[Bug 220185] Review Request: kvm - Kernel Based Virtual Machine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kvm - Kernel Based Virtual Machine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220185 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 05:03 EST --- Mock build failed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-12-28 05:08 EST ---
Though I am not willing, I will attach a detail for sumbitter's benefit.
From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
= Naming of this package is good
= License documentation is included
= License is OSI approved
= License documentation is actually consistent with
the ones actually used in source files.
= No shareware data is included
= No patents issue is found
= This is not a emulators
= This is not a binary firmware
= No libexecdir files is needed as no wrapper scripts are
needed
= rpmlint is silent
= Changelog entry is proper
= Tag is correctly used
= Build root tag is okay
= Generally Requires: hicolor-icon-theme description
is not needed, however, I don't object to this.
= Dependencies other than libraries' dependencies
automatically added by rpmbuild is not necessary
= BuildRequires is enough: mockbuild is okay for FC-devel
= No redundant BuildRequires is described
= Summary and description is okay
= Documentation Encodings are fixed (according to
my suggestion)
= Needed documentation
- AUTHORS
- COPYING
- ChangeLog
- README
- TODO
--- all included (in main package)
= Mock build log says that fedora specific compilation
flags are correctly passed
(checked by grep -v FORTIFY MOCK-krename.log )
= No static libraries nor .la files
= There is no libraries duplicate of system libraries
= /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpath-worker `rpm -ql krename`
does not complain
= No conf file
= Desktop description is okay
desktop-file-varidate does not report any error
= desktop-file-install correctly used
= Macros correctly used
= No mixed use of %{buildroot} - $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
= %makeinstall not used
= Locale files are handled by %find_lang
= Timestamps are correctly kept for
- xml/html
- gettext mo files
- png file
(checked by `rpm -qilvv --changelog --scripts krename)
= Parallel build okay
= For scriplets
- According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
= No shared libraries, ldconfig not needed
= No services
= No GConf
= No Texinfo
= No Scrollkeeper
= mime type is not needed nor described in desktop file (desktop
update is not needed, proper)
= mimetype xml is not included
= files are installed under %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor
- GTK+ icon cache updating is needed --- correctly handled!!
= No fonts
= No conditional dependencies
= Mockbuild is okay, this means that non-root users' rebuild
should work
= No content which cannot be accepted in FE is not included
= Unowned directory
- /usr - filesystem
- /usr/bin - filesystem
- /usr/share - filesystem
- /usr/share/applications - filesystem
- /usr/share/apps - kdelibs
- /usr/share/doc - filesystem
- /usr/share/doc/HTML - kdelibs
- /usr/share/doc/HTML/en - kdelibs
- /usr/share/icons - redhat-artwork
- /usr/share/icons/hicolor - hicolor-icon-theme
- /usr/share/icons/hicolor/??x?? - hicolor-icon-theme
- /usr/share/icons/hicolor/??x??/apps - hicolor-icon-theme
= all okay
= Owned directory
- /usr/share/apps/konqueror
- /usr/share/apps/krename
- /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/krename
- /usr/share/icons/lcolor
= all are not owned by other packages needed by this package
( as for /usr/share/apps/konqueror, this is owned by
kdebase, however, this package can be used for NON-KDE user
so owning this directory is okay and recommended)
= This is no web app and /var/www is not used
Then from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
= rpmlint for source is silent
= rpmlint for binary rpm is silent
= rpmlint for installed rpm is silent
= Naming is okay (described above)
= Consistency for package guideline is checked above
= License is okay (described above)
= License documentation included (described above)
= Actually I don't know the deferrence between
American/British/Other English in detail..
= I can read this spec file with ease
= Downloading all sources (one) from described URLs
succeeded
= md5sum values are same
= mockbuild is okay for FC-devel i386
= BuildRequires is okay (described above)
= locale handling okay (described above)
= ldconfig not needed (described above)
= relocable description is not used
= Directory ownership is okay (described above)
= permission is okay
- checked by rpmlint and
rpm -qilvv krename
= %clean section handled properly
= macro usage is okay (described above)
= code/content issue is no problem (described above)
= No large documentation is included in source tarball
and -doc subpackage is not needed
= -devel subpackage is not needed
= .la files/static archives are not included (described
above)
= desktop file is correctly installed (described above)
[Bug 220704] Review Request: perl-GPS - Perl interface to a GPS receiver that implements the Garmin protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-GPS - Perl interface to a GPS receiver that implements the Garmin protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220704 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 05:18 EST --- Thanks for the review. Package imported and built for FC-5, FC-6, and devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206877] Review Request: bzr-gtk - Bazaar plugin for GTK+ interfaces to most Bazaar operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bzr-gtk - Bazaar plugin for GTK+ interfaces to most Bazaar operations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206877 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216106] Review Request: python-twisted-words - Twisted Words contains Instant Messaging implementations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-twisted-words - Twisted Words contains Instant Messaging implementations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216106 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 06:43 EST --- I can only parrot what the Twisted developers say, and they say this is indeed the intention for a reasonably long series of Twisted (e.g. the 2.x series) If they actually live up to this or will fix stuff when something goes wrong is something I cannot predict of course. What I am reasonably (99.9%) sure of is that *if* there are any problems of that kind an updated -core will be put out to fix whatever is wrong. I don't think versioned depends make a lot of sense in this scenario since you cannot predict when it will *stop* working, so you cannot put an upper limit on your versioned depends anyway. Whatever you put in is going to break regardless . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216104] Review Request: python-twisted-runner - process management library and inetd replacement
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-twisted-runner - process management library and inetd replacement https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216104 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 06:45 EST --- Ah, I see what you mean. Well, it's probably not a problem, given that e.g. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# rpm -q --provides pygtk2 _gtk.so atk.so gobject.so pango.so pangocairo.so pygtk2 = 2.8.6-0.fc5.1 this looks like something that is already happening. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220766] Review Request: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220766 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 06:51 EST --- # for the ScientificPython-mpi package: rpm -qlvp /home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/ScientificPython-mpi-2.6-4.i386.rpm -rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 1090528 Dec 28 12:39 /usr/bin/mpipython [..] -rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 111 Oct 6 12:49 /usr/share/doc/ScientificPython-mpi-2.6/impipython contents of : /usr/share/doc/ScientificPython-mpi-2.6/impipython #!/bin/csh mpirun -np 2 /usr/local/bin/mpipython /usr/lib/python2.1/site-packages/Scientific/BSP/Console.py $* you should adjust the path of mpipython since it is found at /usr/bin/mpipython instead of /usr/local/bin/mpipython /usr/lib/python2.1/site-packages/Scientific/BSP/Console.py is incorrect as well since the rpm -qvlp /home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/ScientificPython-bsp-2.6-4.i386.rpm gives -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 5278 Oct 6 12:49 /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Scientific/BSP/Console.py [..] Hence the ScientificPython-bsp is a dependecy of ScientificPython-mpi in your spec file you should also add tcsh as requires for the ScientificPython-mpi package, like Requires: openmpi-libs tcsh ScientificPython-bsp -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219071] Review Request: pyfribidi - A Python binding for GNU FriBidi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pyfribidi - A Python binding for GNU FriBidi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219071
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 06:54 EST ---
I am not willing, however I attach a detail for
submitter's benefit.
From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines :
= Naming (pyfribidi) is consistent with source tarball
= License is OSI approved (GPL)
= License document is really consistent with source codes
= License document is included
= This is not shareware
= Patents issue is not found
= This is not a emulator
= No binary firmware is included
= Putting files into %{_libexecdir} is not needed, no
wrapper script is needed
= rpmlint for srpm is silent
= rpmlint for binary rpm is silent
= rpmlint for installed rpm is silent
= Changelog is properly written
= Tags are properly handled
= Buildroot description is okay
= For Requires:
This package does not require anything other than
dependencies automatically pulled by rpmbuild from
libraries' dependency.
For this package, this is correct
= Mockbuild is okay.
