[Bug 226247] Merge Review: perl-Convert-ASN1
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl-Convert-ASN1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226247 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-06 00:42 EST --- Alright, new version 'perl-Convert-ASN1-0.21-1.fc7' built - does everything look ok to you? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226260] Merge Review: perl-HTML-Parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl-HTML-Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226260 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 23:58 EST --- alright, changes have been incorporated in perl-HTML-Parser-3.56-1.fc7, except for the BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod) Let me know how it looks to you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225207] Review Request: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225207
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 22:53 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=147432)
--> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147432&action=view)
rpmlint results
MUST:
* name good
* spec name good
* license good
* license matches
* licenses are in %doc for all subpackages
* spec is English
* spec is legible
* sources match
* package builds on mock for i386 and x86_64 at least, didn't try ia64
* comment present for ExclusiveArch
* BRs OK
* no locales used
* ldconfig used in %post and %postun properly
* not relocatable
* package owns its directories
* no duplicate files
* defattr present for each subpackage
* %clean ok
* consistent use of macros
* packages contain code, not content
* extra docs not presently being built, will be in -devel when they
are. No need for a -doc subpackage.
* nothing in %doc needed at runtime
* headers and static libs in -devel package
* no .pc files
* -devel has the unversioned lib*.so files
* -devel properly requires name = %{version}-%{release}
* no GUI -> no .desktop
* no directory ownership problems
SHOULD:
* source includes licenses
* string translations not available
* package builds in mock
* package builds on all supported arches
* package runs as expected
* scriptlets sane
* subpackages properly Require parent
* no pkgconfig files
Packaging Guidelines
* changelog ok
* tags ok
* buildroot ok
* summary and descriptions ok
* encoding ok
* docs ok
* optflags ok
* no static linked bins
* no system lib duplication
* no rpath
* no config files
* no desktop files
* consistent macros
* no %makeinstall
* no locale
* cp -a used
* smp_mflags used
* scriptlets ok
You can ignore the rpmlint error about missing the ldconfig symlink,
as it's present in the -devel package as PackagingGuidelines require.
Bugs:
* Docs permissions are 755, not 644
* source files, thus /usr/src/debug/* are 755, not 644
* package includes *.la files, need to be rm'd in %install and not
installed in %files.
* Obsoletes, but doesn't Provide, a couple packages
* -libs Summary ends with a .
* -devel %doc should include additional licenses of boost (boost
1.0, which is GPL-compatible)
* add getopts (3-clause BSD) license to all %docs
* add a MANIFEST in %doc noting which parts are covered by which
license.
* trivial rpmlint cleanups for spelling and the like
APPROVED with the above trivial fixes
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225715] Merge Review: echo-icon-theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: echo-icon-theme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225715 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 22:28 EST --- I've fixed the changelog entries in 0.1-7.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226393] Merge Review: scim-hangul
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: scim-hangul https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226393 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 22:14 EST --- Thank you for review. fixed in 0.2.2-8.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225812] Merge Review: gnome-audio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gnome-audio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225812 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-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 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola
P2k phones
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 21:40 EST ---
Just checked the new version. These seem to be the problems left:
- Since release 3, you do not use a consistent convention for the Buildroot.
Please select either $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} and use it everywhere
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#UsingBuildRootOptFlags)
- Packaging/Guidelines/Compiler flags is not respected. The build process is
based on qmake.conf default settings, not on $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
- the .desktop file does not use a standard category. Please try to find an
appropriate one from http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html
- I am not sure that Applications/File is the proper RPM Group (I feel like
Applications/Communications being more appropriate since you communicate with
the mobile..) but I will not object if you retain it. Maybe someone more
experienced could give us a hint here ?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225945] Merge Review: jfsutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: jfsutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225945 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 21:38 EST --- Jeff has disclaimed ownership of jfsutils. See bug 226558 for the specific comment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225654] Merge Review: control-center
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: control-center https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225654 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 21:16 EST --- the keyboard drawing patches have all been ported to libgnomekbd and can safely be deleted here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226294] Merge Review: php
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: php
Alias: php
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226294
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 20:01 EST ---
Requires: httpd-mmn = %(cat %{_includedir}/httpd/.mmn || echo
missing-httpd-devel)
php requires httpd-mmn? If it does, then this line is totally ineffective. I
have php installed with no httpd-mmn package.
Perhaps httpd-devel needs to be added to BR or some kind of build prereq.
I was looking at some of the *really* old patches, for example:
php-4.3.2-libtool15.patch
I don't get this patch, esp since you compile using --with-pic. My ignorance
level is pretty amazingly high when it comes to autoconf stuff, but I'm
wondering if some of the old patches are still required?
I think it makes tons of sense to package php-pear in this package, and send the
old php-pear to /dev/null. We can then make a php-pear-PEAR package that
basically uses a standard pear class spec file created with fedora-newrpmspec
command.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226800] Review Request: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226800
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 19:41 EST ---
Thanks Tom. This one builds for FC6 in mock.
rpmlint has a single complaint about this package...
