[Bug 219962] Review Request: crystal-clear - Crystal Clear KDE Icon set
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: crystal-clear - Crystal Clear KDE Icon set https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219962 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 03:00 EST --- Then you can ask for help on Fedora-extras mailing 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 219327] Review Request: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219327 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 03:19 EST --- Well, would you attach the full build log, Ralf? I cannot catch only from your comment. I use rawhide, and I cannot check ordinary FC6 environ. Note: mockbuild on FC6/devel i386 succeeds. also, for me ordinary rpmbuild succeeds on FC-devel. And as this srpm touches all files which are not needed to be regenerated, rebuilding this srpm should succeed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219327] Review Request: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219327 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 03:35 EST --- Created an attachment (id=144168) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=144168action=view) Mock build log of kazehakase 0.4.3-2 on FC6 i386 Well, it is true that mockbuild of 0.4.3-2 on FC6 i386 succeeds. Maybe rebuilding failure is related with your settings or something else? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220381] Review Request: flex-old - Legacy version of flex, a tool for creating scanners
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: flex-old - Legacy version of flex, a tool for creating scanners https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220381 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |m) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 03:45 EST --- jkeating: Other core components have their compat- package in core, too. E.g. compat-db, compat-gcc family, compat-slang. jason: It occured to me that -compat packages are libraries, but yes, now I see there are also tools. I adjusted the files: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~pmachata/compat-flex.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~pmachata/compat-flex-2.5.4a-1.src.rpm Note that everything still installs with *postfix* compat. It seems more natural to me to have e.g. libfl-compat.a instead of libcompat-fl.a, and flex-compat will be offered on commandline when tab-completing flex. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219962] Review Request: crystal-clear - Crystal Clear KDE Icon set
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: crystal-clear - Crystal Clear KDE Icon set https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219962 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 04:44 EST --- SPEC: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/crystal-clear/crystal-clear.spec rpmlint /home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/crystal-clear-20050622-2.noarch.rpm W: crystal-clear no-documentation W: crystal-clear dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Crystal-Clear/48x48/apps/kmenu.png ../../../Bluecurve/48x48/apps/gnome-main-menu.png W: crystal-clear dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Crystal-Clear/32x32/apps/kmenu.png ../../../Bluecurve/32x32/apps/gnome-main-menu.png W: crystal-clear dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Crystal-Clear/22x22/apps/kmenu.png ../../../Bluecurve/24x24/apps/gnome-main-menu.png W: crystal-clear dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/Crystal-Clear/16x16/apps/kmenu.png ../../../Bluecurve/16x16/apps/gnome-main-menu.png -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218256] Review Request: audacious-itouch - iTouch keyboard control plugin for the Audacious media player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: audacious-itouch - iTouch keyboard control plugin for the Audacious media player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218256 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: audacious- |Review Request: audacious- |itouch - iTouch keyboard |itouch - iTouch keyboard |control plugin for the |control plugin for the |Audacious media player |Audacious media player --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 05:24 EST --- Updated SPEC and SRPM Spec URL: http://yufanyufan.googlepages.com/audacious-itouch.spec SRPM URL: http://yufanyufan.googlepages.com/audacious-itouch-0.1-6.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 219962] Review Request: crystal-clear - Crystal Clear KDE Icon set
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: crystal-clear - Crystal Clear KDE Icon set https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219962 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 05:31 EST --- Quick update Included tarball and upstream tarball md5sum matches adb7962b585c8ad12adc3b82246edb35 CrystalClear.tar.gz According to http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=389499, you also need to replace firefox.png icon or remove it while installing. Thanks for giving this link Chitlesh. I have one question, how to check that a given individual icon is LGPL/GPL or non-LPGL. Do you know about this? Also where is LGPL written? I mean no license text is added in RPM Also, URL: http://linuxcult.com/node/10 is not working. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219610] Review Request: uncrustify-0.30 - code beautifier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: uncrustify-0.30 - code beautifier https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219610 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 08:33 EST --- Yes, I updated the files. I'm sorry for any confusion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220210] Review Request: krename - Powerful batch file renamer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: krename - Powerful batch file renamer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220210
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 08:37 EST ---
First review of this package.
A. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines :
* BuildRequires
---
Requires: hicolor-icon-theme
---
- Usually this is regarded as not needed to be written
because hicolor-icon-theme is generally considered as
a type of rpms like filesystem and many GUI packages
depend on this package directly/indirectly.
* Documentation
The following documentations include non-UTF8 characters.
Consider them to UTF-8 characters.
---
/usr/share/doc/krename-3.0.13/ChangeLog: ISO-8859 English text
/usr/share/doc/krename-3.0.13/TODO: Non-ISO extended-ASCII English text,
with very long lines
---
* Desktop files
---
Categories=Application;Utility;Qt;KDE;
---
Category Application is deprecated and so this should
be removed.
