[Bug 226516] Merge Review: unzip
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: unzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226516 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 04:02 EST --- Fixed in unzip-5.52-4.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 226669] Merge Review: zip
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: zip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226669 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |m) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 04:03 EST --- Fixed in zip-2.31-3.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 226516] Merge Review: unzip
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: unzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226516 [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 226669] Merge Review: zip
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: zip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226669 [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
fedora-review granted: [Bug 225678] Merge Review: dcraw
Bug 225678: Merge Review: dcraw Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Dan Horak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has granted Nils Philippsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225678 --- Additional Comments from Dan Horak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Both problems were fixed, so package is APPROVED ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225678] Merge Review: dcraw
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: dcraw https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225678 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 04:07 EST --- Both problems were fixed, so package is APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225981] Merge Review: lcms
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: lcms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225981 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 04:24 EST --- Did not you forget to fix the Requires in the python subpackage from comment #4? I agree with Michael on this. It looks like the new sources have a new feature - almost all files have the exec bit set. Please, unset it at least from *.c and *.h files that are packaged into the -debug subpackage. find . -name \*.[ch] | xargs chmod -x -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225656] Merge Review: cpio
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: cpio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225656 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 04:44 EST --- If you want to check upgrade candidate too, you can find it at: http://people.redhat.com/pvrabec/rpms/tar-1.16.1-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 04:52 EST --- Thanks for your excellent review - I just discuss some points with logwatch upstream - so it takes some time to fix all problems. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226503] Merge Review: tree
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: tree https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226503 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 04:57 EST --- A previous tarball shipped the tree binary(!) along with the source. Current version doesn't do that so I'll remove the rm. Thanks! Can I set the resolution to 'RAWHIDE' or something? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226514] Merge Review: unix2dos
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: unix2dos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226514 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 04:59 EST --- Tagged and built as 2.2-28.fc7. 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 226445] Merge Review: symlinks
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: symlinks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 05:05 EST --- Tagged and built as 1.2-28.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 225993] Merge Review: libc-client
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: libc-client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225993 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 05:09 EST --- Yes definitely. It looks like the Extras uw-imap is a strict superset of libc-client already so once The Merge has happened we can just switch php to use that instead. And this package can go away! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 05:14 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > The automatic dep on libbzip2.so.1 will make sure a sufficently compatible lib > will be pulled in. Imagine that a user get to know that there is a serious flaw in bzip2. If the issue is really in the lib, upon doing yum update bzip2 the lib won't be updated, I think it is unfortunate. It shouldn't only require a compatible lib, but the implementation associated with the command, in my opinion, since they come from the same source. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227291] Review Request: ptunnel - Reliably tunnel TCP connections over ICMP packets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ptunnel - Reliably tunnel TCP connections over ICMP packets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227291 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 05:25 EST --- http://s3.amazonaws.com/greg/ptunnel-0.61-3/ptunnel.spec http://s3.amazonaws.com/greg/ptunnel-0.61-3/ptunnel-0.61-3.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Feb 07 2007 Greg Hogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 0.61-3 - libpcap moved development files into separate package in fc6, so BuildRequires uses libpcap for <= fc5, and libpcap-devel >= fc6. - Improved %files 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 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
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review?
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 05:27 EST ---
>In reply to comment #11:
>Was that a comment here? Or did you find some other reference to it?
Yes, comment #9, last paragraph ("...for calling install-info for upgrade
time...").
DESTDIR appears to work, so I've made that change as well.