# rpmlint emacs-bbdb-2.35-2.fc6.noarch.rpm
W: emacs-bbdb file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/bbdb.info.gz
You can fix this with the following spec file patch...
--- emacs-bbdb.spec~2007-02-03 12:06:44.0 -0800
+++ emacs-bbdb.spec 2007-02-05 16:35:51.0 -0800
@@ -34,6 +34,10 @@
%prep
%setup -q -n %{pkg}-%{version}
%patch0 -p1
+pushd texinfo
+iconv --from=ISO-8859-1 --to=UTF-8 bbdb.texinfo > bbdb.texinfo.new
+mv bbdb.texinfo.new bbdb.texinfo
+popd
%build
Actually, rpmlint has a "no documentation" complaint about the -el
package as well, but we can ignore it.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 19:30 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) > Created an attachment (id=147403) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147403&action=view) [edit] > rpmbuild errors > > Attached is the rpmbuild --rebuild output with errors that I got when doing so > as a non-root user. I can't rebuild the package as non-root user. Should this be possible ? The build fails cause you cannot delete the man page a non-root user, and you haven't got the kernel-devel package installed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 19:26 EST --- It is hard to create a good spec file ... the new rpm's with the TkxXinput libs included: spec url: http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-7.6.4-5.spec srpm url: http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-0.7.6_4-3.7.src.rpm debug url: http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-debuginfo-0.7.6_4-3.7.i386.rpm rpm url: http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-0.7.6_4-3.7.i386.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 225119] Review Request: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD 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: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225119 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 19:25 EST --- SRPM: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/PythonCAD/PythonCAD-0.1.35-3.kwizart.fc6.src.rpm SPEC: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/PythonCAD/PythonCAD.spec Description: PythonCAD scriptable CAD 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 226294] Merge Review: php
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: php Alias: php https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226294 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Alias||php Flag||fedora-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
fedora-review requested: [Bug 226294] Merge Review: php
Bug 226294: Merge Review: php Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Christopher Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226294 ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225119] Review Request: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD 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: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225119
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 19:16 EST ---
Oups - Attachement has cancel the message i was writting...
Ok to all but:
- %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/pythoncad/prefs.py*
I've only excluded from package prefs.py? which are commonly unneeded!
prefs.py is a config file and is also refered in %site_lib/preferences.py
I will ask upstream about #5 (and correct it if needed!)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225119] Review Request: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD 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: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225119 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 19:03 EST --- Created an attachment (id=147421) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147421&action=view) PythonCad - Requires from import section -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226105] Merge Review: logwatch
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: logwatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226105 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 18:44 EST --- Odd. I was pulling things from Matts mass rebuild at: http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i386/logrotate-3.7.4-11.fc7.src.rpm/ But you are right, thats clearly old and not the current package. ;( I will try and sort it out after I get some sleep... Sorry for the incorrect version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: chkconfig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 18:34 EST ---
The dependency on chkconfig should certainly be fully versionned:
Requires: chkconfig = %{version}-%{release}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #147417|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 18:29 EST --- Created an attachment (id=147418) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147418&action=view) updated patch The previous one was 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 222372] Review Request: tilda - a quake like drop down terminal for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tilda - a quake like drop down terminal for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222372 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 18:28 EST --- FC-5 FC-6 tilda josef [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 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 18:21 EST --- Created an attachment (id=147417) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147417&action=view) allow to override all the paths I think that it is important to be able to override the paths when testing a software, such that it is possible to do things without messing up the system, or without administrator rights. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 [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 222571] Review Request: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222571 [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 227244] Review Request: gfa-0.4.1 - GTK+ fast address book
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gfa-0.4.1 - GTK+ fast address book
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227244
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 18:00 EST ---
* %{_datadir}/%{name}/ is not included!
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FrequentlyMadeMistakes
* Desktop file category Application has never been official and should
be removed, especially when desktop-file-install (or -validate) complains
about it.
> %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/%{name}/pixmaps/ || :
Certainly not.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 17:45 EST --- Okay, I've dug a little deeper into this .phar issue, and this is the solution I propose: Add a -pear subpackage to the php package, and do not use --without-pear flag when compiling php. This should allow us to have the pear installer without a need to bootstrap. In addition, we can package the pear classes in seperate spec files using the original .tgz files for each class and can update them independently. And we can also use the standard pear templates to package these classes. Please let me know if there is a problem with this alternative, I think this will be a cleaner solution. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225630] Merge Review: buildsys-macros
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: buildsys-macros https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225630 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 17:43 EST --- Thank you for the review. I've checked in fixes for everything except "no-documentation" as none is needed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 17:15 EST --- Whoops. Spec and tarball uploaded to http://people.redhat.com/notting/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 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 17:14 EST --- Spec and tarball uploaded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222571] Review Request: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222571 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 17:06 EST --- Package pre-import admin stuff done. Feel free to import. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226729] Review Request: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena Alias: duel3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226729 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 17:05 EST --- Package pre-import admin stuff done. Feel free to import. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 17:05 EST --- Package pre-import admin stuff done. Feel free to import. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206871] Review Request: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206871
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 17:03 EST ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> That POV was represented in the packaging meeting too, and it does indeed have
> some merit. Maybe we need more discussion and clarifications.