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] krename]$ desktop-file-validate
/usr/share/applications/fedora-krename.desktop
/usr/share/applications/fedora-krename.desktop: warning: The 'Application'
category is not defined by the desktop entry specification. Please use one of
AudioVideo, Audio, Video, Development, Education, Game, Graphics,
Network, Office, Settings, System, Utility instead
---
* Scriptlets requirements
---
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/%{name}.png
---
This requires updating of GTK+ icon cache (desribed in the following).
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
Actually I cannot see icons on KRename menu entry.
* File and Directory Ownership
- On my system, the following directories are not owned by
any packages.
/usr/share/apps/konqueror/
/usr/share/apps/konqueror/servicemenus/
... because I am a GNOME user and I don't have kdebase
installed. I think this package should own these
directories as this package can be used for non-KDE users,
too.
B. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines :
(= this is okay, except for things written in A)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219610] Review Request: uncrustify-0.30 - code beautifier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: uncrustify-0.30 - code beautifier https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219610 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 08:47 EST --- Hi Neal, when you update the files *please* always increase the EVR and please post a comment with a link to the new SRPM. I find it quite confusing when people skip those two steps. I'm very busy today/tomorrow but will make an effort to finish the review on Saturday. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219610] Review Request: uncrustify-0.30 - code beautifier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: uncrustify-0.30 - code beautifier https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219610 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 08:54 EST --- That explains quite a bit. :) I would have envisioned a bumped release number and new URLs. Would it not be helpful to include a copy of the default config (http://uncrustify.sourceforge.net/default.cfg) as ~/.uncrustify.cfg? Running it right after installation results in a complaint, and you can't even uncrustify --show-config -o ~/.uncrustify.cfg without it already existing. If I manually create ~/.uncrustify.cfg from default.cfg, it works fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220381] Review Request: flex-old - Legacy version of flex, a tool for creating scanners
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: flex-old - Legacy version of flex, a tool for creating scanners https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220381 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO OtherBugsDependingO|188265 |163776 nThis|| Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||m) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 08:57 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) jkeating: Other core components have their compat- package in core, too. E.g. compat-db, compat-gcc family, compat-slang. Yes, but all of these are moving to Extras with the merger. Unless there is specific reason (needed to build something else) for this new package to go into Core, it must go into Extras instead. I'm not interested in reviewing/importing/building into core, just to move/review/build it in the new merged land a few months later. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219610] Review Request: uncrustify-0.30 - code beautifier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: uncrustify-0.30 - code beautifier https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219610 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 08:59 EST --- I agree that's a problem. (I didn't write this code :)) Anyway, how would that recommendation work? (I don't think it would). Here is my proposal, which I think is consistent with other Fedora apps. On install, a message is printed telling the user they need to do this. OK? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219610] Review Request: uncrustify-0.30 - code beautifier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: uncrustify-0.30 - code beautifier https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219610 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 09:01 EST --- After thinking for two seconds, I realized my above comment won't work. I think including default.cfg as /etc/uncrustify.cfg, and having it check that first, then override with ~/uncrustify.cfg, would be better. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219610] Review Request: uncrustify-0.30 - code beautifier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: uncrustify-0.30 - code beautifier https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219610 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 09:04 EST --- That is really how it should work, but I didn't write it. If nobody has strong objections, I think I'd rather just print the message then spend time figuring out how to do fix the code. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219990] Review Request: xfce4-timer-plugin - Timer for the Xfce panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xfce4-timer-plugin - Timer for the Xfce panel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219990 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 09:14 EST --- * rpmlint is silent * free software, license included * follow packaging guidelines * follow naming guidelines except if there is some specific guideline for panel applets, but it doesn't seems so (I remember vaguely some discussion) * match upstream: fe20a7c1bba78d6c2a7483a894294155 xfce4-timer-plugin-0.5.tar.bz2 * sane provides * %files section right * seems to have everything needed for an xfce panel applet (although I didn't test). APPROVED There are the usual unneeded dependencies on sonames: $ ldd -u -r /usr/libexec/xfce4/panel-plugins/xfce4-timer Unused direct dependencies: /usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 /usr/lib/libatk-1.0.so.0 /usr/lib/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 /lib/libm.so.6 /usr/lib/libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 /usr/lib/libpango-1.0.so.0 /usr/lib/libcairo.so.2 /lib/libgmodule-2.0.so.0 /lib/libdl.so.2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220393] Review Request: Synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 09:18 EST --- Created an attachment (id=144183) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=144183action=view) rpm spec file Please find attached the spec file. It is also included in the released source tarball, so 'rpmbuild -ta synopsis-0.9.tar.gz' works fine, too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219990] Review Request: xfce4-timer-plugin - Timer for the Xfce panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xfce4-timer-plugin - Timer for the Xfce panel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219990 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 09:26 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) * follow naming guidelines except if there is some specific guideline for panel applets, but it doesn't seems so (I remember vaguely some discussion) I started this discussion because I think we need a clarification for these packages. There wasn't much feedback, so obviously people are not interested in a clarification or don't think it is necessary. APPROVED Thanks for the review. There are the usual unneeded dependencies on sonames: Yeah, but I'm pretty sure this is a bug in glibc-devel package, not in my packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219610] Review Request: uncrustify-0.30 - code beautifier
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: uncrustify-0.30 - code beautifier https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219610 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 09:36 EST --- I've played around with it, and am close, but I couldn't get it to compile. Not worth further time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219990] Review Request: xfce4-timer-plugin - Timer for the Xfce panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfce4-timer-plugin - Timer for the Xfce panel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219990
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 09:42 EST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
a clarification or don't think it is necessary.