Tagged and built as 3.2-8.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 225777] Merge Review: gawk
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: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 05:32 EST --- I can agree, that a printable version is useful, but then it should be packaged due its size as a subpackage or its own 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 225777] Merge Review: gawk
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: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 05:36 EST --- (In reply to comment #12) > I can agree, that a printable version is useful, but then it should be > packaged > due its size as a subpackage or its own package. Agreed. I think that a -doc sub-package would be nice. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226411] Merge Review: setserial
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: setserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226411 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 05:42 EST --- Thanks. Tagged and built as 2.17-20.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 225284] Merge Review: aspell-sr
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: aspell-sr https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225284 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 05:43 EST --- Fixed in aspell-sr-0.02-2.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
fedora-review requested: [Bug 225284] Merge Review: aspell-sr
Bug 225284: Merge Review: aspell-sr Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Ivana Varekova <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has askedfor fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225284 --- Additional Comments from Ivana Varekova <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fixed in aspell-sr-0.02-2.fc7 ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225774] Merge Review: ftp
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: ftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225774 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 05:45 EST --- Ok, I made another changes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 225757] Merge Review: flac
Bug 225757: Merge Review: flac Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Dan Horak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225757 ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225757] Merge Review: flac
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: flac https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225757 [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 225878] Merge Review: gzip
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: gzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225878 [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 227646] New: Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 Summary: Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/grass.spec SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/grass-6.2.1-1.src.rpm Description: GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) is a Geographic Information System (GIS) used for geospatial data management and analysis, image processing, graphics/maps production, spatial modeling, and visualization. GRASS is currently used in academic and commercial settings around the world, as well as by many governmental agencies and environmental consulting companies. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support 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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 06:17 EST --- rpmlint warnings: W: grass non-standard-dir-in-usr grass-6.2.1 W: grass-devel no-dependency-on grass first: is normal behaviour, since grass has a separate eviroment folder where plugins and scripts are kept. second: we can have only grass-lib,grass-devel e.g if we dont want the grass enviroment only some other tools on top of grass-lib like e.g mapserver. bz#222042 and bz#222039 block this to include. We need olso gdal to be included. If there will be no update on geotiff licence issue i can help disbale it and include a geotiff-less gdal in fedora. Already workaround to disable geotiff from gdal, but i wait for officials. I am looking forward for a review, the package required some hacks since grass is bit unusual unix software, lets see how can improve those workarounds in the .spec, but i guess unless we got upstream some stuff we will have to carry workarounds in this .spec ~cristian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction 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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 06:19 EST --- look into bz#227646. I pend grass package over this gdal. If we still have no progress on this gdal, we can pack a geotiff-less one. I will try help out with this but only once Tom Callaway looks over this first. ~cristian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226411] Merge Review: setserial
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: setserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226411 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 06:32 EST --- The public accessible cvs server is not sync-ed yet. I'll do the review 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 225237] Merge Review: acpid
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: acpid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225237
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 06:52 EST ---
1: Fixed Buildroot, add smp_flags. Also added the %{?dist} to the Release
2: Included doc files
3.1: Checked, all 3 should really be noreplace, fixed.
3.2: acpid can't be run as anything else but root, so there is no point in it
being executable or readable by everyone.
3.3: acpid isn't a network/remote service, so enabling it by default is safe.
Also even if a machine doesn't have ACPI (nowadays kinda rare, but still),
making it default will be the best choice the the majority of systems.
3.4: Why is the premission for an initscript strange with 0755, even in a srpm?
But fixed the PreReqs to use the correct modern style.
3.5: Added -q for %setup
4.1: Typical /var/log/FOO entry. The package itself doesn't package a real file,
but "supports" one being there. See other /var/log logfile supporting packages.
4.2: Fixed. Also fixed all the /etc occurences with %{_sysconfdir} and
/usr/share with %{_datadir}
4.3: Fixed.
Thanks for the review,
Read ya, Phil
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226669] Merge Review: zip
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: zip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226669 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225878] Merge Review: gzip
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: gzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226516] Merge Review: unzip
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: unzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226516 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support 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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] BugsThisDependsOn||222039, 222042 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 06:56 EST --- Well, I (and the other reviewers) want to clean up the package which this package depends on first, libgeotiff, gdal, etc... By the way, are you in need of sponsor? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction 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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||227646 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||227646 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225770] Merge Review: freetype
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: freetype https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225770 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 06:58 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) > So we mark it as GPL. Do you think anything will happen ever?! I don't get what is the question, but marking it as GPL will remove the blocker on 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 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support 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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 07:03 EST --- Yes :-) Ok, lets do it :-) I pinged Tom, hope he will respond, otherwise lets disable geotiff from gdal. If till tomorrow will no answear i will help you disaple and pack gdal in the *right* way. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227291] Review Request: ptunnel - Reliably tunnel TCP connections over ICMP packets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ptunnel - Reliably tunnel TCP connections over ICMP
packets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227291
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 07:07 EST ---
In an ideal world you could use %{?dist} to discriminate among distributions.
And using it would allow build to succeed on other distros like RHEL3/4/5, too.