>
We probably need.
> By the way, just from skimming the specfile, the
> %{perl_vendorarch}/auto/Ekg2/Irc/ dir appears to be unowned.
Fact, missed that...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225654] Merge Review: control-center
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: control-center https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225654 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 16:57 EST --- I ran for f in control-center*.patch; do grep -q $f control-center.spec || cvs rm -f $f; done to drop unused patches. There are some other keyboad-drawing patches that I don't know what the fate of them should be. CCing matthias to see what he thinks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206871] Review Request: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206871
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 16:56 EST ---
That POV was represented in the packaging meeting too, and it does indeed have
some merit. Maybe we need more discussion and clarifications.
By the way, just from skimming the specfile, the
%{perl_vendorarch}/auto/Ekg2/Irc/ dir appears to be unowned.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225654] Merge Review: control-center
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: control-center
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225654
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 16:49 EST ---
we already pass --disable-static so we shouldn't need to worry about .a files,
and we're being very particular about the .la files we're deleting.
I'm going to drop most of the
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/.../*.*a
lines and replace them with
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name '*.la' -exec rm -f {} \;
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225654] Merge Review: control-center
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: control-center
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225654
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 16:47 EST ---
there is a comment:
# desktop-file-install really should not be generating this
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/mimeinfo.cache
But it won't, because desktop-file-install isn't being called with
--rebuild-mime-info-cache
so I'm going to drop that line.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225654] Merge Review: control-center
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: control-center https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225654 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 16:45 EST --- There is an icky sed replace for bug 171059. This got veto'd upstream, so I'm going to drop it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226491] Merge Review: time
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: time
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226491
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 16:41 EST ---
Hi Florian,
Here's my review for time 1.7 release 28:
* RPM name is OK
* Source time-1.7.tar.gz is the same as upstream
* Builds fine in mock
* File list looks OK
Needs work:
* BuildRoot should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot)
* Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake)
* Package is marked as relocatable, please check.
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#RelocatablePackages)
* The %makeinstall macro should not be used
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#MakeInstall)
* The package should contain the text of the license
(wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines)
Notes:
* Use Requires(post) and Requires(preun) instead of Prereq
* Is "echo "ac_cv_func_wait3=\${ac_cv_func_wait3='yes'}" >> config.cache" still
needed?
the configure script detects wait3 without it as well (at least, on FC-6)
Rpmlint is not silent:
Source RPM:
W: time summary-ended-with-dot A GNU utility for monitoring a program's use of
system resources.
W: time no-url-tag
W: time redundant-prefix-tag
W: time prereq-use /sbin/install-info
W: time mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 39, tab: line 34)
rpmlint of time:
W: time summary-ended-with-dot A GNU utility for monitoring a program's use of
system resources.
W: time no-version-in-last-changelog
W: time no-url-tag
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225779] Merge Review: GConf2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: GConf2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225779 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225875] Merge Review: gtksourceview
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gtksourceview https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225875 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225652] Merge Review: comps-extras
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: comps-extras
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225652
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review?
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 16:38 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> rpmlint output:
> W: comps-extras no-url-tag
Yep, there's not one.
> W: comps-extras no-documentation
And there isn't any
> Random notes:
> * Consider changing the buildroot to
> %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Sure, done.
> * URL should be provided for upstream tarball at least, to check against (MUST
item)
There isn't an upstream tarball location. The upstream _are_ the packages that
are built.
> * GPL may not be a very appropriate license for a set of PNG images
It's not normal, but it's fine.
> * Change make to "make %{?_smp_mflags}"
Given that there's nothing actually done, this doesn't actually make a
difference
> * Change %defattr(-,root,root) to %defattr(-,root,root,-)
Sure
> * Packages puts files in /usr/share/pixmaps without owning that directory or
> depending on any packages that owns it (blocker).