= No redundant BuildRequires are included
= Summary and description are okay
= The included text files have no special encodings
= Documentation needed to be included
- AUTHORS
- COPYING
- ChangeLog
= All added (ChangeLog is added on -2)
= Mockbuild log says that
= fedora specific compilation flags are passed
= -fPIC is correctly used for .so file
= No static libraries nor .la files
= There is no libraries duplicate of system libraries
= /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths-worker `rpm -ql pyfribidi`
does not complain
= This package has no %config file
= Do desktop files are needed
= Macros are correctly used
= No mixed usage of %{buildroot} - $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
= %makeinstall is not used
= This package has no gettext mo files
= ... not needed to check timestamps for this package
(accroding to `rpm -ql pyfribidi`)
= ... not needed to use parallel make as this use
distutils.core in python
= No scriptlets are needed
= No worry about conditional dependency
= Mockbuild is okay so normal users' rpmbuild should
succeed
= No relocatable description is written
= No unacceptable code/content is included in source
tarball
= Unowned directories:
/usr - filesystem
/usr/lib - filesystem
/usr/lib/python2.5 - python
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/
/usr/share/ - filesystem
/usr/share/doc - filesystem
= all okay
= Owned directories:
/usr/share/doc/pyfribidi-0.6.0
= only owned by this package
= This is not web application and /var/www is not used
From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python :
= Python version description is no longer needed
= site_arch usage is properly used (this is arch-dependent
and some codes are written in C)
= setuptools/eggs ... not needed...
= pyo file is included
= No needed to worry about unnecessary bite compilation
Special note about python related package:
= Note: for some python related package manual check of
what the package require as runtime is needed. This
is usually done by checking import sentence.
For this package, no worry is needed for manual checking
of python related requirement.
Then From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines :
= rpmlint is no problem (already described)
= Naming is okay (already described)
= spec file naming is consistent with package name
= License issue is okay (already described)
= Well, actually I don't like to use dl.sourceforge.net description
because this requires many time to resolve DNS (and in many
cases it fails... for me), however some reviewers say that
dl.sourceforge.net should be used... so I leave as it is
= md5sum value coincides.
= License documents are included (already described)
= I can read this spec file with ease
= Mockbuild is okay for FC-devel i386 (already described)
= BuildRequires okay (already described)
= ldconfig not needed
= relocatable description is not written (already described)
= permissions of files are correct
(checked by rpm -qilvv pyfribidi)
= macros are correctly used (already described)
= code/content issues are okay (already described)
= No large documentations are added
= no %doc dependency
= no header files and -devel package is not needed
= no .la files nor static archives
= this is not a GUI package
= directory ownership is correct (already described)
Other things I have noticed
= mock build log is no problem
= file `rpm -ql pyfribidi` is no problem
= less /usr/share/doc/pyfribidi*/* is no problem
=
[EMAIL PROTECTED] pyfribidi-0.6.0]$ ldd -r
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pyfribidi.so
undefined symbol: dlsym (/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pyfribidi.so)
undefined symbol: dlerror (/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pyfribidi.so)
undefined symbol: log
[Bug 220766] Review Request: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220766 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 06:54 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) /usr/lib/python2.1/site-packages/Scientific/BSP/Console.py is incorrect as well since the rpm -qvlp /home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/ScientificPython-bsp-2.6-4.i386.rpm gives -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 5278 Oct 6 12:49 /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/Scientific/BSP/Console.py [..] Beware in rawhide, it will be usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/Scientific/BSP/Console.py -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220766] Review Request: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220766 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 07:09 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) I probably need to add a README.Fedora to the -bsp subpackage stating that the libBSP support isn't available yet. Or perhaps document it somewhere in the fedoraproject.org/wiki :) Since in the /usr/share/doc/ScientificPython-mpi-2.6/README.MPI, it states, The module Scientific.MPI is documented in the ScientificPython manual. The main purpose of this file is to explain how to install ScientificPython with MPI support.[...] You could possibly add useful information from that file to the wiki page without those installation notes. Then /usr/share/doc/ScientificPython-mpi-2.6/README.MPI might be useless, afterwards /usr/share/doc/ScientificPython-mpi-2.6/impipython could be at /usr/bin/impipython What do you think ? Since, I'm concerned too with scientific packages at Fedora, possibly we could gather some packagers (scientific packages) to document their changes during packaging on the wiki. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/SciTech We already have SciTech SIG, we could bring it to life, just like the PHP SIG is doing a great job. And help each other during reviews, troubleshooting, etc... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220766] Review Request: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220766 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 07:15 EST --- # for the qt package Requires: pyQt The real name is PyQt is not yum won't be able to find that dependency :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220443] Review Request: gnome-commander - A nice and fast file manager for the GNOME desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-commander - A nice and fast file manager for the GNOME desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220443 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220888] New: Review Request: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment
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=220888 Summary: Review Request: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment 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://dl.atrpms.net/all/fakeroot.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.atrpms.net/all/fakeroot-1.5.10-9.at.src.rpm Description: Gives a fake root environment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220889] New: Review Request: fakechroot - Gives a fake chroot environment
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=220889 Summary: Review Request: fakechroot - Gives a fake chroot environment 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://dl.atrpms.net/all/fakechroot.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.atrpms.net/all/fakechroot-2.5-8.at.src.rpm Description: Gives a fake chroot environment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220890] New: Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs
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=220890 Summary: Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD- ROM when playing audio CDs 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://dl.atrpms.net/all/libcdaudio.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.atrpms.net/all/libcdaudio-0.99.12p2-7.at.src.rpm Description: libcdaudio is a library designed to provide functions to control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs. It also contains functions for CDDB and CD Index lookup. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220891] New: Review Request: greylistd - Greylisting daemon
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=220891 Summary: Review Request: greylistd - Greylisting daemon 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://dl.atrpms.net/all/greylistd.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.atrpms.net/all/greylistd-0.8.2-6.at.src.rpm Description: Greylisting is a simple but highly effective means to weed out messages that are being delivered via spamware/ratware tools. The idea is to establish whether a prior relationship exists between the sender and the receiver of a message. Most of the time it does, and the delivery proceeds normally. On the other hand, if no prior relationship exists, the delivery is temporarily rejected. Legitimate MTAs will treat this response accordingly, and retry the delivery in a while. In contrast, ratware will usually fail to retry the delivery in a normal fashion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220284] Review Request: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 08:37 EST --- Reapproving :) Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199405] Review Request: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199405 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 09:00 EST --- I just repinged the authors and other patent holders on what the situation is with vtk and patents (other than the trivial mpeg bits): http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/vtkusers/2006-December/088816.html (note that I don't expect an answer this year anymore, so you should follow up the archives into January if you are viewing this in 2007). I'm not sure whether this is the proper action yet, perhaps this package should be marked as blocking FE-LEGAL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220888] Review Request: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220888
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 09:34 EST ---
When i look at SPEC only i found
%{_libdir}/libfakeroot/libfakeroot.a
%{_libdir}/libfakeroot/libfakeroot.la
above things should not be added and they must be removed from installation.