With Fedora only in mind, your solution is fine.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225656] Merge Review: cpio
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: cpio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225656 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 07:09 EST --- Oops, I'm sorry, ignore comment #2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226478] Merge Review: tar
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: tar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226478 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 07:10 EST --- If you want to check upgrade candidate too, you can find it at: http://people.redhat.com/pvrabec/rpms/tar-1.16.1-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support 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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226503] Merge Review: tree
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: tree https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226503 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 07:27 EST --- If you want, you can set it to closed rawhide. We're only planning on looking at the fedora-review flag. If that's a +, the package is approved. Thanks, Ruben -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226503] Merge Review: tree
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: tree https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226503 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226514] Merge Review: unix2dos
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: unix2dos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226514 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support 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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis
Support System)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 07:43 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> rpmlint warnings:
> W: grass non-standard-dir-in-usr grass-6.2.1
> W: grass-devel no-dependency-on grass
>
> first: is normal behaviour, since grass has a separate eviroment folder
> where plugins and scripts are kept.
MUSTFIX: This is non-acceptable.
You must move these files elsewhere e.g. %{_libdir}/grass-
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220381] Review Request: compat-flex - Legacy version of flex, a tool for creating scanners
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: compat-flex - Legacy version of flex, a tool for creating scanners https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220381 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 07:45 EST --- Thanks Ralf. I have no other extras packages, modulo the core->extras migrations. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222964] Review Request: dayplanner - A simple time management program.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dayplanner - A simple time management program. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222964 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |ch) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 07:59 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > ping? Pong! Ack Sorry. I'm very thankfull for all your notes. I looked at Guidlines and tried to do it right the first time but i fergot a few things as you pointed out. I didn't answer cause i was busy doing the changes. I didn't have that much time the past few days. But i'm soon going to update with and updated spec file and the holiday parser as a seperate rpm. Again thanks for taking the time and effort to look through my crude spec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2007-02-07 08:20 EST --- (In reply to comment #36) > (In reply to comment #34) > > NOTIFICATION: > > > > Currently gdome2 is orphaned, which means that no one > > maintains gdome2, and if ntop requires gdome2 a new > > maintainer is needed. > > If ntop is worked into acceptable shape, > I can pick up ownership of gdome2 as well. Well, currently gdome2 is orphaned and removed from FC/E-devel tree and I cannot rebuild your srpm because I am using FC-devel. So: * If you want to use gdome2, please take over gdome ownership first. You are already in cvsextras (as I am sponsoring you) and you can do this. For this, you should post to fedora-extras list as "I want to take over gdome2". Please check: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/OrphanedPackages * Or, if this package works without gdome2, you may disable gdome2 support for a moment (in this case please upload a new srpm/spec). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225256] Merge Review: arts
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: arts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225256 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords||Reopened Resolution|DUPLICATE | CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 08:31 EST --- Nevermind the dup, on retrospect, makes much more sense to review Core package as-is, and discuss mods and co-maintainership after. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227221] Review Request: arts - aRts (analog realtime synthesizer) - the KDE sound 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: arts - aRts (analog realtime synthesizer) - the KDE sound system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 08:33 EST --- On retrospect, makes much more sense to review Core package as-is, and discuss mods and co-maintainership after. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 225256 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225256] Merge Review: arts
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: arts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225256 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 08:33 EST --- *** Bug 227221 has been marked as a duplicate of 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 227222] Review Request: kdelibs - K Desktop Environment - Libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdelibs - K Desktop Environment - Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227222 Bug 227222 depends on bug 227221, which changed state. Bug 227221 Summary: Review Request: arts - aRts (analog realtime synthesizer) - the KDE sound system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227221 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||DUPLICATE 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 225963] Merge Review: kdelibs
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: kdelibs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225963 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords||Reopened Resolution|DUPLICATE | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 08:33 EST --- On retrospect, makes much more sense to review Core package as-is, and discuss mods and co-maintainership after. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225961] Merge Review: kdebase
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: kdebase https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225961 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords||Reopened Resolution|DUPLICATE | CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 08:33 EST --- On retrospect, makes much more sense to review Core package as-is, and discuss mods and co-maintainership after. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225965] Merge Review: kdepim
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: kdepim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225965 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords||Reopened Resolution|DUPLICATE | CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 08:33 EST --- On retrospect, makes much more sense to review Core package as-is, and discuss mods and co-maintainership after. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227222] Review Request: kdelibs - K Desktop Environment - Libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdelibs - K Desktop Environment - Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227222 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 08:34 EST --- On retrospect, makes much more sense to review Core package as-is, and discuss mods and co-maintainership after. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 225963 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225963] Merge Review: kdelibs
