-debuginfo empty-debuginfo-package
 * package is named well
 * spec file name is good
 * package meets Packaging Guidelines
 * package is licensed with a GPL open-source compatible license
 * License field in spec file matches actual license
 * license file is included in %doc
 * md5sums are matching (8b4945fda4318abdcd77f1573996b9da)
 * package successfully compiles on x86_64
 * 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

THINGS to do:
 * get rid of all macro-in-%changelog rpmlint warnings by doubling all
% characters in %changelog. For example: instead of %{_libdir} write %%{_libdir}
 * fix no-binary and debuginfo package problems by adding BuildArch: noarch
to preamble
 * from my experience I know that using python-devel BR instead of python
is better solution 
 * do we really need tetex package? I have grepped all the sources and I found
that pyscript needs only latex application which is part of tetex-latex package.
Thus I believe that it is a dependency we really need. Correct me if I am wrong.


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

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

[Bug 219119] Review Request: pyscript - Postscript graphics with 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: pyscript - Postscript graphics with Python


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219119


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 12:22 EST ---
I'll do the review 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 219164] New: Review Request: FontyPython - TTF font manager

[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=219164

   Summary: Review Request: FontyPython - TTF font manager
   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://cr33.is-a-geek.com/RPMS/fontypython.spec
SRPM URL: http://cr33.is-a-geek.com/RPMS/fontypython-0.2.0-1.src.rpm
Description: Manage your ttf fonts on Gnu/Linux with Fonty Python.

You can collect any fonts together ( even ones not in your system font folders 
)into 'pogs' and then install and remove the pogs as you need them.

In this way you can control what fonts are in your user font folder - thus 
avoiding long lists of fonts in the font chooser dialogues of your apps.

FontyPython basically makes symlinks from various font sources to ~/.fonts

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

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

[Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command

[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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top 
command


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 11:42 EST ---
Well, before checking 3.2-3 :

>> * %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/logrotate.d/ntop
>>   I think Requires: %{_sysconfdir}/logrotate.d or 
>>   Requires: logrotate should be added.

> Please read this thread:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/46042

Actually I have already known these long discussion because
I always receive mails from fedora-extras-list.

Anyway leaving /etc/logrotate.d unowned by any pacakge is
wrong. You should either
- require logrotate as Requires
- require /etc/logrotate.d
- have this package (ntop) own /etc/logrotate.d (easiest)
*for now* and my thought is this package (ntop)
should require logroate.

>> * Usually calling userdel or groupdel is not recommended.
>>   Usually it is left as it is and deleting user or group should
>>  be manually done by administrator.

> I've been looking for any packaging guidelines regarding this.  It seems 
> sloppy
> to me to leave (program) users hanging around.

I checked http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageUserCreation and
your usermgmt usage seems okay.

>> * For Requires:
>>   Please don't write the explicit dependency which is required
>>   automatically by dependencies of libraries.
>>   For example, libgd.so.2 dependency pulls gd, so adding "gd"
>>   explicitly to Requires is not needed.

> I will work on this. How good is RPM?  How far can it be trusted to find the
> right dependencies?

rpm uses ldd and objdump to check libraries' dependency and this
_should_ work ( _should_ means that if this does not work,
it means that some rpms installed together should be fixed because
they conflict functionally anyway).
Details are on: /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/find-requires

And, writing like "Requires: openssl" does not make sense
because requirement of openssl or so is "version specific".
This is correctly treated by libraries' dependencies, where 
"explicit" requirement of rpm name does not care about these.

Note: If this package needs another "version specific" issue,
this should be written to Requires. A example is xscreensaver-base
(which I maintain), which has a explicit requirement

"pam > 0.80-7" 

because /etc/pam.d/xscreensaver says:
-
auth   include  system-auth
-
this content can be interpreted only by pam >= 0.80


>> * # strip off version number from plugin .so files
>>   Why is this needed?

> This was suggested by Patrice here:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197198#c37.  This makes
> sense to me as dl'opened modules aren't versioned.

Leaving symlinks as they are is sufficient. Please check:
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ for f in /usr/lib/*/*.so ; do  if [ -L $f ] ; then echo
$f ; fi ; done
-
I don't think removing version info is a good idea.