Following file should be installed from -devel package
%{_libdir}/libfakeroot/libfakeroot-0.so
you need to add -devel package.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220888] Review Request: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220888 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 09:47 EST --- Kindly check your other package's SPEC which looks good. http://dl.atrpms.net/all/libcdaudio.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 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 09:50 EST --- rpmlint on SRPM gave me W: libcdaudio invalid-license GPL2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220888] Review Request: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220888 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 10:06 EST --- What does libcdaudio have to do with this submission? :) I'm removing static and libtool (although the latter has been in investigation by the FPC whether it is really neccessary), but it makes no sense to add a devel subpackage with a single symlink in it. Other than that libfakeroot-0.so isn't a symlink, but libfakeroot.so is, so it would had been the latter that would need to be cast out. But the latter is the one that is being used by fakeroot, so it isn't even possible to split these two. Note that the so files found here are not conventional shared libs that are intended to be linked against, but are dsos for preloading ld.so, e.g. part of runtime proper. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220889] Review Request: fakechroot - Gives a fake chroot environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fakechroot - Gives a fake chroot environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220889 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Component|Package Review |915resolution --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 10:12 EST --- Kindly remove .a and .la files from installation -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220888] Review Request: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220888 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|[EMAIL PROTECTED] | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 10:15 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) What does libcdaudio have to do with this submission? :) You are right. My comment was not complete. I am really sorry for that. I should have mentioned that check what other SPEC did with .so* files installation. I'm removing static and libtool (although the latter has been in investigation by the FPC whether it is really neccessary), but it makes no sense to add a devel subpackage with a single symlink in it. Other than that libfakeroot-0.so isn't a symlink, but libfakeroot.so is, so it would had been the latter that would need to be cast out. But the latter is the one that is being used by fakeroot, so it isn't even possible to split these two. Note that the so files found here are not conventional shared libs that are intended to be linked against, but are dsos for preloading ld.so, e.g. part of runtime proper. 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 220888] Review Request: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220888 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 10:19 EST --- P.S. This package is missing a BR in Fedora (po4a), so it's not 100% ready for review, yet. I'm commiting the missing BR shortly and will block this submission with it then. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220789] Review Request: fail2ban - Ban IPs that make 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 - Ban IPs that make too many password failures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220789
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 11:24 EST ---
Well,
A. First for general packaging issue of this package:
E: fail2ban only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
! Well, for this package moving all files in /usr/lib
to %{_datadir} seems very easy and I recommend it
(currently not a blocker, however would you contact with
upstream?)
* And... for this package the directory is /usr/lib,
not %{_libdir}!!
You can check this by setup.py (hard-coded)
W: fail2ban service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/fail2ban
* Umm.. I think this should be avoided.
This warning is due to the line
---
# chkconfig: 345 91 9
---
of /etc/rc.d/init.d/fail2ban . The description 345
means that fail2ban service is automatically enabled when
installed on the level of 3-5 (man 8 chkconfig)
And...
The service may be enabled, but in absence of
/etc/fail2ban.conf (which is the default) it will not start.
* I think only the default behaviour of this script is
unkind because fail2ban won't start but no error message
is printed out.
Current message is:
--
Starting fail2ban:
--
Some messages like
--
Starting fail2ban: configulation file not found
[ FAILED ]
--
should be printed out. Also, the exit status of the
failure should not be 0.
Even I copyed /usr/share/doc/fail2ban/fail2ban.conf.iptables
to /etc/fail2ban.conf, no message is printed out.
Some messages which tells that starting daemon succeeded
should be printed out.
Well, then...
B. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines :
! Licensing
- Well, this package is licensed under GPL, however,
GPL document is not included in source tarball. Currently
this is not a blocker, however, please ask the upstream
to include GPL document to source tarball.
! Filesystem Layout
- Described above (not a blocker)
- My opinion is fail2ban should be under %{_sbindir}.
- Usually config files of initscripts should be under
%{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig
* Scriptlets requirements
( http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets )
- For /sbin/chkconfig and etc
Please write Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig and others
- condrestart scriptlet on %postun stage is needed
* File and Directory Ownership
- My opinion is that this package should own /var/log/fail2ban
as a ghost file.
C. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines :
= Okay, except for written in A and B.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196837] Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit3 - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit3 - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests Alias: pear-PHPUnit3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196837 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 11:56 EST --- Okay, I think I know what is going on with the Provides/Obsoletes for PHPUnit2. When PHPUnit2 gets to its %postun section it calls pear uninstall which removes the files. So I don't think we can use Provides/Obsoletes in this case. We probably have to explicitly use a Conflicts tag in this case. Comments/Suggestions? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220766] Review Request: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220766 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 12:47 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) # for the ScientificPython-mpi package: rpm -qlvp /home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/ScientificPython-mpi-2.6-4.i386.rpm -rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 1090528 Dec 28 12:39 /usr/bin/mpipython [..] -rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 111 Oct 6 12:49 /usr/share/doc/ScientificPython-mpi-2.6/impipython contents of : /usr/share/doc/ScientificPython-mpi-2.6/impipython #!/bin/csh mpirun -np 2 /usr/local/bin/mpipython /usr/lib/python2.1/site-packages/Scientific/BSP/Console.py $* you should adjust the path of mpipython since it is found at /usr/bin/mpipython instead of /usr/local/bin/mpipython I noticed this... it was yet another reason I put this into the documentation section. It has to be hand adjusted for number of cpus to use regardless. I'm just going to end up just replacing this file completely and generating a new one. The patch for this file would be longer than the inline cat command to produce a new one. /usr/lib/python2.1/site-packages/Scientific/BSP/Console.py is incorrect as well since the rpm -qvlp /home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/ScientificPython-bsp-2.6-4.i386.rpm Hence the ScientificPython-bsp is a dependecy of ScientificPython-mpi I think I'm going to merge the bsp and mpi stuff into one subpackage. Should I just call the new subpackage ScientificPython-mpi or should I be more encompassing and call it ScientificPython-parallelprocessing ? If we ever get libbsp in Fedora Extras I can build the additional libbsp support into the subpackage. Once you are doing parallelization having libbsp installed is probably acceptable. in your spec file you should also add tcsh as requires for the ScientificPython-mpi package, like Requires: openmpi-libs tcsh ScientificPython-bsp technically I dont think so since the script is placed in as part of the documetnation. It is a reference script, its not critical.. I would even call it trivial. No matter what you do you have to edit this by hand to at least set the number of processors for mpirun to use. My understanding is that reference scripts or examples included as documentation in a packages %doc section do not need to include their intepreter as a hard requirement on the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 12:52 EST --- Well, this package is okay. This package (libextractor) is APPROVED by me -- COMMENTS (none of the following two are blockers) - I recommend to add your name to README.fedora - My opinion is -- /etc/alternatives/libextractor_thumbnail /usr/lib/libextractor/plugins/ibextractor-thumbnail.so -- should be owned as ghost files by -thumbnailgtk and -thumbnailqt packages, however, currently no other package own /etc/alternatives/* files nor alternate link files. How do you think?? NOTES A. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines = Naming okay = Legal okay - GPL (OSI approved) - Documentation included - Actually coincide with source code license - No patent-related issue = Filesystem Layout okay = rpmlint -- not silent, however all can be ignored = Changelog proper = Tag okay = Buildroot okay (although not a format of recommended) = Requires - not needed but for ones automatically checked by rpmbuild = BuildRequires - mockbuild okay = Summary/Description okay = Documentation - all files which should be included are all included actually = Mockbuild says Fedora specific compilation flags are passed = No static archives/la files = No use of local copy of system libraries = rpm -qa libextractor\* | xargs rpm -ql | xargs /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths-worker does not complain = No config file = This is not GUI package = Macros are correctly handled = No mixed usage of %buildroot - $RPM_BUILD_ROOT = %makeinstall not used = proper %find_lang usage = Timestamps okay = Parallel make intentionally disabled = Scriptlets: ... okay - ldconfig - alternatives = Relocation disabled = Ownership okay = Not web apps, /var/www is not used B. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines = Source download okay = md5sum coincide = No duplicate files description = %clean section okay = -doc subpackage not needed = -devel package okay = Requires ... as discussed = BuildRequires okay -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220766] Review Request: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220766 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 12:58 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) Or perhaps document it somewhere in the fedoraproject.org/wiki :) Since in the /usr/share/doc/ScientificPython-mpi-2.6/README.MPI, it states, The module Scientific.MPI is documented in the ScientificPython manual. The main purpose of this file is to explain how to install ScientificPython with MPI support.[...] You could possibly add useful information from that file to the wiki page without those installation notes. No, I'm not thrilled at using the wiki as the primary source of information. If you want to make a scientific computing wiki section that provides more expansive information across the spectrum of available software tools... go right ahead. But my primary concern is to provide the necessary information in the packaging documentation for this package. Other packages already use README.Fedora files to document Fedora specific changes. If you have suggestions on what I should be including in a README.Fedora file, I'll do that. But I'm not going to try to divide my time between the package CVS and the wiki for package specific documentation. Then /usr/share/doc/ScientificPython-mpi-2.6/README.MPI might be useless, afterwards /usr/share/doc/ScientificPython-mpi-2.6/impipython could be at /usr/bin/impipython No impipython cannot be in /usr/bin/ because you still have to set the number of processors to use with mpirun by hand. There is no way around it, the script is clearly a trivial reference script. I'm not going to work on enhancing this script into a generally useful executable as part of downstream packaging activity. What do you think ? Since, I'm concerned too with scientific packages at Fedora, possibly we could gather some packagers (scientific packages) to document their changes during packaging on the wiki. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/SciTech We already have SciTech SIG, we could bring it to life, I'm not interested in participating in any coordinated SIG activities at this point. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219114] Review Request: flac123 - Command-line program for playing FLAC audio files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: flac123 - Command-line program for playing FLAC audio files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219114 [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 216106] Review Request: python-twisted-words - Twisted Words contains Instant Messaging implementations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-twisted-words - Twisted Words contains Instant Messaging implementations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216106 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 13:33 EST --- I can only parrot what the Twisted developers say, and they say this is indeed the intention for a reasonably long series of Twisted (e.g. the 2.x series) If they actually live up to this or will fix stuff when something goes wrong is something I cannot predict of course. Thats fine... as long as they plan to keep compatibility thats good. What I am reasonably (99.9%) sure of is that *if* there are any problems of that kind an updated -core will be put out to fix whatever is wrong. Well, if that has to happen, you will also have to add a versioned requirement to any of the subpackages that need the new fixed core package. Otherwise you can have a case where someone installs fc6, installs python-twisted-core, and then many months later installs say python-twisted-words. Since there isn't a version requirement there it will happily install with the older python-twisted-core package. I don't think versioned depends make a lot of sense in this scenario since you cannot predict when it will *stop* working, so you cannot put an upper limit on your versioned depends anyway. Whatever you put in is going to break regardless . As long as the subpackages are working with the available core package there shouldn't be an issue. If there is something in a subpackage that needs a fix in the core package, I think at that point you will have to add a versioned requirement for the fixed core. So, I think there is no issue now with it being unversioned. If it needs to be versioned later for a fix you can do so at that point. I see no further blockers here... this package is APPROVED. Please remember to close this package review as NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219978] Review Request: thunar-media-tags-plugin - Media Tags plugin for the Thunar file manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: thunar-media-tags-plugin - Media Tags plugin for the
Thunar file manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219978
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 13:42 EST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