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: kdelibs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225963 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 08:34 EST --- *** Bug 227222 has been marked as a duplicate of 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 227223] Review Request: kdebase - K Desktop Environment - core files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebase - K Desktop Environment - core files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227223 Bug 227223 depends on bug 227222, which changed state. Bug 227222 Summary: Review Request: kdelibs - K Desktop Environment - Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227222 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||DUPLICATE 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 227227] Review Request: kdepim - PIM (Personal Information Manager) 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: kdepim - PIM (Personal Information Manager) for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227227 Bug 227227 depends on bug 227222, which changed state. Bug 227222 Summary: Review Request: kdelibs - K Desktop Environment - Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227222 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||DUPLICATE 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 225961] Merge Review: kdebase
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: kdebase https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225961 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 08:34 EST --- *** Bug 227223 has been marked as a duplicate of 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 227223] Review Request: kdebase - K Desktop Environment - core files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebase - K Desktop Environment - core files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227223 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 08:34 EST --- On retrospect, makes much more sense to review Core package as-is, and discuss mods and co-maintainership after. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 225961 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227227] Review Request: kdepim - PIM (Personal Information Manager) 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: kdepim - PIM (Personal Information Manager) for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227227 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 08:35 EST --- On retrospect, makes much more sense to review Core package as-is, and discuss mods and co-maintainership after. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 225965 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225965] Merge Review: kdepim
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: kdepim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225965 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 08:35 EST --- *** Bug 227227 has been marked as a duplicate of 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 227241] Review Request: kde-settings - Config files 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: kde-settings - Config files for kde https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227241 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 08:36 EST --- Will be updating soon, to use kiosktool-style prefs (like how kubuntu works). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225993] Merge Review: libc-client
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: libc-client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225993 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 09:04 EST --- You ok with simply closing this review request then? (if so, I'll leave that for you to do). When you have time, feel free to review the existing uw-imap, and we can discuss anything that catches your eye there. In the meantime, I'll go ahead and add you as co-maintainer to uw-imap. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 denied: [Bug 225794] Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts
Bug 225794: Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Component: Package Review
Roozbeh Pournader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has denied Tim Waugh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'s request for fedora-review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225794
--- Additional Comments from Roozbeh Pournader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(In reply to comment #2)
> 6.0 is an older release (see the timestamp).
Worst than that, they are exactly the same thing. The bits are exactly the
same!
I would still recommend using 6.0, so people won't think we are not using the
latest version in Fedora.
More random notes:
* Your new URL is still not good. The tarball is not provided from the
sourceforge servers, and not any real info either. It's a dead project. It just
says go to GNU for more info. Use either
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/ghostscript/ or
http://www.gnu.org/software/ghostscript/. The second is preferred, as its more
user oriented. (BLOCKER)
* The URL in the Source line does not work anymore either. Use
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/ghostscript/gnu-gs-fonts-std-%{version}.tar.gz
* You should change the "Requires: fontconfig" line to different lines for
requirements after installation and uninstallation. Currently, one can ask
rpm/yum to remove both fontconfig and ghostscript-fonts and fontconfig may get
removed before ghostscript-fonts, making the post uninstallation scripts fail.
A
similar scenario can happen with installation. Also, you need to have
mkfontscale, mkfontdir, and chkfontpath during some of these. (BLOCKER)
Suggested lines:
Requires: fontconfig
Requires(post): /usr/bin/mkfontscale /usr/bin/mkfontdir
Requires(post): /usr/sbin/chkfontpath
Requires(post): fontconfig
Requires(postun): /usr/sbin/chkfontpath
Requires(postun): fontconfig
* Copy the files during the %install section using the '-p' option of cp (or
use
install -p).
* Have an empty %build section.
* Use %{_datadir} instead of /usr/share in the %files section. Also consider
adding a "/" at the end to show that we are actually including a directory and
files in there.
* There is nothing in the source tarball that says the license of the files is
GPL, as the license field of the spec file says. They may as well be
proprietary
software, as far as a random observer can tell. Since contacting upstream for
including a license may not be trivial, the spec file should at least document
why we have made sure this is licensed under the GPL. (BLOCKER)
* The summary ends with a dot. It shouldn't.
* I don't think the use of parenthesized "(TM)" is really necessary in the
Summary line. The Fedora EULA already says that all trademarks are owned by
their respective owners.
* The part of the description that says you'll need to install this for
ghostscript to work is not that important to be worth a mention. That is simply
a Requires line in the ghostscript package.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225794] Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts
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: ghostscript-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225794
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 09:13 EST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> 6.0 is an older release (see the timestamp).
Worst than that, they are exactly the same thing. The bits are exactly the same!