It could be interesting to help users find the package name. However
searching by name is not very convenient, it is the summary which is really
important in my opinion.
Yeah, but I'm pretty sure this is a bug in glibc-devel package, not in my
packages.
It isn't in your package, I don't think it is in glibc-devel either,
but somewhere along the -devel dependencies there is an improper use
of Requires.private and/or Libs.private. Since most are gtk2 dependencies
it is certainly in gtk+-2.0.pc, which has
Requires: gdk-${target}-2.0 atk cairo
And should certainly have
Requires.private: gdk-${target}-2.0 atk cairo
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218599] Review Request: klibido - NNTP (Usenet) file grabber for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: klibido - NNTP (Usenet) file grabber for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218599 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 10:13 EST --- Ping? Please note, I'll be on holiday from tomorrow (22 Dec) till the 6th of January 2007, with very little (if any) Internet access, so I won't be able to respond on any comments until that time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 214087] Review Request: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214087 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 10:51 EST --- * For main package: -- Requires: plugin(%name) -- What I meant was main package (libextract) should require at least base plugin package (libextract-plugins-base). plugin(%name) is not provided by libextract-plugins-base and then currently extra plugin package is needed for main (libextract) package. I do not think so: 1. libextract works without plugins too. But because output is very limited in this case, you can say that plugins are highly recommended (*not* required) Nevertheless, because 'highly recommended' can not be expressed with RPM, I accept that some 'Requires:' should be used. 2. libextract does not require the -plugins-base plugins but works e.g. with the thumbnail plugin when e.g. a collection of images shall be indexed Therefore, I use | Requires: plugin(%name) which satisfies 1. and allows users to install only the really needed plugins (2.). * For fake plugin package (libextract-plugins) Dependency for pdf plugin (libextract-plugins-pdf) is missing. ok; I will add this dependency (but do not ship a new package for 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 188138] Review Request: mod_auth_ntlm_winbind - NTLM authentication for the Apache web server using winbind daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mod_auth_ntlm_winbind - NTLM authentication for the Apache web server using winbind daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188138 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 10:55 EST --- The upstream have changed to the name of auth_ntlm_winbind completely, introduced VERSION file and have done some fixes. I've changed version-release scheme to VERSION-0.svnrev.X because of this. New SPEC: http://dmitry.butskoy.name/mod_auth_ntlm_winbind/mod_auth_ntlm_winbind.spec New SRPM: http://dmitry.butskoy.name/mod_auth_ntlm_winbind/mod_auth_ntlm_winbind-0.0.0-0.svn692.1.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 213600] Review Request: tinyca2 - Simple graphical userinterface to manage a small CA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tinyca2 - Simple graphical userinterface to manage a small CA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213600 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 11:00 EST --- (Well, for libextractor, I will check it later, althogh it may be tomorrow. By the way, it seems that tinyca2 has been already imported into FE-devel/6/5, so please close this bug when it is possible) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219327] Review Request: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219327 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 11:29 EST --- Created an attachment (id=144198) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=144198action=view) Log of build failure on FC6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219327] Review Request: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219327 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 11:35 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) Maybe rebuilding failure is related with your settings or something else? Without having looked into details (I am scarce on time, ATM), my guess would be the breakdown related to you running the autotools, so may-be something related to * The package uses autoconf-2.60a, while FC6 has 2.59. * My user environment also has autoconf/automake/libtool installed, a mock environment doesn't. * They are using autoconf-2.60a (a beta version), so they might also be using a beta of libtool. rpm and/or you running autoconf can interfere. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 213600] Review Request: tinyca2 - Simple graphical userinterface to manage a small CA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tinyca2 - Simple graphical userinterface to manage a small CA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 12:10 EST --- ok; 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 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 12:30 EST --- Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde-3.1.3-8.src.rpm Thanks for the dialog guys, this is going to be one solid package by the time it gets approved :D Greg is right about registry.php, that's the one file I had to edit in order to relocate the config files to an arbitrary location. Whether they reside in /etc/horde or /var/lib/horde is a very trivial change and completely up to you.. I'm also not sure which is more appropriate. I've also added some additional Apache security params per Greg's suggestion in comment 27, which also addresses your question about test.php: it's now only accessible from localhost. I did NOT include horde's recommended expose_php off or display_errors off because they seem a little TOO paranoid at the application-level, and more appropriate for the sysadmin to set globally if he desires. Finally, I've added a LOT more to README.fedora, including being more specific about the security implications of opening horde to the world and a whole paragraph of additional recommended actions (pear modules and such) Incidentally, horde flips out if you access it at http://localhost/horde/ and logs: Session cookies will not work without a FQDN and with a non-empty cookie domain. It causes my FF to reload infinitely until it freezes and has to be 'kill -9'ed. Using http://localhost.localdomain/horde/ or http://127.0.0.1/horde/ has no problems. Should we mention this in the README? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 12:39 EST --- Now that I'm starting to think about packaging horde applications, what is the appropriate naming convention, horde-imp or just imp? If we go with horde-imp (which seems the logical choice to me), should we try to Provides: imp for people who try: yum install imp or should we expect them to know imp is a subpackage of the horde framework? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220381] Review Request: flex-old - Legacy version of flex, a tool for creating scanners