* Another issue:
---
%post
/sbin/chkconfig --add %{name} 2>&1 > /dev/null
---
  scriptlets like these need corresponding requirement as
  Requires(post) or so. Please check the section "Services" of
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets

By the way, is this okay?
-
 gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I.. -I../myrrd -DLINUX -I/usr/include/libgdome
-I/usr/local/include -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
-fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -I/usr/local/include -Wshadow -Wpointer-arith
-Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -Wnested-externs -fPIC -DPIC -MT
libxmldumpPlugin_la-xmldumpPlugin.lo -MD -MP -MF
.deps/libxmldumpPlugin_la-xmldumpPlugin.Tpo -c xmldumpPlugin.c  -fPIC -DPIC -o
.libs/libxmldumpPlugin_la-xmldumpPlugin.o
xmldumpPlugin.c:50:2: warning: #warning 
xmldumpPlugin.c:51:2: warning: #warning
===
xmldumpPlugin.c:52:2: warning: #warning 
xmldumpPlugin.c:53:2: warning: #warning Missing header files, disabling xmldump
plugin
xmldumpPlugin.c:54:2: warning: #warning 
xmldumpPlugin.c:55:2: warning: #warning FOR MOST USERS THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM
xmldumpPlugin.c:56:2: warning: #warning ntop will build and run just fine...
xmldumpPlugin.c:57:2: warning: #warning 
xmldumpPlugin.c:58:2: warning: #warning Why?
xmldumpPlugin.c:59:2: warning: #warning 
xmldumpPlugin.c:61:2: warning: #warning glibconfig.h unavailable
xmldumpPlugin.c:64:2: warning: #warning glib.h unavailabl

[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]  2006-12-11 11:21 EST ---
There is a problem with ownership of /usr/share/vim/vimfiles/*/ directories,
which has to be fixed in co-operation with vim maintainer (see bug 219154).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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]  2006-12-11 09:53 EST ---
1) I made comments to the .spec file why some Sources don't have URL (e.g., do
you want
http://www.vimoutliner.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Downloads&file=index&req=getit&lid=16
for otl2html?)
2) I use 'cp -p -f' to keep timestamp for README.Fedora, but I am not sure how
much worth it is -- the file is written and maintained as part of the package.

3) Yes, calling update-desktop-database was just a bug. Removed.

4) Business with helpztags -- I have talked about that with karsten (maintainer
of vim) and we came to the conclusion that I should use just vim command which
is now in .spec.

Updated files are
http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/progs/rpms/vimoutliner-0.3.4-7.src.rpm and location
of .spec hasn't changed.

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

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

[Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command

[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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top 
command


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 08:09 EST ---
Spec URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/ntop.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/ntop-3.2-3.fc6.src.rpm

* Mon Dec 11 2006 Bernard Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 3.2-3
- fix: do not package debug files in arch package
- fix: remove x bit from /usr/src debug files
- fix: direct source download link
- fix: don't package devel libraries in /usr/lib
- integrate previous package ntop.sysv to ntop.init
- remove sysconfig file
- clean up usage of fedora-usermgt
- remove ldconfig calls
- create a ntop-passwd wrapper to set the passwd
- fix: directory permission in directory, init, and passwd 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 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

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 06:22 EST ---
I'll sponsor Matej as soon as this passes a review.

Mamoru, thanks for co-reviewing 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 197765] Review Request: libical - A library for parsing iCal component

[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: libical - A library for parsing iCal component


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197765


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED
   Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])   |




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 06:02 EST ---
I emailed [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Oct 28, no reply so far. Sigh, looks like this
upstream may have died 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 207676] Review Request: SDL_Pango - Rendering of internationalized text for SDL

[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: SDL_Pango - Rendering of internationalized text for SDL


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207676





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 05:28 EST ---
Thanks to both! I just got confused somewhere in the process, it seems... ;-)

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

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

[Bug 219087] Review Request: perl-Geo-Ellipsoids - Standard Geo:: ellipsoids

[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: perl-Geo-Ellipsoids - Standard Geo:: ellipsoids


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219087


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

OtherBugsDependingO|163778  |163779
  nThis||




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 05:06 EST ---
Review:
+ package builds in mock (development i386).
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPMS.
+ source files match upstream.
6281160b1c9d6c21bb8fc261100fa35c  Geo-Ellipsoids-0.10.tar.gz
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ 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.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code, not content.
+ no headers or static libraries.
+ %check used
make test
PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0,
'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t
t/baseok
All tests successful.
Files=1, Tests=37,  0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 cusr +  0.00 csys =  0.02 CPU)

+ no .pc file present.
+ no -devel subpackage
+ no .la files.
+ no translations are available
+ Dose owns the directories it creates.
+ no scriptlets present.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ Followed perl 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 219086] Review Request: perl-Geo-Functions - Standard Geo:: functions