1. Should the name of this package have a capital T ?
I don't think so. Yes, Thunar has a capital T, but in case of Thunar
* source has capital T
* the binary has capital T
* lowercase thunar is only a symlink to capital Thunar
In case of this package we have
* lowercase source
* lowercase lib %{name}.so
* lowercase locales %{name}.mo
So I think we should leave it lowercase.
Thanks for the review, wish you a happy new year!
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220862] Review Request: php-channel-phpunit - Add phpunit channel to pear
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: php-channel-phpunit - Add phpunit channel to pear
Alias: channel-phpunit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220862
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 13:44 EST ---
As i proposed this solution i think i could not review it ;)
Who own %{pear_phpdir}/.channels ?
This package probably should own it, or you could post a RFE against php-pear.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220862] Review Request: php-channel-phpunit - Add phpunit channel to pear
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-channel-phpunit - Add phpunit channel to pear Alias: channel-phpunit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220862 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 13:51 EST --- I think php-pear already owns it: # rpm -qf /usr/share/pear/.channels/ php-pear-1.4.9-4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-12-28 13:57 EST --- Well, I will check -3 package today (in Japan: EST+14h)... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 211807] Review Request: firefox2 - Mozilla Firefox 2.0 Web browser for FC6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: firefox2 - Mozilla Firefox 2.0 Web browser for FC6 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211807 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 14:40 EST --- Hey Gawain. I'd like to move this forward if possible. 1. Any chance of an updated 2.0.0.1 rpm? 2. Can you ping Christopher ( caillon at redhat.com ) and confirm that he is ok with you moving forward with this package. He's the firefox maintainer in core, and I don't think we want to cause him problems or issues. I would like to see a up or down from him here before reviewing this. I will take a look at the x86_64 build as soon as my mock build gets there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219973] Review Request: powerdns - A modern, advanced and high performance authoritative-only nameserver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: powerdns - A modern, advanced and high performance
authoritative-only nameserver
Alias: powerdns
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219973
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 15:10 EST ---
Hi Kevin,
- I added Provide: powerdns = %{name}-%{version}-%{release}
- It should now find the mysql libs on x64, turns out it is --with-mysql-lib=
instead of --with-mysql-
libs.
New versions:
http://rubenkerkhof.com/packages/powerdns/pdns.spec
http://rubenkerkhof.com/packages/powerdns/pdns-2.9.20-3.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199405] Review Request: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199405 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 15:14 EST --- Hi Axel, I saw your comments on the VTK list. I'm an occasional VTK user and hope that it can be included in Fedora. I'm also a little concerned about the possible legal problems stemming from past (have they expired?) patents. Would you be willing to continue with the review process (that is, addressing the items in comments #10 and #26) while, in parallel, we contact FESCO, Fedora Legal, or whoever it is within Fedora who can provide an authoritative response to the legal issues? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199405] Review Request: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199405 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 15:52 EST --- Thanks for picking this up for review, it's been w/o a reviewer for more than 5 months. :) The next thing that needs to be done on a technical level is to remove the mpeg source code (which will also remove any weak symbol issues). I already contacted fedora-packaging for some advice on what the proper procedure is to have a documented way for a reviewer to check that the remaining source is still what upstream created and not some trojan horse ;) But let's wait until both kitware and GE make their comments on the patents (especially GE and Marching Cubes). I wouldn't like to find us placing lots of efforts which some of the patent holders may send to /dev/null for fun. BTW this package depends on bug #199402, which is needed for testing this one. Bug #199402 also needs a 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 199405] Review Request: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199405 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 15:58 EST --- BTW this package depends on bug #199402, which is needed for testing this one. Bug #199402 also needs a review. :) Well, putting my brain back into shape: a) the bug in question is bug #199406, not bug #199402 ... b) technically the dependencies are reverse, e.g. the vtkdata package requires this one, but for vtkdata is a very good test for vtk. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220919] New: Review Request: kronolith - The Horde calendar application
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=220919 Summary: Review Request: kronolith - The Horde calendar application 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/kronolith.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/kronolith-2.1.3-1.src.rpm Description: Kronolith is the Horde calendar application. It provides repeating events, all-day events, custom fields, keywords, and managing multiple users through Horde Authentication. The calendar API that Kronolith uses is abstracted; MCAL and SQL drivers are currently provided. The Horde Project writes web applications in PHP and releases them under Open Source licenses. For more information (including help with Kronolith) 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 16:49 EST --- Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/imp.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/imp-4.1.3-2.src.rpm Fallout from the horde package review, the symlink to /etc/horde/imp is now relative. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220796] Review Request: turba - horde contact manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: turba - horde contact manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220796 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 16:57 EST --- Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/turba.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/turba-2.1.3-2.src.rpm Fallout from the horde review: the symlink to /etc/horde/turba/ is now relative. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220919] Review Request: kronolith - The Horde calendar application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kronolith - The Horde calendar application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220919 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 17:02 EST --- Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/kronolith.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/kronolith-2.1.4-1.src.rpm Wups, forgot to bump to 2.1.4 :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220922] New: Review Request: geany - a lightweight gtk2 based IDE
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=220922 Summary: Review Request: geany - a lightweight gtk2 based IDE Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.toxicpanda.com/geany.spec SRPM URL: http://www.toxicpanda.com/geany-0.10-1.src.rpm Description: Geany is a small and fast editor with basic features of an integrated development environment. Some features: - syntax highlighting - code completion - code folding - call tips - folding - many supported filetypes like C, Java, PHP, HTML, Python, Perl, Pascal - symbol lists -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200630] Review Request: postgresql_autodoc - PostgreSQL AutoDoc Utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: postgresql_autodoc - PostgreSQL AutoDoc Utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200630 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 17:26 EST --- Created an attachment (id=144501) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=144501action=view) Patch to add prompt for password -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220926] New: Review Request: ingo - The Horde email filter manager
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=220926 Summary: Review Request: ingo - The Horde email filter manager Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/ingo.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/ingo-1.1.2-1.src.rpm Description: Ingo, the Email Filter Rules Manager, started as a frontend for the Sieve filter language, and is now a generic and complete filter rule frontend that currently is able to create Sieve, procmail, and IMAP filter rules. The IMAP filter driver translates the filter rules on demand to IMAP commands, executed via PHP's IMAP extension and has replaced IMP's internal filtering code. It is now the default filtering agent in IMP H3 (4.0). The Horde Project writes web applications in PHP and releases them under Open Source licenses. For more information (including help with ingo) 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 220922] Review Request: geany - a lightweight gtk2 based IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geany - a lightweight gtk2 based IDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220922 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200630] Review Request: postgresql_autodoc - PostgreSQL AutoDoc Utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: postgresql_autodoc - PostgreSQL AutoDoc Utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200630
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 17:35 EST ---
Previous patch is untested. It uses Term::ReadKey to prompt for a password if
the user specifies --password on the commandline.