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: flex-old - Legacy version of flex, a tool for creating scanners https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220381 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |m) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 12:51 EST --- Yes, but all of these are moving to Extras with the merger. Oh, I idn't know that. So I'll have to set up extras account sooner or later. Good to know. Yes, but all of these are moving to Extras with the merger. Unless there is specific reason (needed to build something else) for this new package to go into Core, it must go into Extras instead. Well, that will turn out. The whole point of providing compat flex is that the changes between 2.5.4 and 2.5.33 were very internal, and there are lots of them. I don't want to be stuck with the same ancient version of flex forever, .33 has interesting features, and people are requesting it for some time already. But on the other hand, I don't dare upgrade without a fallback. So some components actually may end up with BuildRequires: compat-flex, although this should be rare, and hopefully temporary. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 13:06 EST --- I would just call it imp. IMP is a web application that happens to require the Horde framework, but I wouldn't call it a subpackage of Horde. About the registry.php file, one thing I noticed when diffing against registry.php.dist is that the original file has moved on a bit, and thus there are many differences between the file you ship and the one in the source. Would you consider rebasing it? I still can't decide about the configuration files, but I've found myself doing plenty of manual edits to those files lately so I'm leaning towards /etc being more appropriate. After all, they're still config files, not random internal state. I do think it would be a good idea to mention your localhost issue in the readme; it certainly can't hurt. I'm in the FESCo meeting at the moment, so I'll take a more complete look at this a bit later. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220495] New: package update missisng dependency
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=220495 Summary: package update missisng dependency Product: Fedora Core Version: fc6 Platform: i386 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Description of problem: Missing Dependency: firefox = 1.5.0.8 is needed by package openvrml -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220495] package update missisng dependency
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: package update missisng dependency https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220495 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||r) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 14:51 EST --- Hi, Can you please be a bit more specific in describing your issue? OpenVRML indeed depends on firefox, do you think this is a bug? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220495] package update missisng dependency
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: package update missisng dependency https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220495 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Core |Fedora Extras Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Component|Package Review |Package Review QAContact|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |fedora-package- ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |r) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 15:35 EST --- The current FC6 firefox is 1.5.0.9, not 1.5.0.8 - openvrml's dependency on 1.5.0.8 blocks yum from updating. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 214893] Review Request: sipp - SIP test tool / traffic generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sipp - SIP test tool / traffic generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214893 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 16:04 EST --- Version 1.1.rc8 http://lemenkov.newmail.ru/SPECS/sipp.spec http://lemenkov.newmail.ru/SRPMS/sipp-1.1-0.rc8.src.rpm changed naming scheme. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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
Please 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] 2006-12-21 16:07 EST --- Bernard, do you have the reviewer bits set on your Fedora account? If yes, could you set the status and assignment of this package according to the result/phase of your review as documented at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200600] Review Request: phpPgAdmin - web based PostgreSQL administration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: phpPgAdmin - web based PostgreSQL administration https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 16:12 EST --- Hi Devrim, A few remarks: - Please don't include the name of the package in the Summary - Please don't use the Vendor tag - Web applications should not put their content in /var/www (see Guidelines/Web Applications in the Wiki - It fails to build in mock, since /etc/httpd/conf.d does not exist over there. I think it's safe to skip the check for that directory, and install -d your config file - httpd reload in %post fails if you don't have httpd installed, but another webserver, but I'm not sure how to handle that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 167147] Review Request: Aqsis - 3D Rendering system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 16:23 EST --- After discussing the spec on #fedora-extras I created a fedora-only spec. You can get it right here: http://www.cgtobi.de/aqsis/aqsis.fedora.