I would still recommend using 6.0, so people won't think we are not using the
latest version in Fedora.
More random notes:
* Your new URL is still not good. The tarball is not provided from the
sourceforge servers, and not any real info either. It's a dead project. It just
says go to GNU for more info. Use either
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/ghostscript/ or
http://www.gnu.org/software/ghostscript/. The second is preferred, as its more
user oriented. (BLOCKER)
* The URL in the Source line does not work anymore either. Use
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/ghostscript/gnu-gs-fonts-std-%{version}.tar.gz
* You should change the "Requires: fontconfig" line to different lines for
requirements after installation and uninstallation. Currently, one can ask
rpm/yum to remove both fontconfig and ghostscript-fonts and fontconfig may get
removed before ghostscript-fonts, making the post uninstallation scripts fail. A
similar scenario can happen with installation. Also, you need to have
mkfontscale, mkfontdir, and chkfontpath during some of these. (BLOCKER)
Suggested lines:
Requires: fontconfig
Requires(post): /usr/bin/mkfontscale /usr/bin/mkfontdir
Requires(post): /usr/sbin/chkfontpath
Requires(post): fontconfig
Requires(postun): /usr/sbin/chkfontpath
Requires(postun): fontconfig
* Copy the files during the %install section using the '-p' option of cp (or use
install -p).
* Have an empty %build section.
* Use %{_datadir} instead of /usr/share in the %files section. Also consider
adding a "/" at the end to show that we are actually including a directory and
files in there.
* There is nothing in the source tarball that says the license of the files is
GPL, as the license field of the spec file says. They may as well be proprietary
software, as far as a random observer can tell. Since contacting upstream for
including a license may not be trivial, the spec file should at least document
why we have made sure this is licensed under the GPL. (BLOCKER)
* The summary ends with a dot. It shouldn't.
* I don't think the use of parenthesized "(TM)" is really necessary in the
Summary line. The Fedora EULA already says that all trademarks are owned by
their respective owners.
* The part of the description that says you'll need to install this for
ghostscript to work is not that important to be worth a mention. That is simply
a Requires line in the ghostscript 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 227669] New: Review Request: -
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669 Summary: Review Request: - Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.cs.unipr.it/~cimino/ppl.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cs.unipr.it/~cimino/ppl-0.9-1.src.rpm Description: The Parma Polyhedra Library (PPL) is a modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions especially targeted at applications in the field of analysis and verification of complex systems. The PPL can handle all the convex polyhedra that can be defined as the intersection of a finite number of (open or closed) hyperspaces, each described by an equality or inequality (strict or non-strict) with rational coefficients. The PPL also handles restricted classes of polyhedra that offer interesting complexity/precision tradeoffs. The library also supports finite powersets of (any kind of) polyhedra and linear programming problems solved with an exact-arithmetic version of the simplex algorithm. We are willing tho improve the .spec file to meet the Fedora standards. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or 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 denied: [Bug 226357] Merge Review: rdate
Bug 226357: Merge Review: rdate
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Component: Package Review
Roozbeh Pournader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has denied Roozbeh Pournader
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'s request for fedora-review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226357
--- Additional Comments from Roozbeh Pournader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Random first notes:
* Remove the dot at the end of Summary line.
* It seems that there is no upstream. No URL is given, and the Source address
doesn't work either. So I can't check that this is the same as the upstream
source. (BLOCKER)
* Change BuildRoot to
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* Use the option %{?_smp_mflags} for make.
* Don't use %makeinstall, if possible. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#MakeInstall
* Use %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root)
* Consider using %{?dist} in Release tag.
* The binary file 'rdate' is installed with permission 555 in the Makefile. It
should be 755. This can be fixed either by patching the Makefile or by
explicitly changing the permission in the %install or %files section. (BLOCKER)
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226357] Merge Review: rdate
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: rdate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226357
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 09:39 EST ---
Random first notes:
* Remove the dot at the end of Summary line.
* It seems that there is no upstream. No URL is given, and the Source address
doesn't work either. So I can't check that this is the same as the upstream
source. (BLOCKER)
* Change BuildRoot to
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* Use the option %{?_smp_mflags} for make.
* Don't use %makeinstall, if possible. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#MakeInstall
* Use %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root)
* Consider using %{?dist} in Release tag.