/usr/share/pixmaps is owned by the filesystem package. I'm pretty sure we don't
have things requiring it
> * Better add extra slash at the end of %{_datadir}/pixmaps/comps to show it's
> a
> directory: %{_datadir}/pixmaps/comps/
One better; added the directory as %dir and then the files underneath.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225629] Merge Review: bug-buddy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: bug-buddy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225629 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 16:31 EST --- So to be clear, the issue is that removing the vendor will change the filename and the menu editor keys off the of the filename when making changes to the menu. That seems a bit icky. It means we can never clean up the --vendor cruft, but for now I'll just add --vendor back until we can figure out a better solution. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226491] Merge Review: time
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: time https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226491 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 226530] Merge Review: vlock
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: vlock
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226530
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 16:14 EST ---
Review for release 23:
* RPM name is OK
* Source vlock-1.3.tar.gz is the same as upstream
* Builds fine in mock
* File list looks OK
Needs work:
* BuildRoot should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot)
* Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment
(wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake)
* Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros
(wiki: QAChecklist item 7)
* The package should contain the text of the license
(wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines)
Please add COPYING from the source to %doc
Notes:
* Please consider using {?dist} in the Release tag
* Preserve timestamps when installing files
Rpmlint is not silent:
Source RPM:
W: vlock summary-ended-with-dot A program which locks one or more virtual
consoles.
W: vlock no-url-tag
rpmlint of vlock:
W: vlock summary-ended-with-dot A program which locks one or more virtual
consoles.
W: vlock no-url-tag
W: vlock conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/pam.d/vlock
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226530] Merge Review: vlock
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: vlock https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226530 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-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 225633] Merge Review: bzip2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: bzip2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 16:01 EST ---
* README.COMPILATION.PROBLEMS don't seems to be useful to me
* A description of the api should be in the -devel package, I propose
manual.html
* the main and devel package should use a full versioned dependency for
bzip2-libs:
Requires: bzip2-libs = %{version}-%{release}
* I don't see why the devel package requires the main package
* you should use the -p to keep timestamp on unmodified files installed
like bzlib.h, man pages
* Requires(post) and postun missing for -libs, /sbin/ldconfig
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 16:00 EST --- Created an attachment (id=147403) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147403&action=view) rpmbuild errors Attached is the rpmbuild --rebuild output with errors that I got when doing so as a non-root user. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 15:58 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) Would it be possible to upload the new spec? It's not available at http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/chkconfig/ (yet) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227244] Review Request: gfa-0.4.1 - GTK+ fast address book
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gfa-0.4.1 - GTK+ fast address book
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227244
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 15:43 EST ---
And for your scriplets:
you shouldn't be using update-desktop-database &> /dev/null ||:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?highlight=%28Scriptlets%29#head-de6770dd9867fcd085a73a4700f6bcd0d10294ef
but
%{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/%{name}/pixmaps/ || :
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225668] Merge Review: cscope
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: cscope
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225668
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 15:31 EST ---
Comments #4 and #5 fixed in cscope-15.5-15.3%{?dist}. 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 206871] Review Request: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206871
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 15:30 EST ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/223618
Obexftp seems to be different case. Obexftp puts its python files to standard
%{python_sitelib} and %{python_sitearch} directories so that's in fact a
python module.
Ekg2 doesn't create new python module (`import ekg2` give you nothing) so this
is not python module but only an extension to ekg2 to support python. Naming
Guidelines talks about "(python modules)" but IMO ekg2-python is not a python
module.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227244] Review Request: gfa-0.4.1 - GTK+ fast address book
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gfa-0.4.1 - GTK+ fast address book
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227244
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 15:29 EST ---
Some minor issues :
#001 ChangeLog should be among the %doc
#002 add timestamps to your make
make INSTALL="%{__install} -c -p" install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225126] Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225126 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 15:22 EST --- The succeeded in devel as well, so I'm closing this bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206871] Review Request: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206871 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 15:19 EST --- (In reply to comment #12) > - rename python-ekg2 to ekg2-python The naming guidelines say pretty much the opposite: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-8756a3bce652c376d7ba3908461b638784b6952d https://bugzilla.redhat.com/223618 This was discussed in a recent packaging committee meeting and no changes were made to the naming guidelines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 15:14 EST --- I fixed the desktop-file-utils issue, but did not canonicalize the source because of the reasons I outlined. --disable-static doesn't exactly disable building of all static objects, which I filed upstream: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404717 Left the rest alone. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226538] Merge Review: wget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: wget https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226538 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 15:13 EST --- rpmlint took %xx as a macro because it *is* a macro syntactically and even if it's not defined in clean buildroots, we don't know if someone has defined it locally. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 15:12 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) > This isn't needed. Carefully chosen make variables overriden when > running make can do the same. For /usr/sbin, yes, and that I've fixed in CVS. I have no intention of replacing /etc with a macro, as that really *is not changable*. It's a fixed path in the LSB, and it's compiled into the binary. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 15:04 EST --- > It's not a blocker but if you change instroot to DESTDIR you have to adjust some things to let it build in a > chroot. As stated, it's already fixed in CVS (upstream). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206871] Review Request: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206871
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 15:03 EST ---
REVIEW:
* source matches upstram (fec378012b1387b67cf226d40a152ebf)
!* %{?dist} tag not present
* package is licensed under a GPL license; license text is included
* rpmlint output:
E: ekg2 no-binary
W: ekg2 no-documentation
W: perl-ekg2 no-documentation
W: ekg2-gadu-gadu no-documentation
W: ekg2-gpg no-documentation
W: ekg2-jabber no-documentation
W: ekg2-logsqlite no-documentation
W: ekg2-ioctld no-documentation
W: ekg2-xosd no-documentation
W: ekg2-gtk2 no-documentation
W: python-ekg2 no-documentation
we can safely ignore it since ekg2 is a metapackage
* BRs looks fine (mock fc6/x86_64 builds good)
* provides and requires look sane
* not relocatable
* all directories owned well
* %clean section present
* BuildRoot's good
* subpackages: python-ekg2 should be renamed to ekg2-python, because it's not
python module but ekg2 extension to support python
THINGS to do:
- add %{?dist} tag
- rename python-ekg2 to ekg2-python
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: php-pear
Alias: php-pear
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 14:45 EST ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Thanks for the review!