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 200600] Review Request: phpPgAdmin - web based PostgreSQL administration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: phpPgAdmin - web based PostgreSQL administration https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200600 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 16:25 EST --- Hi, (In reply to comment #13) A few remarks: - Please don't include the name of the package in the Summary - Please don't use the Vendor tag - Web applications should not put their content in /var/www (see Guidelines/Web Applications in the Wiki - It fails to build in mock, since /etc/httpd/conf.d does not exist over there. I think it's safe to skip the check for that directory, and install -d your config file Both are fixed. - httpd reload in %post fails if you don't have httpd installed, but another webserver, but I'm not sure how to handle that. This package now requires httpd directly. Spec URL: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/phpPgAdmin/phpPgAdmin.spec SRPM URL: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/phpPgAdmin/phpPgAdmin-4.0.1-4.src.rpm Thanks, Devrim -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 16:31 EST --- Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/horde-3.1.3-9.src.rpm I've gone ahead and rebased registry.php to 1.255.2.17 (the version that ships with 3.1.3), but there were only 2 differences (lines 53 and 55) when calculating $webroot. All the other diff entries you saw involving $fileroot are intentional and required. By default, registry.php assumes that it is living in $webroot/config/, so it assigns fileroot to be './../appname' which normally resolves to $webroot/appname/ and the world keeps on turning. However, since our registry.php lives in /etc/horde/, './../appname' resolves to '/etc/appname' which doesn't exist let alone contain web content, so horde dies. To fix this issue, I created the $fileroot variable that statically contains '/usr/share/horde', and then manually tweak all the application-specific sections to reference $fileroot instead of __FILE__. Since I agree it's not very clear this is intentional, I've renamed $fileroot to a constant: FEDORA_FILEROOT, to make it obvious this is an intentional distro-specific tweak. I also added a bit about localhost in the README -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200600] Review Request: phpPgAdmin - web based PostgreSQL administration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: phpPgAdmin - web based PostgreSQL administration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200600
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 16:38 EST ---
Two last issues:
- Replace usr/share with %{datadir}
- Add /sbin/service to Requires(post)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200600] Review Request: phpPgAdmin - web based PostgreSQL administration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: phpPgAdmin - web based PostgreSQL administration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200600
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 16:59 EST ---
Hi,
(In reply to comment #15)
Two last issues:
- Replace usr/share with %{datadir}
- Add /sbin/service to Requires(post)
Both are done:
Spec URL:
http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/phpPgAdmin/phpPgAdmin.spec
SRPM URL:
http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/phpPgAdmin/phpPgAdmin-4.0.1-5.src.rpm
Regards, Devrim
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203864] Review Request: tripwire - IDS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: tripwire - IDS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203864
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 17:04 EST ---
Please remove that as well:
# Print getting started help message
if [ $1 -eq 1 ]; then
echo To configure tripwire, read:
%_docdir/%{name}-%{version}/README.Fedora
fi
I am of the opinion that any rpm console output during installation should be an
indication of either an error or a warning and other packagers agree with me.
Otherwise looks fine. It is APPROVED provided the above is 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 200600] Review Request: phpPgAdmin - web based PostgreSQL administration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: phpPgAdmin - web based PostgreSQL administration https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 17:10 EST --- Looks good, moving to FE-ACCEPT -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200600] Review Request: phpPgAdmin - web based PostgreSQL administration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: phpPgAdmin - web based PostgreSQL administration https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200600 [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 209214] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude library collection
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libprelude - Prelude library collection https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209214 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 19:16 EST --- * now used %buildroot all over the spec file * removed smp-flags/-j flag because the package won't build with it * added doc files * moved config to /etc/prelude instead of /etc/prelude/prelude * removed duplicate BuildReqs * upgraded to new upstream verson 0.9.12 no more output from rpmlint on the SRPM. any sponsor available? new package is online: http://people.redhat.com/tscherf/fedora-extra/libprelude-0.9.12-1.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/tscherf/fedora-extra/libprelude.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 219539] Review Request: qt-qsa - QT Script for Applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qt-qsa - QT Script for Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219539 [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 220495] package update missisng dependency
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: package update missisng dependency https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220495 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|[EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora- | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: horde - php application framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 19:39 EST ---
I would just call it imp.
I hesitate to agree that is the best choice for the long run, although I
wouldn't object if you named it imp-h3, like the upstream tarball, and
CentOS... If 'imp' ends up being the choice, out of courteosy could you add...
# Obsolete latest version in CentOS Extras
Obsoletes: imp-h3 = 4.1.3-1.c4
Provides: imp-h3 = %{version}
...to your spec file. Especially once Enterprise Extras gets going that would
be appreciated, as I'm sure they won't maintain their own version then.