* The binary file 'rdate' is installed with permission 555 in the Makefile. It
should be 755. This can be fixed either by patching the Makefile or by
explicitly changing the permission in the %install or %files section. (BLOCKER)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support 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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis
Support System)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 09:45 EST ---
Right, its far much better.
splitted out whole GISBASE env in %{_libdir}/grass-.
olso online internal docs splitted in /usr/shar/docs/grass-6.2.1/docs/html/*
+fixed related paths in script-enviroment for this split.
+tested functionality of grass this way olso, its fine.
rpmlint report no bugs.
See updated src.rpm and .spec fron the URL provided by me.
other things ?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-02-07 09:50 EST --- Well, * gettext translation file - One gettext po file is found. po/PythonCAD.es.po This seems to be ES (Spanish) translation and this should be installed. This file has to be compiled by msgfmt in gettext rpm. And %find_lang should be used for this file. * BuildRequires: - By the way, does this srpm need "python-tools" for BuildRequires? * Normally setup.py (i.e. distutils module) requires python-devel (from FC-devel), not python-tools * My system does not have python-tools installed, however I can rebuild this package. * Timestamps - Please keeps timestamp on the original source (i.e. download the source by "wget -N" for example). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support 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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 09:55 EST --- Ah... Please increase the release number every time you do some modification for spec/srpm. This is a must item do avoid confusion. Anyway, as I said above, I want to deal with gdal... before this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227674] New: Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 Summary: Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/methane.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/methane-1.4.7-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: Super Methane Brothers is a platform game converted from the Amiga by its original author. It is very similar to the Taito game "Bubble Bobble". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225743] Merge Review: expect
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: expect
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225743
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 09:59 EST ---
Thanks!
* Use of buildroot is not consistant
Changed to use "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" everywhere.
* BuildRoot should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Fixed.
* Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros
/usr/share/man replaced by %{_mandir}
* The package should contain the text of the license
It does, in /usr/share/expect-*/README:
| I hereby place this software in the public domain. NIST and I would
| appreciate credit if this program or parts of it are used.
* Duplicate BuildRequires: tcl-devel (by tk-devel), libX11-devel (by tk-devel),
autoconf (by automake)
Because expect explicitly refers to tcl-devel and autoconf it IMHO should
BuildRequire it explicitly; this is unrelated to the question whether e.g.
automake depends on autoconf.
BuildRequires: libX11-devel removed, expect doesn't directly refer to libX11.
* Please use {?dist} in the Release tag
I'd rather not; as long as each Fedora release uses a different NEVR, the dist
tag is IMHO just useless clutter.
* Can you use make DESTDIR instead of make INSTALLROOT?
No, Makefile.in doesn't support this aspect of GNU coding standards and the
variable is called INSTALL_ROOT.
* Replace /usr/share/man with %{_docdir} everywhere
... with %{_mandir}, done.
* Are you willing to consider building with --disable-static. You're not
packaging static libraries, and this saves some build time.
expect doesn't support --disable-static.
* If one of the packages is a gui application, a .desktop file should be
installed
expectk is a programming language interpreter, I don't think it can be
considered a GUI application (try running it).
E: expect script-without-shebang /usr/lib/expect5.43/pkgIndex.tcl
* Fixed by making the file unexecutable
E: expect wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/expect5.43/cat-buffers "expect"
E: expect non-executable-script /usr/lib/expect5.43/cat-buffers 0644
* Both Fixed by removing the file altogether
E: expect invalid-soname /usr/lib/libexpect5.43.so libexpect5.43.so
I'll try to clean this up tomorrow.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support 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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 10:01 EST --- Ok, next time i will ++. Till gdal, can review as much as possible this ? Its pretty complicated to pack this beast, it has an unfrendly enviroment that has to be converted to FHS and fedora standards. And lots of minor nits may still be inside -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227676] New: Review Request: scorchwentbonkers - Realtime remake of Scorched Earth
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227676 Summary: Review Request: scorchwentbonkers - Realtime remake of Scorched Earth Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/scorchwentbonkers.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/scorchwentbonkers-1.1-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: As the name suggests, Scorch Went Bonkers is a remake of the old PC classic. However, many things were changed and the type of fun delivered by the game is different. Where Scorched Earth puts emphasis on tactics and careful calculations, SWB requires quick thinking, perfect timing and only one finger for controlling your tank. The game is real-time instead of turn based. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227676] Review Request: scorchwentbonkers - Realtime remake of Scorched Earth
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: scorchwentbonkers - Realtime remake of Scorched Earth https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227676 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||227198 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 10:16 EST --- Notice that this needs the still to be reviewed jpgalleg lib, whose review is bug 227198 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227198] Review Request: jpgalleg - JPEG library for the Allegro game 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: jpgalleg - JPEG library for the Allegro game library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227198 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||227676 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2007-02-07 10:16 EST --- Well, two issue. * License: - This must be resolved in a proper way. * /usr/bin/seom-backup - is a shell script and this contains if ! which seom-x264 &> /dev/null; then echo "You need to install seom-x264" exit -1 fi .. however, what is seom-x264? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support 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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis
Support System)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 10:24 EST ---
> Requires: grass-libs
Unless mispackaged, there is an automatic dependency on library
sonames already. Query the binary rpm file with "rpm -qpR".