You're welcome, but we are only about 1/2 way done ;-)
>
> Fixed in -4:
> - upstream do not provide a permanent archive URL for each version of the
> .phar
> installer, so there is no URL to provide (yes, I know this sucks). I'll add
> a
> comment to this effect
See comment #9, I need to know why using a .phar is required instead of using
the .tgz
> - bogus Group
Thanks
> - pear.conf marked noreplace; /etc/rpm/macros.* should never be noreplace (and
> that should be documented by standard not per spec file)
Thanks. Please add a comment, something like:
# macros.* should be replaced on updates
Remember, you are not the only one who reads the spec file, and should you get
hit by a bus, the next php-pear maintainer will appreciate the extra
documentation.
>
> Won't fix:
> - passing -q to %setup has no effect when -T is also used
Filed a bug against rpmlint (bug #227389). Thanks for pointing this out.
> - providing an noop %build adds no value
Yet, rpm has "unpredictable results if not added". You can email Ville Skytta
if you need further clarification on this, he has real world examples where this
has caused problems. Better to play safe than sorry. *ALL* pear packages
contain empty %build sections, php-pear should not be an exception. Again, this
is something that takes 5 seconds to add, and causes no harm and helps
documentation in the spec for other users. Please add.
> - no idea what the issue with $RPM_SOURCE_DIR is, this has been used in spec
> files forever
You should install source files using %{SOURCEx} notation, please change your
for loop to something like this:
install -pm 755 %{SOURCE10} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/pear
install -pm 755 %{SOURCE11} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/pecl
install -pm 755 %{SOURCE12} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/peardev
In addition, your reference to macros.pear should use %{SOURCE13}
> - the patches are applied using %{PATCHn} syntax
My mistake. You are right in this case, pear packages are installed funky and
patches have to be done this way.
> - the license specified in every PEAR class file is indeed v3 not v2.02.
> There
> is no accepted policy for the License tag in Fedora yet; there is no point
> tweaking this on a whim until there is, rpmlint is not definitive on that
> front
Okay, can you give me some kind of proof that _all_ pear classes are
automatically licensed with PHP License 3.0? I know of many pear classes that
use BSD for example.
The upstream home page actually has a link to the license file which is a
version 2.02 license.
I simply cannot approve this until this matter is cleared up. The licenses
**MUST** match upstream. If upstream's home page is pointing to the wrong
license, then please attach to this bug report an e-mail from upstream saying
their home page is incorrect.
Please also remove the "The" and "v" in the License tag. Why not atleast make
the licenses consistent to help people who run shell scripts and such parsing
license tags? A license of "PHP License 3.0" is no different than "The PHP
License v3.0", however the first case is consistent with all other packages
licensed with a PHP license.
>
> Again, the upgrade to the latest upstream is not relevant to the review of the
> current packaging and need not block the review process. Of course the
> packaging may change with each new upstream releases, that is always going to
> be
> true.