You'll need to add a BuildRequires for perl(Term::ReadKey). Not sure if rpm
will pick up the matching Requires: automatically as I haven't tested this.
The spec file is now picking up duplicate files in the %files section:
%{_datadir}/pgsql/%{name}
%{_datadir}/pgsql/%{name}/*.tmpl
You should only have the first of those two lines as rpm will find files inside
the directory recursively.
I'd say the next step is to see if the patch I proposed works for you, see if
upstream is amenable to including it, and then release an rpm with it included.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219973] Review Request: pdns - A modern, advanced and high performance authoritative-only nameserver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pdns - A modern, advanced and high performance
authoritative-only nameserver
Alias: powerdns
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219973
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: powerdns - A|Review Request: pdns - A
|modern, advanced and high |modern, advanced and high
|performance authoritative- |performance authoritative-
|only nameserver |only nameserver
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 17:37 EST ---
I don't think you want the %{name} in the provides, since that will be 'pdns' in
this case... providing powerdns version 'pdns-2.9.20-3' isn't what you want.
Just remove the '%{name}-' from there and it should be correct.
FYI, I am changing the Summary to match the new name (This helps for tracking
purposes).
I now get a compiled package on x86_64, but it contains rpaths:
E: pdns binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/sbin/pdns_server ['/usr/lib64']
E: pdns binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/zone2ldap ['/usr/lib64']
E: pdns binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/pdns_control ['/usr/lib64']
E: pdns binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/zone2sql ['/usr/lib64']
E: pdns-backend-geo binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
/usr/lib64/pdns/libgeobackend.so ['/usr/lib64']
E: pdns-backend-ldap binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
/usr/lib64/pdns/libldapbackend.so ['/usr/lib64']
E: pdns-backend-mysql binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
/usr/lib64/pdns/libgmysqlbackend.so ['/usr/lib64']
E: pdns-backend-pipe binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
/usr/lib64/pdns/libpipebackend.so ['/usr/lib64']
E: pdns-backend-postgresql binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
/usr/lib64/pdns/libgpgsqlbackend.so ['/usr/lib64']
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines?#head-a1dfb5f46bf4098841e31a75d833e6e1b3e72544
for some possible ways to fix this.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220922] Review Request: geany - a lightweight gtk2 based IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geany - a lightweight gtk2 based IDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220922 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 18:11 EST --- Created an attachment (id=144508) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=144508action=view) patch to spec file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220922] Review Request: geany - a lightweight gtk2 based IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geany - a lightweight gtk2 based IDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220922 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 18:17 EST --- Seems you're a new contributor, so you'll need a sponsor. In the meantime, here are a couple of things (not exhaustive) that needs to be fixed with the spec file; 1. Your package includes a .desktop file, and that needs to be properly install with desktop-file-install, and include a Buildrequire on desktop-file-utils. 2. Locales needs to be installed using the %find_lang macro. 3. You also likely need another BR on gettext (because of the locales). Also the Requires on glib, gtk, and pango are not necessary, they are automatically pulled in by rpm. I've attached a patch to your spec file that fix these issues. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220922] Review Request: geany - a lightweight gtk2 based IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geany - a lightweight gtk2 based IDE Alias: geany https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220922 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| Alias||geany --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 18:21 EST --- Deji: Thanks for the patch and comments. I've already mentioned these problems to Josef, as I'm in the process of sponsering him. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220922] Review Request: geany - a lightweight gtk2 based IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geany - a lightweight gtk2 based IDE Alias: geany https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220922 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 18:23 EST --- ahh ok thanks much, I was kind of confused how to handle the desktop file. I have updated the src.rpm and the spec file, its at the same location Spec URL: http://www.toxicpanda.com/geany.spec SRPM URL: http://www.toxicpanda.com/geany-0.10-1.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 216105] Review Request: python-twisted-web - Twisted web server, programmable in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-twisted-web - Twisted web server, programmable in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216105 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 18:27 EST --- built, closing -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 219972] Review Request: poker-network - A poker server, client and abstract user interface 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: poker-network - A poker server, client and abstract user interface library Alias: poker-network https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219972 Bug 219972 depends on bug 216105, which changed state. Bug 216105 Summary: Review Request: python-twisted-web - Twisted web server, programmable in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216105 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220931] New: Review Request: ZoneMinder - Linux CCTV package
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=220931 Summary: Review Request: ZoneMinder - Linux CCTV package 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://ebourne.me.uk/dload/fedora/ZoneMinder.spec SRPM URL: http://ebourne.me.uk/dload/fedora/ZoneMinder-1.22.3-1.src.rpm Description: ZoneMinder is the top Linux video camera security and surveillance solution from here: http://www.zoneminder.com/ This is my first package so I will need a sponser. I'll follow up with more details on packaging decisions made. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216102] Review Request: python-twisted-conch - Twisted SSHv2 implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-twisted-conch - Twisted SSHv2 implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216102 [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 216103] Review Request: python-twisted-names - A Twisted DNS implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-twisted-names - A Twisted DNS implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216103 [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 220931] Review Request: ZoneMinder - Linux CCTV package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ZoneMinder - Linux CCTV package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220931 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 18:41 EST --- How did you get around the requirement for ffmpeg? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220931] Review Request: ZoneMinder - Linux CCTV package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ZoneMinder - Linux CCTV package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220931 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 18:47 EST --- ^sponser^sponsor Package name: I've called the package ZoneMinder because this is the name of the program (as used generally and as per configure.in) and the name of the tarball. However, the original is a bit schizophrenic and variously puts things in subdirectores called ZoneMinder, or just zm. The init script in the tarball is just called zm. I've gone along with what the tarball uses where possible. For further confusion there are older ZoneMinder RPM packages around just called zm, but these have been inaccessible for some months and were never in a fedora repo. I personally would prefer to call it zoneminder but nothing else really uses that. I'm up for any suggestions on this one though. Conflicts: Because of the old zm package some people have installed I've marked this package as conflicts: zm. I originally tried obsoletes but the old zm package does rm -rf /var/lib/zm in postun which is very antisocial and I didn't want this to happen accidentally to anyone. X10: This package does not include the X10 option since it needs the perl X10 module. If this is accepted I'll look into packaging that as well, then add a ZoneMinder-X10 subpackage. FFMPEG: This package is built without mpeg. Quote from the ZoneMinder manual: 'ZoneMinder can generate MPEG videos if necessary, for this you'll need either ffmpeg (recommended) or the Berkeley MPEG encoder (mpeg_encode). If you don't have either, don't worry, as the options will be hidden and you'll not really miss too much.' The builtin jpeg streaming works perfectly well and is more portable than mpeg. I've not used the mpeg support in over a year of using ZoneMinder. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220931] Review Request: ZoneMinder - Linux CCTV package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ZoneMinder - Linux CCTV package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220931 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 18:55 EST --- RPM lint reports the following, interspersed with my reasons for not fixing them: E: ZoneMinder non-readable /etc/zm.conf 0600 The database password is stored in this file, it is intentionally root only readable. E: ZoneMinder non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/zmfix 04755 E: ZoneMinder setuid-binary /usr/bin/zmfix root 04755 This is an intentional upstream setuid helper for handling device permissions. E: ZoneMinder non-standard-gid /etc/zm.conf apache E: ZoneMinder non-standard-uid /etc/zm.conf apache E: ZoneMinder non-standard-gid /var/lib/zm apache E: ZoneMinder non-standard-uid /var/lib/zm apache E: ZoneMinder non-standard-gid /var/log/zm apache E: ZoneMinder non-standard-uid /var/log/zm apache Half of ZoneMinder runs under apache/php so these permissions are needed. W: ZoneMinder incoherent-init-script-name zm Package name inconsistency as described above. W: ZoneMinder log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/zm ZoneMinder does its own log rotation. W: ZoneMinder no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/zm As per upstream, not needed for this package. W: ZoneMinder service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/zm This is not a network listening daemon, nor is it installed by default, so if you installed it you probably want it. Again, as per upstream. W: ZoneMinder symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/ZoneMinder/www/events /var/lib/zm/events W: ZoneMinder symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/ZoneMinder/www/images /var/lib/zm/images W: ZoneMinder symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/ZoneMinder/www/temp /var/lib/zm/temp Don't think the usual chroot implications are valid here. Also I don't see how to make the links relative while using the rpm macros for locations (barring nasty sed hackery). W: ZoneMinder wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/ZoneMinder-1.22.3/README.pdf Just wrong. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220931] Review Request: ZoneMinder - Linux CCTV package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ZoneMinder - Linux CCTV package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220931 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 19:50 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) W: ZoneMinder wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/ZoneMinder-1.22.3/README.pdf Just wrong. See bug #220061 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 20:01 EST --- First let's go over the rpmlint complaints. All of them are bogus in the context of this package. E: imp htaccess-file /usr/share/horde/imp/lib/.htaccess E: imp htaccess-file /usr/share/horde/imp/locale/.htaccess E: imp htaccess-file /usr/share/horde/imp/po/.htaccess E: imp htaccess-file /usr/share/horde/imp/scripts/.htaccess E: imp htaccess-file /usr/share/horde/imp/templates/.htaccess Yes, these are htaccess files. I'm not sure what rpmlint has against them. E: imp non-readable /etc/horde/imp/conf.xml 0660 E: imp non-readable /etc/horde/imp/filter.txt 0660 E: imp non-readable /etc/horde/imp/filter.txt.dist 0640 E: imp non-readable /etc/horde/imp/header.php 0660 E: imp non-readable /etc/horde/imp/header.php.dist 0640 E: imp non-readable /etc/horde/imp/menu.php 0660 E: imp non-readable /etc/horde/imp/menu.php.dist 0640 E: imp non-readable /etc/horde/imp/mime_drivers.php 0660 E: imp non-readable /etc/horde/imp/mime_drivers.php.dist 0640 E: imp non-readable /etc/horde/imp/motd.php 0660 E: imp non-readable /etc/horde/imp/motd.php.dist 0640 E: imp non-readable /etc/horde/imp/prefs.php 0660 E: imp non-readable /etc/horde/imp/prefs.php.dist 0640 E: imp non-readable /etc/horde/imp/servers.php 0660 E: imp non-readable /etc/horde/imp/servers.php.dist 0640 E: imp non-readable /etc/horde/imp/trailer.txt 0660 E: imp non-readable /etc/horde/imp/trailer.txt.dist 0640 E: imp non-standard-dir-perm /etc/horde/imp 0770 Permissions restricted as necessary for security. E: imp non-standard-gid /etc/horde/imp apache E: imp non-standard-gid /etc/horde/imp/conf.xml apache E: imp non-standard-gid /etc/horde/imp/filter.txt apache E: imp non-standard-gid /etc/horde/imp/filter.txt.dist apache E: imp non-standard-gid /etc/horde/imp/header.php apache E: imp non-standard-gid /etc/horde/imp/header.php.dist apache E: imp non-standard-gid /etc/horde/imp/menu.php apache E: imp non-standard-gid /etc/horde/imp/menu.php.dist apache E: imp non-standard-gid /etc/horde/imp/mime_drivers.php apache E: imp non-standard-gid /etc/horde/imp/mime_drivers.php.dist apache E: imp non-standard-gid /etc/horde/imp/motd.php apache E: imp non-standard-gid /etc/horde/imp/motd.php.dist apache E: imp non-standard-gid /etc/horde/imp/prefs.php apache E: imp non-standard-gid /etc/horde/imp/prefs.php.dist apache E: imp non-standard-gid /etc/horde/imp/servers.php apache E: imp non-standard-gid /etc/horde/imp/servers.php.dist apache E: imp non-standard-gid /etc/horde/imp/trailer.txt apache E: imp non-standard-gid /etc/horde/imp/trailer.txt.dist apache E: imp non-standard-uid /etc/horde/imp apache E: imp non-standard-uid /etc/horde/imp/conf.xml apache E: imp non-standard-uid /etc/horde/imp/filter.txt apache E: imp non-standard-uid /etc/horde/imp/filter.txt.dist apache E: imp non-standard-uid /etc/horde/imp/header.php apache E: imp non-standard-uid /etc/horde/imp/header.php.dist apache E: imp non-standard-uid /etc/horde/imp/menu.php apache E: imp non-standard-uid /etc/horde/imp/menu.php.dist apache E: imp non-standard-uid /etc/horde/imp/mime_drivers.php apache E: imp non-standard-uid /etc/horde/imp/mime_drivers.php.dist apache E: imp non-standard-uid /etc/horde/imp/motd.php apache E: imp non-standard-uid /etc/horde/imp/motd.php.dist apache E: imp non-standard-uid /etc/horde/imp/prefs.php apache E: imp non-standard-uid /etc/horde/imp/prefs.php.dist apache E: imp non-standard-uid /etc/horde/imp/servers.php apache E: imp non-standard-uid /etc/horde/imp/servers.php.dist apache Ownership set as necessary for security. W: imp conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/horde/imp/conf.xml W: imp conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/horde/imp/filter.txt.dist W: imp conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/horde/imp/header.php.dist W: imp conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/horde/imp/menu.php.dist W: imp conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/horde/imp/mime_drivers.php.dist W: imp conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/horde/imp/motd.php.dist W: imp conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/horde/imp/prefs.php.dist W: imp conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/horde/imp/servers.php.dist W: imp conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/horde/imp/trailer.txt.dist These are distributed config files and should not be marked %noreplace. Review: * source files match upstream: 91fb63a44805bdff178c39c9bd1c73c5 imp-h3-4.1.3.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly
[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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 21:09 EST ---
Well, I must say that there are a lot of issues to
be fixed... I didn't check this package fully, only
just pointing out what should be fixed.
Details are written on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
!! I just glanced at a spec file and only did a quick
check, not checked fully !
A. From Summary to %description
*Release tag
- Use %?dist tag
* Source0
- Specify URL
* BuildRoot
- Check the recommended BuildRoot
* Prefix/Vendor
- Both are forbidden for Fedora
* BuildRequiers
- This package cannot be rebuild by mockbuild.
Please check the BuildRequires (I attach a mockbuild log)
* Isn't the description of License for -idl package is
redundant?
B. %prep
* %setup
- %setup stage is not quiet
C. %build
* Fedora specific compilation flags are not passed
(I attach a build log)
-
generating dependencies for tools/display-symbols.cc
/bin/sh -ec 'g++ -M -I . -I /home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/BUILD/synopsis-0.9/src -I
/home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/BUILD/synopsis-0.9/src/Synopsis/gc/include
/home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/BUILD/synopsis-0.9/src/tools/display-symbols.cc | sed
s,display-symbols\\.o[ :]*,tools/display-symbols\\.d tools/display-symbols\\.o
: ,g tools/display-symbols.d'
-
D. %install
* Before installing, $RPM_BUILD_ROOT must be cleaned first.
E. %post/%postun
* Please do not make this package invoke unnecessary shell process
(use %post -p /sbin/ldconfig)
F %files
* Usually libraries in %{_libdir} should have sominor (not a
blocker, however would you contact upsteam?)