Avoid explicit dependencies on package names wherever possible.
> Provides: grass = %{version}-%{release}
It's automatic already and hence duplicate.
Every package "Provides: %name = %version-%release" automatically.
> %package libs
> Requires: python tk
> Requires: zlib mesa-libGL mesa-libGLw xorg-x11-util-macros freetype lesstif
> Requires: proj geos blas lapack fftw2 gdal => 1.4.0
> Requires: unixODBC mysql postgresql-libs sqlite
> Provides: grass-libs = %{version}-%{release}
Same here. The "Provides" is not needed. Plus, you have lots of
suspicious and questionable dependencies on library package names
in there, which should be automatic already.
[-devel package]
> Requires: grass-libs => 6.2.1
Does that really work? Is "=>" recognised as ">="?
Anyway, ought to be "Requires: grass-libs = %{version}-%{release}"
If you don't require a specific %version-%release, your package
users will run into funny problems whenever grass-devel and
grass-libs are out-of-sync.
>%build
>
>CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"
>CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"
Not needed. The %configure macro sets and exports these two already.
> gzip -9 ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_prefix}/grass-%{version}/man/man1/*.1
Manual pages included in %doc are compressed automatically.
> %post devel -p /sbin/ldconfig
> %postun devel -p /sbin/ldconfig
Useless.
%defattr in sub-packages ought to come _before_ %doc file sections.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 10:29 EST --- Imported and build, closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support 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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis
Support System)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 10:29 EST ---
> %{_libdir}/libgrass_*.a
Inclusion of static libs must be justified.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-02-07 10:44 EST --- "yum update" alone works. "yum update bzip2*" works, too. We don't add artificial Requires simply because you think people may be unaware that bzip2 comes in two parts. If they are unaware, they probably use pup or some other graphical interface which will show both packages scheduled for update. Following your line of reasoning, we'd need to add similar Requires: for all packages where -libs subpackage exists. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-02-07 10:50 EST --- seom-x264 is a utility to convert seom captures to h.264-formatted video: http://forum.beryl-project.org/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=1020&start=0 However, I'm fairly certain the build-dep, x264, isn't shippable in Fedora. On that assumption, should we drop the script from the build, or maybe just drop it in %docdir non-executable so users can figure it out themselves? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 10:51 EST ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> "yum update" alone works. "yum update bzip2*" works, too. We don't add
> artificial Requires simply because you think people may be unaware that bzip2
> comes in two parts. If they are unaware, they probably use pup or some other
They are not so artificial, since both packages come from the same
tarball. Would they have been installed with ./configure && make && make install
they would have been together.
> graphical interface which will show both packages scheduled for update.
> Following your line of reasoning, we'd need to add similar Requires: for all
> packages where -libs subpackage exists.
Indeed. But I don't make that a blocker, it is just a suggestion (maybe I
wasn't clear about that) if the contributor don't like, no problem with me.
In that case, the unuseful
Requires: bzip2-libs = %{version}
should go away, though.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-02-07 10:54 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) > seom-x264 is a utility to convert seom captures to h.264-formatted video: > > http://forum.beryl-project.org/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=1020&start=0 > > However, I'm fairly certain the build-dep, x264, isn't shippable in Fedora. On > that assumption, should we drop the script from the build, or maybe just drop > it > in %docdir non-executable so users can figure it out themselves? > I think this should be dropped. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225743] Merge Review: expect
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: expect
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225743
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 11:04 EST ---
Hi Miloslav
My comments inline:
>> * The package should contain the text of the license
> It does, in /usr/share/expect-*/README:
I missed that one, thanks for pointing it out.
>> * Duplicate BuildRequires: tcl-devel (by tk-devel), libX11-devel
>> (by tk-devel), autoconf (by automake)
> Because expect explicitly refers to tcl-devel and autoconf it IMHO should
> BuildRequire it explicitly; this is unrelated to the question whether e.g.