Right, so what is the point in reviewing a package that is going to change
significantly immediately after it is reviewed? It makes far greater sense to
make the significant changes _before_ the review.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226271] Merge Review: perl-Net-IP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl-Net-IP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226271 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 14:41 EST --- Looks good, although even if currently redundant with today's specified minimal Fedora buildroot package lists, I would have kept the perl build dependency (I don't expect it to stick around in the list of "assumed present" packages forever). But that's just a personal preference. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 14:09 EST --- Quick question: Why do we need to use a .phar archive? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225126] Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225126 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 14:07 EST --- Okay, I tagged the latest version in FC-6. According to the job.log files, it built correctly for all three architectures. Unless there is anything else that needs to be done, I'll close this bug. On a slightly different note, if I try typing "make build" in the devel directory, then I get the error message: dxpc.spec not tagged with tag dxpc-3_9_1-0_2_b1_fc7 make: *** [build] Error 1 So then if I type make tag, I get the following: cvs tag -c dxpc-3_9_1-0_2_b1_fc7 ERROR: Tag dxpc-3_9_1-0_2_b1_fc7 has been already created. The following tags have been created so far dxpc-3_8_2-2:devel:mschwendt:1112826930 dxpc-3_8_2-3_fc5:devel:rdieter:1138638471 dxpc-3_8_2-3_fc5_1:devel:rdieter:1139580877 dxpc-3_8_2-3_fc5_2:devel:rdieter:1141231178 dxpc-3_9_0-1_fc6:devel:jwrdegoede:1154277450 dxpc-3_9_1-0_1_b1_fc6:devel:guthrie:1170455257 dxpc-3_9_1-0_2_b1_fc7:devel:guthrie:1170694597 dxpc-3_9_1-0_2_b1_fc6:FC-6:guthrie:1170696651 cvs tag: Pre-tag check failed cvs [tag aborted]: correct the above errors first! make: *** [tag] Error 1 It looks like there is a dxpc-3_9_1-0_2_b1_fc7 tag in devel. Am I just not supposed to do builds in the devel directory? Also, what is the easiest way to find out what tags have already been created? 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 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage 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: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 14:06 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/dbmail.spec SRPM URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/dbmail-2.2.2-3.fc6.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Feb 05 2007 Bernard Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2.2.2-3 - fix typo in logrotate script - patch umask for log files to be something more reasonable -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: php-pear
Alias: php-pear
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 14:02 EST ---
Thanks for the review!
Fixed in -4:
- upstream do not provide a permanent archive URL for each version of the .phar
installer, so there is no URL to provide (yes, I know this sucks). I'll add a
comment to this effect
- bogus Group
- pear.conf marked noreplace; /etc/rpm/macros.* should never be noreplace (and
that should be documented by standard not per spec file)
Won't fix:
- passing -q to %setup has no effect when -T is also used
- providing an noop %build adds no value
- no idea what the issue with $RPM_SOURCE_DIR is, this has been used in spec
files forever
- the patches are applied using %{PATCHn} syntax
- the license specified in every PEAR class file is indeed v3 not v2.02. There
is no accepted policy for the License tag in Fedora yet; there is no point
tweaking this on a whim until there is, rpmlint is not definitive on that front
Again, the upgrade to the latest upstream is not relevant to the review of the
current packaging and need not block the review process. Of course the
packaging may change with each new upstream releases, that is always going to be
true.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 13:52 EST --- Okay!! This package (irsim) is APPROVED by me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225609] Merge Review: bash
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: bash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225609 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 13:49 EST --- Changes applied and tagged as 3.2-5.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226538] Merge Review: wget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: wget https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226538 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 13:42 EST --- Hi Karsten, Thanks for fixing everything. This package is approved. Please leave the ticket assigned to yourself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225833] Merge Review: gnome-python2-extras
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gnome-python2-extras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225833 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225832] Merge Review: gnome-python2-desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gnome-python2-desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225832 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226333] Merge Review: pygtk2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: pygtk2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226333 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226162] Merge Review: mtools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: mtools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226162 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 13:36 EST --- Assigning back to the reviewer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226162] Merge Review: mtools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: mtools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226162 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Keywords||Reopened Resolution|RAWHIDE | Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-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 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 13:23 EST --- The author replied to me privately and offered to help this process along. He also said that he expects to release 3.3 in a few weeks. Since this is the case, I'll bump the rpm to the CVS version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226181] Merge Review: nano
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: nano https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226181 Bug 226181 depends on bug 220527, which changed state. Bug 220527 Summary: nano: non-failsafe install-info usage, info files removed from index on update https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220527 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|NEW |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 227309] Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback 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: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227309 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 13:05 EST --- Pretty sure Tom was talking about the seom tarball, and seom is his work, so claiming ownership to grant a license shouldn't be a problem, assuming the rights to codec.c can be ironed out. (Hadn't seen that one, yeah, could indeed be an issue.) Tom? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226329] Merge Review: pycairo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: pycairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226329 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 12:57 EST --- Fixed in pycairo-1.2.6-3.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: php-pear
Alias: php-pear
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 12:57 EST ---
REVIEW CHECKLIST
X rpmlint php-pear-1.4.11-3.noarch.rpm:
W: php-pear non-standard-group System
Trivial: change to "Development/Languages"
W: php-pear invalid-license The PHP License v3.0
Trivial: change to "PHP License 3.0"
W: php-pear conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/pear.conf
W: php-pear conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rpm/macros.pear
Trivial: Add noreplace flag (or a comment explainging your *good* reason for not
adding a noreplace flag)
W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.registry/.channel.__uri
W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.registry/.channel.__uri
W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.depdblock
E: php-pear zero-length /usr/share/pear/.depdblock
W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.depdb
W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.lock
E: php-pear zero-length /usr/share/pear/.lock
W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.filemap
W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.channels
W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.channels
W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.pkgxml
W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.pkgxml
W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.registry/.channel.pecl.php.net
W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.registry/.channel.pecl.php.net
W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.channels/.alias
W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.channels/.alias
W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.registry
W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.registry
Safe to ignore, except for the 0 length ones, do these really need to be in the
package?