(The CentOS imp-h3 rpm obsoletes 'imp' without a version number...oops. I will
raise that as a bug in their tracker if the Fedora Extras rpm will be
named 'imp'.)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219990] Review Request: xfce4-timer-plugin - Timer for the Xfce panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfce4-timer-plugin - Timer for the Xfce panel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219990
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution||NEXTRELEASE
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 20:28 EST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Since most are gtk2 dependencies
it is certainly in gtk+-2.0.pc, which has
Requires: gdk-${target}-2.0 atk cairo
And should certainly have
Requires.private: gdk-${target}-2.0 atk cairo
Bingo! Thanks for the pointer, I haven't looked through the chain of
dependencies.
Package built for FE6 and devel. Closing. Once again: Thanks _a_lot_ for your
help, Patrice.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205300] Review Request: gtk-sharp - a set of mono bindings for gtk1.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtk-sharp - a set of mono bindings for gtk1.2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205300 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 21:46 EST --- I have added it to owners.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 199679] Review Request: postgresql-pgpool - Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: postgresql-pgpool - Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199679 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: pgpool -|Review Request: postgresql- |Connection |pgpool - Connection |pooling/replication server |pooling/replication server |for PostgreSQL |for PostgreSQL --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 22:03 EST --- Fixing the Summary for tracking purposes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184331] Review Request: k3d - 3D modeling and rendering system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: k3d - 3D modeling and rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184331 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: K-3D - 3D |Review Request: k3d - 3D |modeling and rendering |modeling and rendering |system |system --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 22:07 EST --- Changing the Summary for tracking purposes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 176253] Review Request: clement - An application to filter and manage E-mail traffic
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clement - An application to filter and manage E-mail traffic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: clement-2.1 |Review Request: clement - An ||application to filter and ||manage E-mail traffic --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 22:08 EST --- Changing Summary for tracking purposes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206872] Review Request: sipsak - SIP swiss army knife
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sipsak - SIP swiss army knife https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206872 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: sipsak- SIP |Review Request: sipsak - SIP |swiss army knife|swiss army knife --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 22:10 EST --- Changing summary for tracking purposes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206836] Review Request: python-turbojson - Python template plugin that supports json
Please 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-turbojson - Python template plugin that supports json https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206836 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: TurboJson - |Review Request: python- |Python template plugin that |turbojson - Python template |supports json |plugin that supports json --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 22:12 EST --- Changing the summary for tracking purposes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206837] Review Request: python-turbocheetah - TurboGears plugin to support use of Cheetah templates
Please 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-turbocheetah - TurboGears plugin to support use of Cheetah templates https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206837 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: TurboCheetah|Review Request: python- |- TurboGears plugin to |turbocheetah - TurboGears |support use of Cheetah |plugin to support use of |templates |Cheetah templates --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 22:14 EST --- Changing the summary for tracking purposes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206838] Review Request: python-tgfastdata - Automatic user interface generation for TurboGears
Please 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-tgfastdata - Automatic user interface generation for TurboGears https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206838 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: TGFastData -|Review Request: python- |Automatic user interface|tgfastdata - Automatic user |generation for TurboGears |interface generation for ||TurboGears --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 22:14 EST --- Changing summary for tracking purposes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206839] Review Request: python-turbokid - Python template plugin that supports Kid templates
Please 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-turbokid - Python template plugin that supports Kid templates https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206839 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: TurboKid - |Review Request: python- |Python template plugin that |turbokid - Python template |supports Kid templates |plugin that supports Kid ||templates --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 22:15 EST --- Changing summary for tracking purposes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 180068] Review Request: GeoIP - Library for mapping IP/hostname to a country/city/organization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: GeoIP - Library for mapping IP/hostname to a country/city/organization https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180068 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: geoip - |Review Request: GeoIP - |Library for mapping |Library for mapping |IP/hostname to a|IP/hostname to a |country/city/organization |country/city/organization --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 22:18 EST --- Changing the summary for tracking purposes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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-remove-duplicates - Evolution plugin for removing duplicate mails