[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: perl-Geo-Functions - Standard Geo:: functions


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219086


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

OtherBugsDependingO|163778  |163779
  nThis||




--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 04:40 EST ---
Review:
+ package builds in mock (development i386).
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPMS.
+ source files match upstream.
32a4eb2ec009cec6c2175d9166ffd911  Geo-Functions-0.04.tar.gz
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ 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.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code, not content.
+ no headers or static libraries.
+ %check used
make test
PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0,
'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t
t/baseok
All tests successful.
Files=1, Tests=31,  0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 cusr +  0.00 csys =  0.02 CPU)

+ no .pc file present.
+ no -devel subpackage
+ no .la files.
+ no translations are available
+ Dose owns the directories it creates.
+ no scriptlets present.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ Followed perl 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 219086] Review Request: perl-Geo-Functions - Standard Geo:: functions

[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: perl-Geo-Functions - Standard Geo:: functions


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219086





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 04:38 EST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > OR is that ok for perl packages?
> It is a MUST. 
> 
> Perl module-package must own all dirs which are not owned by the base
> perl-packages or a standard filesystem packages.
> 
> BTW: The same consideration also applies to other "module-like" systems.

Thanks for info. So perl modules, python modules MUST own all directories.

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

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

[Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command

[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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top 
command


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 03:36 EST ---
> Well, another:
> * Timestamps:
>   For cp or install, please use "cp -p" or "install -p" to keep 
>   timestamps
>   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines

Fixed.

> * Source0
>   Please specify URL.

Fixed.

> * # strip off version number from plugin .so files
>   Why is this needed?

This was suggested by Patrice here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197198#c37.  This makes
sense to me as dl'opened modules aren't versioned.


> * applying patch
>   I prefer adding some suffix to original files. i.e. for example:
> 
> %patch0 -p1 -b .plugins
> %patch1 -p1 -b .conf
> -

Fixed.

> * Requires:   fedora-usermgmt
>   This is for scriplets?  If so, please write:
>   Requires(pre): /usr/sbin/fedora-groupadd
>   and so on and not write "Requires:  fedora-usermgmt", however,
>   please consider to use normal %{_sbindir}/groupadd and so on.
>   ref: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets

Looking into 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 219086] Review Request: perl-Geo-Functions - Standard Geo:: functions

[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: perl-Geo-Functions - Standard Geo:: functions


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219086





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 03:21 EST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> OR is that ok for perl packages?
It is a MUST. 

Perl module-package must own all dirs which are not owned by the base
perl-packages or a standard filesystem packages.

BTW: The same consideration also applies to other "module-like" systems.

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

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

[Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command

[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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top 
command


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-12-11 03:12 EST ---
> Well, a quick glance at this package:
> * some files  should not be in main package, like:
> --
> W: ntop devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libntop.so
> --

Fixing that in the next release.

* permissions of some files in -debug package is wrong.
> 
> E: ntop-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/ntop-3.2/fcUtils.c
> E: ntop-debuginfo script-without-shebang
> /usr/src/debug/ntop-3.2/plugins/xmldumpPlugin.c
> E: ntop-debuginfo script-without-shebang
> /usr/src/debug/ntop-3.2/globals-structtypes.h
> --

Fixing that in the next release. 

> * By the way, what is fedora-groupadd? Is there any reason
>   that this cannot be replaced with groupadd?

fedora-usermgmt provides wrappers around useradd, userdel, groupadd and groupdel
to allow predictable but configurable uids/gids.  I took these from the old 
package.

If the consensus is that we should not use the fedora tools, then I can replace
them with normal user*/group* tools.


> * Usually calling userdel or groupdel is not recommended.
>   Usually it is left as it is and deleting user or group should
>  be manually done by administrator.

I've been looking for any packaging guidelines regarding this.  It seems sloppy
to me to leave (program) users hanging around.

> * For Requires:
>   Please don't write the explicit dependency which is required
>   automatically by dependencies of libraries.
>   For example, libgd.so.2 dependency pulls gd, so adding "gd"
>   explicitly to Requires is not needed.

I will work on this. How good is RPM?  How far can it be trusted to find the
right dependencies?

> * For BuildRequires:
>   Please don't write redundant dependencies. For example, zlib-devel
>   is required by openssl-devel, so adding "zlib-devel" to BuildRequires
>   is not necessary.

I will work on this 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