$ rpmlint php-pear-1.4.11-3.src.rpm
W: php-pear non-standard-group System
Trivial fix (see above)
W: php-pear invalid-license The PHP License v3.0
Trivial fix (see above)
W: php-pear setup-not-quiet
Trivial: Add -q to %setup
E: php-pear use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR
Never seen this used before, are you using this in place of .?
W: php-pear no-%build-section
Trivial: Add empty build section with a comment saying it is not needed
W: php-pear patch-not-applied Patch1: php-pear-1.4.8-package.patch
W: php-pear patch-not-applied Patch0: php-pear-1.4.8-template.patch
Patches that are not applied should be removed, or commented out with an
explanation as to why there are still there.
- Package named according to package naming guidelines
- spec file name matches %{name}
- package meets packaging guidelines (buildroot fixed)
- licensed with open source compatible license
X license does not match actual license
- license included in %doc
- spec written in American english
- spec file legible
X cannot verify upstream sources match, I cannot find upstream source
MUST FIX
- Fix trivial rpmlint errors and warnings
- According to http://pear.php.net/package/PEAR this is licensed under the PHP
License 2.02, not 3.0 (please clarify with upstream and/or fix spec)
- SOURCE0 must have full URL to find source files
I have to stop the review here because I cannot find the upstream source file
you use, please provide a full URL to sources!
Indeed, the upgrade to 1.5.0 *is* important as there should be fewer patches in
the spec, and possible build/install changes, and open bugs will be closed.
Please make above mentioned changes and upgrade to 1.5.0 before I continue
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 225119] Review Request: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD 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: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225119
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 12:53 EST ---
One another comment:
---
chmod 0755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python_sitelib}/PythonCAD/Generic/bindump.py
- Well, if this python script is not aimed for being called by
user, only called by other python scripts, the permission should
be 0644 and shebang on this script should be removed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225119] Review Request: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD 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: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225119
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 12:50 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=147379)
--> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147379&action=view)
Mock build log of PythonCAD-0.1.35-2.fc7
Mock build log of PythonCAD-0.1.35-2 on FC-devel i386.
Dependency changed during python 2.4 -> 2.5 and
this package needs "BuildRequires: python-devel".
Then...
* Directory structure
---
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/pythoncad/prefs.py*
---
- Well, the files under /etc are configuration files
and generally no binaries are permitted (for this package
.pyc or .pyo file)
prefs.py should be moved to normally %{_datadir}/%{name}.
This movement also requires some other modification on
files included in PythonCAD.
* File entry
--
%{_bindir}/gtkpycad*
--
- This asterisk is no longer needed.
* Desktop file
---
[Desktop Entry]
Name=PyCAD
Comment=PythonCAD
Icon=/usr/share/pixmaps/gtkpycad.png
Exec=/usr/bin/gtkpycad.py
Terminal=false
Type=Application
Encoding=UTF-8
X-Desktop-File-Install-Version=0.12
Categories=Office;Graphics;Application;Utility;X-Red-Hat-Base;
- Exec entry is wrong..
- For icon entry, "Icon=gtkpycad.png" is preferred.
- Both categories "Application" "X-Red-Hat-Base" are deprecated
and should be removed.
* Requires
- Please check python related dependency.