* Directory ownership is not proper.
For example, %{py_sitedir}/Synopsis/ is not owned by any package.
* -devel package with pkgconfig .pc files should have Requires: pkgconfig
* All documentations should be moved to %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}
* Perhaps 3 files
--
README COPYING NEWS
--
are installed twice by main and -doc package (these should in main)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220796] Review Request: turba - horde contact manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: turba - horde contact manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220796 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 21:10 EST --- First off, I think the License: tag is wrong. It's certainly not GPL; the Horde site lists it as Apache-like. In truth it is essentially the Apache license, version 1.0, with some strings changed and the some parts are public domain bit removed from the end. It is obviously free. It's also kind of dumb; how can you distribute a bunch of scripts in binary form? But in any case, can you change the license tag to Apache Software License v1? I see nothing else problematic with this package, so you can go ahead and fix it when you check in. Also, I note that a Perl dependency snuck in. I don't suppose this hurts anything, although the single script that uses it is not terribly useful. As usual, I'll start with rpmlint, but these are getting repetetive so I'll just post a summary. E: turba htaccess-file /usr/share/horde/turba/lib/.htaccess And four more. All are acceptable; these htaccess files are needed. E: turba non-readable /etc/horde/turba/attributes.php 0660 And ten more. E: turba non-standard-dir-perm /etc/horde/turba 0770 These are all necessary for security. E: turba non-standard-gid /etc/horde/turba apache And twenty-three more. These are all necessary for security. W: turba conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/horde/turba/attributes.php.dist And five more. These are distributed config files, and should not be marked %noreplace. Review: * source files match upstream: a0407717f3f64fb33f6a57e2244a12b4 turba-h3-2.1.3.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. X license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint has only acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: config(turba) = 2.1.3-2.fc7 turba = 2.1.3-2.fc7 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/perl /usr/bin/php config(turba) = 2.1.3-2.fc7 horde = 3 perl(Getopt::Std) php = 4.3.0 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * locales are handled properly * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. APPROVED, provided you change the License: tag appropriately. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220919] Review Request: kronolith - The Horde calendar application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kronolith - The Horde calendar application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220919 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-12-28 21:13 EST --- Created an attachment (id=144516) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=144516action=view) Mock build log of synopsis-0.9-1 mock build log of synopsis-0.9-1 on FC-devel i386 * NOTE: --- distutils.errors.DistutilsPlatformError: invalid Python installation: unable to open /usr/include/python2.5/pyconfig-32.h (No such file or directory) means that this package needs python-devel for BuildRequires. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-12-28 21:15 EST --- I confirm it built on x86_64 with a patch discussed here: http://www.aqsis.org/xoops/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1394forum=3 http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/patches/aqsis-1.2.0-long_86_64.patch http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/SPECS/aqsis.spec http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/aqsis/aqsis-1.2.0-0.2.alpha1.kwizart.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-12-28 21:18 EST --- Created an attachment (id=144517) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=144517action=view) rpmbuild log of synopsis-0.9-1 rpmbuild log of synopis-0.9-1 on FC-devel i386 Please ensure that Fedora specific compilation flags are correctly passed NOTE: Fedora specific compilation flags can be shown by: -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] synopsis]$ rpm --eval %optflags -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220860] Review Request: galternatives - Alternatives Configurator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: galternatives - Alternatives Configurator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220860 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |galternatives - Alternatives|galternatives - Alternatives |Configurator|Configurator CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 21:38 EST --- Please check the packages you created by rpmlint Very Very quick note: -- E: galternatives no-binary E: galternatives non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/galternatives/main.py 0644 E: galternatives non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/galternatives/gadebug.py 0644 E: galternatives non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/galternatives/common.py 0644 E: galternatives non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/galternatives/__init__.py 0644 E: galternatives non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/galternatives/alternative.py 0644 E: galternatives-debuginfo empty-debuginfo-package * This seems to be a noarch rpm * Scripts with shebang should have executable permission (or, if 0644 permissons are correct, shebangs should be removed) * .pyo files are not marked as ghosts due to SELinux issues. * Please check Requires - This package should require pam explicitly - And include line of pam configuration file means that requirement of pam is version-specific (pam = 0.80) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220759] Review Request: pdfcube - PDF viewer with a spinning cube
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pdfcube - PDF viewer with a spinning cube https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220759 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 22:40 EST --- Package built and installed fine, but: 1. pdfcube does not appear to be fully mature. On my laptop compiz works fine. Since I cannot run pdfcube directly from gnome (see #2), with this package, I have to start it from gnome-terminal. pdfcube runs, and shows a portion of the first page in the PDF file in full screen mode. The pdf is of a legal-sized document, so I only see the top half of the tall page. pgup and pgdn seems to advance to the next/prev page, still showing the top-half of the page. Tried to figure out how to reduce magnification, to fit the entire page on the screen, with no luck. There was no documentation in the package, so I went to the project home's page, and found some documentation. Despite the claims on the project's web site, the cube transition result in some visible, and rather annoying, display flicker from me. Furthermore, the zoom keys only zoom in on parts of the visible page, and I still can't find a way to view the bottom half of the pdf page. This appears to be a bug, and the software does not appear to handle pdf files of arbitrary page size. Additionally, running pdfcube from gnome-terminal, a corrupted shadow of the gnome-terminal window, that pdfcube gets started from, is overlayed on top of the pdf page, and it remains on top when I flip between the pages. On a hunch, I ran sleep in the shell, before starting pdfcube, and minimized the gnome-terminal window while it slept. That got rid of the diplay corruption. 2. Package did not install a desktop file. So, there's no way to run pdfcube from gnome, except indirectly from firefox, and manually overriding the default handler (evince, or xpdf) and manually typing /usr/bin/pdfcube. An application file should be added to the package. Look at /usr/share/applications/evince.desktop, and create a similar file and add it to the package. You can try looking for a generic icon present in the base gnome install, and use it as an icon for this package, or quickly hack something up yourself. Doing this should result in pdfcube being runnable from the Gnome menu, and Firefox should then offer pdfcube as an option for viewing PDF files. But the first issue with this package is much more serious, IMHO. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220775] Review Request: Exaile! - A music 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: Exaile! - A music player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220775 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 23:48 EST --- IMHO, AFAIK %doc is used to install files in /usr/share/doc right? So if you include license.txt to %doc then other users who don't have SPEC can see which license this package is using. Review Guidelines said that if a source package contains license text included as separate file then that file must be added to %doc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-28 23:57 EST --- Imported, Built (http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/24705-imp-4.1.3-2.fc7/), Branch Requested -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220796] Review Request: turba - horde contact manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: turba - horde contact manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220796 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-29 00:10 EST --- Imported, Built (http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/24706-turba-2.1.3-2.fc7/), Branch Requested Incidentally, I changed the License: to Apache Software License v1 as instructed, but rpmlint complains about it. Is there another abbreviation / spelling that rpmlint likes better? I suppose as long as us humans understand what license I'm referring to it's not a big deal. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220860] Review Request: galternatives - Alternatives Configurator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: galternatives - Alternatives Configurator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220860 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218600] Review Request: resapplet - Resolution Switching Applet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: resapplet - Resolution Switching Applet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218600 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-29 00:37 EST --- Have you checked whether your ssl cert has expired? Also, I noticed that the owners.list file lists resapplet as belonging to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If this is just a typo, please change it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220860] Review Request: galternatives - Alternatives Configurator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: galternatives - Alternatives Configurator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220860 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-29 00:40 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) Please check the packages you created by rpmlint * This seems to be a noarch rpm Yes, you're right, changed it to be so. * Scripts with shebang should have executable permission (or, if 0644 permissons are correct, shebangs should be removed) This is _strictly_ _not_ necessary (I've seen other reviews ignoring these kind of warning on python packages); anyways to make everyone happy, I've sed out the shebangs. * .pyo files are not marked as ghosts due to SELinux issues. Right, fixed. * Please check Requires - This package should require pam explicitly It does already rightly requires usermode, which in turn explicitly requires pam. Besides other packages in Extras that uses consolehelper only requires usermode. New file with changes uploaded, thanks for the review. Spec URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/galternatives/galternatives.spec SRPM URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/galternatives/galternatives-0.13.4-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220796] Review Request: turba - horde contact manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: turba - horde contact manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220796 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-29 00:43 EST --- Unfortunately rpmlint gets out of sync with things every so often. The packaging committee is working on cleaning up license specifications so that there's at least a single way to specify each of the common licenses. Apache Software License v1 is in the curent draft as the recommended string to use for that license. I expect that rpmlint will catch up only once we're done with the process and have a full list of recommended license strings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220775] Review Request: Exaile! - A music 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: Exaile! - A music player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220775 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-29 00:45 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) IMHO, AFAIK %doc is used to install files in /usr/share/doc right? So if you include license.txt to %doc then other users who don't have SPEC can see which license this package is using. one can always do 'rpm -qi exaile | grep License' Review Guidelines said that if a source package contains license text included as separate file then that file must be added to %doc Note it says 'license text'; that file, license.txt, does not contain the license text, it only expresses what the license is. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-12-29 00:52 EST ---
Well,
A. Genenal packaging issues
* Please add the following documentation(s)
NEWS
COPYING
* Please remove the following documentation(s)
INSTALL - only need by manual installation and
not needed by rpm installation
B. For debuginfo rpm issue
! It seems that some of the source files are
borrowed from libgpg-error.