> automake depends on autoconf.
Agreed.
> BuildRequires: libX11-devel removed, expect doesn't directly refer to libX11.
Thanks.
>> * Please use {?dist} in the Release tag
> I'd rather not; as long as each Fedora release uses a different NEVR, the
> dist tag is IMHO just useless clutter.
There are a number of pros and cons for the disttag. One pro is that it makes it
easier to do mass rebuilds (for example for FC7-test1). You're not required to
change it, of course, but please reconsider it.
Some more pros (and cons) at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DisttagsForRawHide
>> * Can you use make DESTDIR instead of make INSTALLROOT?
> No, Makefile.in doesn't support this aspect of GNU coding standards and
> the variable is called INSTALL_ROOT.
Ok.
Can you let me know when you've updated the spec in cvs? I'll have another look
then.
Thanks,
Ruben
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support 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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 11:04 EST --- updated. Not sure about Request in -libs, investigate. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 11:15 EST --- Ah.. X crashed when I was writing the review result... Well, * Desktop files - Icon does not appear on desktop menu. Icon=deluge-256.png ... should be deluge.png * Python related dependency - notify-python 33 try: 34 import pynotify 35 self.pynotify = pynotify # We must save this, because as a plugin, our globals will die notify-python is available on FC6/devel (not on FC5) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 11:17 EST ---
So, to summarize this discussion, the requester has to
- Change the BuildRoot
- Remove the static libraries or provide reasoning for why they're included.
- Drop README.COMPILATION.PROBLEMS
- Add api docs to the -devel subpackage
- Preserve timestamps when installing files
- Check if the -devel package needs to Require the main package, and if so,
change it to Requires: bzip2 = %{version}-%{release}
- Remove the Requires: bzip2-libs = %{version}
Ivana, can you do 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 227570] Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227570 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 11:25 EST --- Hold on a bit -- there's a new version out, and a few issues I've fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226133] Merge Review: mc
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: mc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226133 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 11:26 EST --- Fixed. Thanks for the review. The only remaining rpmlint warning is about the mixed tab/spaces. For some reason rpmlint considers four spaces a tab, but two spaces are not. I consider this a bogus warning, as the iconv calls are better readable without tabs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 11:32 EST --- Additionally URL and source seems wrong to me. They seem to be http://www.bzip.org/ and http://www.bzip.org/1.0.4/bzip2-1.0.4.tar.gz A minor suggestion is to remove the -f in rm invocation, to have it fail if the .o aren't generated: rm *.o -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-02-07 11:44 EST --- The PLD PEAR stuff is half hidden in obfuscated RPM macros shipped in the rpm package (!?), it took me a while to try and read through what they actually do again. It is a lot of code to achieve what we do in one PHP invocation running the .phar. They have to fake up a PEAR environment and configuration, unpack the tgz, do a fake --nodeps install, then copy that environment out to the buildroot. I can't see how they get a lot of stuff right: - they create .filemap via "touch" so presumably the files list in the PEAR database omits the PEAR package itself - they don't relocate any of the installed PEAR database files - the pear.conf they install is AFAICT the fake one; we use the fully-populated one created by PEAR itself The whole thing looks overcomplicated and fragile. Bootstrapping from the .phar is simple and low-maintenance; it's the only method for bootstrapping PEAR actually supported by upstream to boot (whether it comes via go-pear.org or with the PHP tarball). The only thing which sucks about using the .phar is upstream's lack of release archive, which really makes no difference to the packaging. So my choice definitely remains with using the .phar. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225679] Merge Review: dejagnu
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: dejagnu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225679 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 11:45 EST --- Spec renamed, commited into cvs, not built. $ rpmlint noarch/dejagnu-1.4.4-6.noarch.rpm W: dejagnu devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/dejagnu/testglue.c W: dejagnu devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/dejagnu.h W: dejagnu devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/dejagnu/stub-loader.c These are ok, dejagnu is actually a development package. These files are compiled during the course of dejagnu's runtime. Other than that, rpmlint is silent, for both source and binary 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 227570] Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227570 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 11:49 EST --- Okay, updated. New: Spec URL: http://mattdm.org/misc/fedoraextras/calc.spec SRPM URL: http://mattdm.org/misc/fedoraextras/calc-2.12.1.8-1.fc7.mattdm.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 225237] Merge Review: acpid
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: acpid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225237 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-07 11:58 EST --- Thanks for looking at those items... I am reassigning this back to me. I will hopefully be able to take a look later today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