Please 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-remove-duplicates - Evolution plugin for removing duplicate mails https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218360 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: evolution- |Review Request: evolution- |plugin-remove-duplicates - |remove-duplicates - |Evolution plugin for|Evolution plugin for |removing duplicate mails|removing duplicate mails --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 22:19 EST --- Changed summary for tracking purposes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205265] Review Request: libxml - Old libXML library for Gnome-1 application compatibility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libxml - Old libXML library for Gnome-1 application compatibility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205265 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: libxml- Old |Review Request: libxml - Old |libXML library for Gnome-1 |libXML library for Gnome-1 |application compatibility |application compatibility --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 22:20 EST --- Changed summary for tracking purposes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190144] Review Request: hevea - LaTeX to HTML translator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hevea - LaTeX to HTML translator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190144 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 22:29 EST --- ok, so this has been accepted, imported, branched and built. It should be closed NEXTRELEASE right? not NEW? Can you do so if I am correct, or explain why not? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191175] Review Request: pyserial - Python serial port access library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pyserial - Python serial port access library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191175 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 22:36 EST --- This package appears to have been accepted, imported and built. This bug should be closed NEXTRELEASE. I am going to go ahead and do so. If I am in error, please reopen. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193156] Review Request: devallocator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: devallocator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193156 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 22:42 EST --- removing FE-REVIEW since this has been 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 192313] Review Request: koan
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: koan https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192313 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 22:45 EST --- David: It doesn't look like this was ever changed to block FE-ACCEPT instead of FE-REVIEW. Could you please do so if you really approved this package? It helps with tracking to make sure all packages have been 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 187706] Review Request: alsa-oss - Userspace OSS emulation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: alsa-oss - Userspace OSS emulation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187706 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |201449 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 22:47 EST --- Changing the blocker here to FE-DEADREVIEW instead of FE-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 191218] Review Request: PyScript - Postscript graphics with Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: PyScript - Postscript graphics with Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 |201449 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 22:52 EST --- Moving blockers to FE-DEADREVIEW. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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
Please 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] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 23:11 EST --- Hey Michael. I'm interested in this package, any chance of an updated version with corrections from comment #10? Note that if the xen mess ever gets figured out in fc6, there will probibly be a 2.6.19 for it, so this may well work in fc6 someday. (At least that is my understanding) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219981] Review Request: xfce4-xfapplet-plugin - A plugin to use gnome-panel based applets inside the Xfce4 one
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xfce4-xfapplet-plugin - A plugin to use gnome-panel based applets inside the Xfce4 one https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219981 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 23:57 EST --- OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 6a06c44b18a97626f44a240ad3bc3244 xfce4-xfapplet-plugin-0.1.0.tar.bz2 6a06c44b18a97626f44a240ad3bc3244 xfce4-xfapplet-plugin-0.1.0.tar.bz2.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. See below - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. i386/x86_64 - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. The summary seems a bit odd to me: A plugin to use gnome-panel based applets inside the Xfce4 one How about: A plugin to use gnome-panel based applets inside the Xfce4 panel 2. Your desktop file needs desktop-file-install: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-254ddf07aae20a23ced8cecc219d8f73926e9755 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219986] Review Request: xfce4-smartbookmark-plugin - Smart bookmarks for the Xfce panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xfce4-smartbookmark-plugin - Smart bookmarks for the Xfce panel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219986 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-22 00:00 EST --- I'd be happy to review this package. Look for a full review in a bit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192876] Review Request: V2Strip ID3v2(Mp3 Files) tags remover
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: V2Strip ID3v2(Mp3 Files) tags remover https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192876 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution||WONTFIX Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED OtherBugsDependingO|163779 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-22 00:01 EST --- Approval rescinded. Bug closed WONTFIX. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203864] Review Request: tripwire - IDS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tripwire - IDS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203864 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-22 00:02 EST --- I've removed all output from %post and imported this package for devel/ and requested a build. You're welcome to check it out and see for yourself, and move this bug to block FE-ACCEPT. Thanks for all your time! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219986] Review Request: xfce4-smartbookmark-plugin - Smart bookmarks for the Xfce panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xfce4-smartbookmark-plugin - Smart bookmarks for the
Xfce panel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219986
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-22 00:17 EST ---
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
284e26595637dd2e900b75534372496b xfce4-smartbookmark-plugin-0.4.2.tar.gz
284e26595637dd2e900b75534372496b xfce4-smartbookmark-plugin-0.4.2.tar.gz.1
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
See below - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - No rpmlint output.
See below - final provides and requires are sane:
SHOULD Items:
OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
Issues:
1. Whats with the commented line in the files section?
#%{_libexecdir}/xfce4/panel-plugins/%{name}
2. Your desktop file needs desktop-file-install:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-254ddf07aae20a23ced8cecc219d8f73926e9755
3. This package provides:
libsmartbookmark.so
Is that correct? Or should that be filtered?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219327] Review Request: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219327 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-22 00:30 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) But ... after having corrected this ... the package still doesn't build: Well, again please attach your full build log and config.h on failure rebuild? I have only FC-devel i386 and I can check if this can be rebuild on FC-6 only by mockbuild and only on i386. My mockbuild log on FC-6 i386 is in comment #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 220577] New: Review Request: imp - webmail
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=220577 Summary: Review Request: imp - webmail 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://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/imp.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/imp-4.1.3-1.src.rpm Description: IMP is the Internet Messaging Program, one of the Horde applications. It provides webmail access to IMAP and POP3 accounts. The Horde Project writes web applications in PHP and releases them under Open Source licenses. For more information (including help with IMP) please visit http://www.horde.org/. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220577] Review Request: imp - webmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: imp - webmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220577 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||189195 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||220577 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 209214] Review Request: libprelude - Prelude library collection
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libprelude - Prelude library collection https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209214 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-22 01:27 EST --- (In reply to comment #15) * moved config to /etc/prelude instead of /etc/prelude/prelude Well, did you? # rpm -qlp libprelude-0.9.12-1.i386.rpm | grep /etc/prelude /etc/prelude /etc/prelude/prelude /etc/prelude/prelude/default /etc/prelude/prelude/default/client.conf /etc/prelude/prelude/default/global.conf /etc/prelude/prelude/default/idmef-client.conf /etc/prelude/prelude/default/tls.conf /etc/prelude/prelude/profile Further issues: - The perl modules are being installed into site_perl # rpm -qlp libprelude-devel-0.9.12-1.i386.rpm | grep perl5 /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/perllocal.pod /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/Prelude.pm /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/Prelude /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/Prelude/.packlist /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/Prelude/Prelude.bs /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/Prelude/Prelude.so Fedora supplied perl-modules MUST go into vendor_perl (or outside of the perl5/ hierarchy). Installing into site_perl is a no-no. - The perl-module contains files supposed not to be shipped (.packlist, etc.) You might want to check how perl modules are suppose to be packaged in FE. - Package must not own /usr/share/aclocal # rpm -qlp libprelude-devel-0.9.12-1.i386.rpm | grep aclocal /usr/share/aclocal /usr/share/aclocal/libprelude.m4 The FPC has not decided upon yet, but so far the recommendation is to requires packages providing aclocal macros to Requires: automake - I don't understand why the perl-module is part of *-devel. Perl modules normally all are run-time packages. - I'd split the language bindings into separate packages (esp. move the perl module into a separate perl-Prelude package). This would avoid pulling in unnecessary deps in cases users are only interested into one of the language bindings. I am not sufficiently familiar with python, but I presume similar consideration as to the perl bindings also apply to it (Toshio, Ville, f13?) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219327] Review Request: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219327 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-22 01:35 EST --- Created an attachment (id=144252) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=144252action=view) config.h of mockbuild 0.4.3-2 on FC6 i386 I attach config.h created during mockbuild of kazehakase 0.4.3-2 on FC6 i386. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189195] Review Request: horde - php application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: horde - php application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189195 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-22 01:36 EST --- imp-h3 makes no sense for a distro-level package, other than blindly naming it the same as upstream's tarball. 'h3' is merely to designate this branch of imp development is designed to run on horde 3.x instead of 2.x so users don't mess up their dependencies. Since we are distro packagers in this case, we have built-in mechanisms to ensure version dependencies, and don't need to use the package name to further 'enforce' this idea. For now (fedora rawhide) I'll make no mention of imp-h3... we can cross the Obsoletes: bridge if/when imp branches for EPEL. I just opened bug 220577 review for imp, further discussions about imp can take place over there. I started with centos's RPM and heavily updated it to reflect the progress we've made in here so far. Jason, one last imp-related question that does pertain to this package. How far are we interested in isolating these various applications from horde (wrt file paths and URL paths)? By default horde applications plant themselves beneath the horde/ directory, which is also reflected in the URL. Imp, for instance, is found at http://site.com/horde/imp/. My imp RPM reflects this by putting config files in /etc/horde/imp and web files in /usr/share/horde/imp/. How all this pertains to this package is the registry.php file needs to know these relative relationships for everything to work. If we'd like to move these applications to /etc/imp and /usr/share/imp, we need to reflect that in registry.php before this gets approved to avoid having to parse-and-edit with each application later. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219327] Review Request: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219327 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-22 01:37 EST --- Created an attachment (id=144253) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=144253action=view) config.log of mockbuild 0.4.3-2 on FC6 i386 Samely, config.log -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208113] Review Request: freepops - a tool to get html mail through a pop daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: freepops - a tool to get html mail through a pop daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208113 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-22 02:00 EST --- Again ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210287] Review Request: Qt# - A set of qt bindings for mono
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Qt# - A set of qt bindings for mono https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210287 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||johnsons.co.uk) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-22 02:00 EST --- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210424] Review Request: fail2ban - scan log files and ban IPs with too many password failures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fail2ban - scan log files and ban IPs with too many password failures https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210424 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-22 02:02 EST --- I will wait 2 days before closing this bug as NOTABUG. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220210] Review Request: krename - Powerful batch file renamer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: krename - Powerful batch file renamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220210 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-22 02:53 EST --- Well, for TODO file, some characters are fixed, however there are still some garbage characters which are not correctly seen by less command. I cannot figure out in what coding these characters are encoded Maybe it may be better that we leave TODO file as it is. Other things are okay. - This package (krename) is APPROVED by me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