(borrowed means copied with some modifications for the
usage of libprelude)
---
/usr/src/debug/libprelude-0.9.12/src/libprelude-error/code-from-errno.c
/usr/src/debug/libprelude-0.9.12/src/libprelude-error/code-from-errno.h
/usr/src/debug/libprelude-0.9.12/src/libprelude-error/code-to-errno.c
/usr/src/debug/libprelude-0.9.12/src/libprelude-error/code-to-errno.h
/usr/src/debug/libprelude-0.9.12/src/libprelude-error/err-codes.h
/usr/src/debug/libprelude-0.9.12/src/libprelude-error/err-sources.h
/usr/src/debug/libprelude-0.9.12/src/libprelude-error/strerror.c
/usr/src/debug/libprelude-0.9.12/src/libprelude-error/strsource.c
---
Usually local copies of other libraries are
forbidden, however, as long as I checked how
these source codes are used, these codes can be
allowed because it seems that the part of codes
borrowed from libgpg-error seems very trivial.
However, would you check if this is proper?
(IMO this is not a blocker for this package).
Then:
C: Related to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
* Use rpmlint
E: libprelude-perl script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/Prelude.pm
permission should be 0644 for this file.
* BuildRequires
- Mockbuild fails.
BuildRequires: gnutls should be BuildRequires: gnutls-devel
* Parallel make
- Does this package fail on parallel make?
If not, please use make %{?_smp_mflags}
D. Related to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines :
= This is okay, except for the issues on A-C.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220775] Review Request: Exaile! - A music 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: Exaile! - A music player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220775 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-29 00:52 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) (In reply to comment #6) IMHO, AFAIK %doc is used to install files in /usr/share/doc right? So if you include license.txt to %doc then other users who don't have SPEC can see which license this package is using. one can always do 'rpm -qi exaile | grep License' ahh i forgot that option. Thanks. Review Guidelines said that if a source package contains license text included as separate file then that file must be added to %doc Note it says 'license text'; that file, license.txt, does not contain the license text, it only expresses what the license is. Thanks. I got this point now thanks for explaining this to me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220775] Review Request: Exaile! - A music 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: Exaile! - A music player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220775 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-29 00:55 EST --- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPMS. + source files match upstream. 05f8ad394f872f24c201d51687c96890 exaile_0.2.6.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. License text is not included in package. + %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required. + %doc does not affect runtime. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists + no .la files. + no translations are available + Dose owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Desktop file installed successfully + Desktop file is handled correctly in SPEC file. + GUI app 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 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] 2006-12-29 00:56 EST --- (In reply to comment #30) http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/patches/aqsis-1.2.0-long_86_64.patch http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/SPECS/aqsis.spec http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/aqsis/aqsis-1.2.0-0.2.alpha1.kwizart.fc6.src.rpm Is this regarded as the revised version of comment #27? Is so, please increase release. And.. none of the issues I pointed out are fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220775] Review Request: Exaile! - A music 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: Exaile! - A music player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220775 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-29 00:57 EST --- Don't Forget to CLOSE this Review once package will be imported in CVS -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220775] Review Request: Exaile! - A music 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: Exaile! - A music player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220775 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-29 01:10 EST --- Imported into CVS. Thanks Parag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220766] Review Request: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220766 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-29 01:49 EST --- Here is the updated srpm to address outstanding issues. PyQt requires has been fixed as well as removal of redudant requires: openmpi-libs and netcdf. I've re-integrated the mpi and bsp subpackages back into the main package. Picking up the depchain for openmpi-libs isn't a significant burden. But I still feel its appropriate to leave the Qt and tk toolkit modules as subpackages. I've also spun up a fedora-specific impipython.sh file to replace the upstream one. It has the correct filepath information generated at package buildtime. It's still included as a doc file, because you still have to hand edit it for the number or processors you want to run it with via mpirun. You'll notice I added a nice verbose comment header in the script explaining what its there for. This is my best effort to cover all the problems pointed out by Chitlesh. Is there anything else I need to fix? I've look a bit more at the Visualization subdirectory of included python code. At the moment they pretty much require someone to have additional non Fedora space items installs to operate correctly. They do have runtime detection of the needed helper programs so they don't fall over and die with python tracebacks. They should exit gracefully and tell you you don't have the needed additional software installed. I'm still inclined to include them since they do no harm, but I'm not sure if I should split this off as a subpackage. There is no real gain in splitting them off as a subpackage at the moment. If at some point we get the 3d visualization programs in Fedora packaging space we may consider it if we want to make one the 3d visualization stacks a hard requirement on the package, I don't consider this a blocker issue, but I'm open to dealing with this a different way if the reviewer(s) think otherwise. SRPM: http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/ScientificPython/ScientificPython-2.6-5.src.rpm Spec: http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/ScientificPython/ScientificPython.spec Changelog: * Thu Dec 28 2006 Jef Spaleta [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.6-5 - remove mpi and bsp subpackages. On more thought, - it makes more sense to have the parallel computing items - in the main package. - Added inline impipython.sh reference script - Replaces upstreams impipython reference file - This will have the correct path statements generated at - package buildtime. Still included as a doc item -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220860] Review Request: galternatives - Alternatives Configurator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: galternatives - Alternatives Configurator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220860 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-29 02:18 EST --- ... not a packaging issue, however... I get the following backtrace. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# LANG=C alternatives --display print print - status is auto. link currently points to /usr/bin/lpr.cups /usr/bin/lpr.cups - priority 40 slave print-cancel: /usr/bin/cancel.cups slave print-lp: /usr/bin/lp.cups slave print-lpq: /usr/bin/lpq.cups slave print-lprm: /usr/bin/lprm.cups slave print-lpstat: /usr/bin/lpstat.cups slave print-lpc: /usr/sbin/lpc.cups slave print-cancelman: /usr/share/man/man1/cancel-cups.1.gz slave print-lpman: /usr/share/man/man1/lp-cups.1.gz slave print-lpqman: /usr/share/man/man1/lpq-cups.1.gz slave print-lprman: /usr/share/man/man1/lpr-cups.1.gz slave print-lprmman: /usr/share/man/man1/lprm-cups.1.gz slave print-lpstatman: /usr/share/man/man1/lpstat-cups.1.gz slave print-lpcman: /usr/share/man/man8/lpc-cups.8.gz Current `best' version is /usr/bin/lpr.cups. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# galternatives == (then select the item of print) == Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/galternatives/main.py, line 364, in alternative_selected_cb self.update_options_tree () File /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/galternatives/main.py, line 400, in update_options_tree self.PRIORITY, int(option['priority']), ValueError: invalid literal for int() with base 10: '40 cups' Would you know why? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