For example, Interface/Gtk/gtktext.py includes the line:
import pango
This means this package needs "pygtk2" for Requires.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225207] Review Request: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225207 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 12:33 EST --- I'll sponsor Michael. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227309] Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback 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: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227309 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 12:22 EST --- > In bug 215569, Tom said: > >[...]capture.c has a standard >header just like any other file in beryl-plugins, and the seom files have no >header, just a LICENSE file in the root directory. This does not apply to the seom tarball. International copyright laws require him to claim ownership (Copyright/Author disclaimer - Otherwise he can't grant a license) and to provide a License. How to do so is arguable. Also, there is a file inside of the tarball (src/codec.c) containing another person's copyright without license: * Copyright 2006, Lasse Reinhold ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) => Tom is not allowed to claim copyright rsp. re-license this file, unless he received a license explicitly permitting him to do so from this person. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225832] Merge Review: gnome-python2-desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gnome-python2-desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225832 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 12:20 EST --- Fixed in gnome-python2-desktop-2.17.3-3.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215569] Review Request: beryl-vidcap - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager video capture utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: beryl-vidcap - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager video capture utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215569 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 12:16 EST --- This review is now blocked on the acceptance of build requirement seom, which is being tracked in bug 227309. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227309] Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback 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: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227309 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 12:14 EST --- Updated srpm: http://people.redhat.com/jwilson/packages/seom/seom-1.0-0.2.159.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 226322] Merge Review: psmisc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: psmisc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226322 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 12:07 EST --- Ruben, sorry for not following procedure. I should have explained that I'm not sponsored yet, so I do not have access to reassign tickets. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222521] Review Request: IceWM - Lightweight Window 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: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222521
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 12:07 EST ---
(In reply to comment #43)
> * in xdgmenu the %files section could be
It could be:
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{_bindir}/icewm-xdg-menu
%{_datadir}/icewm/startup
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227309] Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback 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: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227309 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 12:05 EST --- *License- In bug 215569, Tom said: 8< [...]capture.c has a standard header just like any other file in beryl-plugins, and the seom files have no header, just a LICENSE file in the root directory. If you require that every file needs to have a GPL header, I can add it, no problem. 8< However, said GPL LICENSE file seems to be missing from the seom tarballs... Tom, a license file alone added to the seom tarball should be sufficient. * Requires- Including freeglut-devel is an error on my part, the spec started life as a copy of beryl-vidcap's. I'll drop that and add libX11-devel. * Timestamps- I'll fix that too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222523] Review Request:gmrun - A lightweight "Run program" window with TAB completion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request:gmrun - A lightweight "Run program" window with TAB completion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 12:05 EST --- * rpmlint is silent * spec legible, follow guidelines * free software, GPL license included * sane provides * source match upstream 6cef37a968006d9496fc56a7099c603c gmrun-0.9.2.tar.gz * %files section right APPROVED The source timestamps are not kept. It is not a blocker, but better. wget -N or spectool allows to keep timestamps. ls -l gmrun-0.9.2.tar.gz ../SOURCES/gmrun-0.9.2.tar.gz -rw-rw-r-- 1 dumas dumas 66097 nov 16 2003 gmrun-0.9.2.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 dumas dumas 66097 jan 15 11:28 ../SOURCES/gmrun-0.9.2.tar.gz popt will hopefully be popt-devel someday soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222521] Review Request: IceWM - Lightweight Window 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: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222521
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 11:53 EST ---
(In reply to comment #42)
> I'm a KISS kind of guy. If it's all the same to you, I rather keep the startup
> file as a patch/source.
A HERE-doc isn't less KISS. I would have preferred the startup script
in the main package and not in the xdgmenu subpackage, but I won't make
it a blocker.
Remaining issues:
* Add a dot at the end of the %descriptiongnome
* in xdgmenu the %files section could be
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{_bindir}/icewm-xdg-menu*
%{_datadir}/icewm/startup
with an install command for startup script of
%{__install} -p -m 755 %{SOURCE4} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/icewm/startup
* sub packages should depend on a full versioned main package, like
Requires: icewm = %{version}-%{release}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188477] Review Request: maildrop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: maildrop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188477 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 11:48 EST --- Whoops. Restoring NEEDINFO for this review, as I accidently removed it -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226538] Merge Review: wget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: wget https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226538 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 11:46 EST --- I've checked the changelog again, there was %xx in there. rpmint took that as a macro. fixed in -14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188477] Review Request: maildrop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: maildrop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188477 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 11:44 EST --- FYI: Version 2.0.3 of maildrop was released last December -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 11:43 EST --- Updated: Spec URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/irsim.spec SRPM URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/irsim-9.7.41-4.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 208064] Review Request: courier-authlib - Courier authentication 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: courier-authlib - Courier authentication library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208064 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 11:39 EST --- On 16-Jan-2007 version 0.59.1 of courier-authlib was released. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225717] Merge Review: ed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: ed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225717 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 11:39 EST --- This review is quite incomplete: - Buildroot should be versioned according to the packaging guidelines. - rpmlint complains about mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs - %makeinstall shouldn't be used, 'make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT' is better Fixed in ed-0.4-3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226538] Merge Review: wget
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: wget https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226538 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 11:37 EST --- You're right, I didn't approve it yet :-) I'll have another look tonight. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225126] Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225126
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 11:37 EST ---
This is what the import logged:
> Log Message:
> auto-import dxpc-3.9.1-0.1.b1.fc6 on branch devel from
> dxpc-3.9.1-0.1.b1.fc6.src.rpm
And "cvs log dxpc.spec" agrees with that.
The tag dxpc-3_9_1-0_1_b1_fc6 is on the files in "devel" and cannot
be reused for the FC-6 branch.
This is because the src.rpm was built with "--define dist 6" instead
of leaving %dist undefined. When the src.rpm is queried, ".fc6" is
part of %release already, and for files in "devel".
It is a problem that has come up recently. Most people import src.rpms
where they use %{?dist}, but where %dist is undefined when the src.rpm
is built.
The way out is to increase "Release" in every branch and run
"make tag" to create fresh tags in every branch.
Not a big issue, but unpleasant trouble just because of %{?dist}. :)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
