[Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 03:38 EST --- here we go with the :SHOULD: part from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines. Conventions for below: OK = it's OK as it is MUSTFIX = there is a problem which needs fixing NA = not available/ does not apply If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it - OK The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available - NA The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. - OK, builds in mock for devel/x86_64 - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures - OK, builds in mock for devel/x86_64 and i386 (no ppc to test on) - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example - OK, works as advertised - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. - NA - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. - OK - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. - NA There are no blockers so the package is APPROVED. Cristi, unless someone spots something that I have missed (I hope I did not...), you can proceed with CVS request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 04:05 EST --- Updated: http://reciteword.cosoft.org.cn/redhat/zhcon.spec http://reciteword.cosoft.org.cn/redhat/zhcon-0.2.6-3.src.rpm I didn't change the release number for clean. ChangeLog converted to UTF-8, README.utf8 and doc/README.html added, %lang tag added. I already get sponsored, but I will try to review some other packages as your suggestion :) Thank you! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229826] Review Request: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 04:26 EST ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> The build log if enabled %{?_smp_flags}
This is not for the fedora package but for upstream. There is no
problem for us to disable smp_mflags. However I had a look, and a
possibility is that chmsee_LDFLAGS is used incorrectly to specify
library link, it should only be for linker options, chmsee_LDADD
is for link. So in my opinion, it should be along:
chmsee_LDFLAGS = -R$(GECKO_HOME) \
$(AM_LDFLAGS)
chmsee_LDADD = \
libcppwrapper.la \
@CHMSEE_LIBS@ \
@CHMLIB_LIBS@ \
@MD5_LIBS@ \
$(GECKO_LIBS) \
$(GECKO_EXTRA_LIBS)
It may also be another issue.
I have spotted 2 other problems, still for upstream:
* $(addprefix is not portable
* in the GLIB_GENMARSHAL rules, the files shouldn't be created in
$(srcdir), $(srcdir) could be read-only.
> icon scriptlet updated.
Still missing in %postun
Also I think the use of the gnochm icon for mimetype deserves a
comment. It is in changelog, but it seems to me that a comment
near the Source1 or near the install calls in %install should be
there too.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229319] Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229319 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 04:47 EST --- Thanks for the review! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: dekorator Short Description: KDE window decoration engine Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-5 FC-6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230096] Review Request: iwlwifi-firmwa re - Microcode for Intel® PRO/Wireless 3945 A/ B/G network adaptors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: iwlwifi-firmware - Microcode for Intel® PRO/Wireless
3945 A/B/G network adaptors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230096
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 04:54 EST ---
Xavier : Being pedantic isn't always the best thing. You use the word "must" in
many places, some of which should be "should" instead, and others more
importantly, where you are plain wrong. For instance "you must use a %{?dist}
tag" is incorrect, and in this case, it's _deliberate_ to not use one, since it
allows hardlinking the package across multiple releases.
Your only valid comment is the one about the %changelog, but please realize that
it's pretty much useless to have multiple entries for the same day, especially
if they're so minor. The wrong thing would have been not to increment the
release.
Packaging rules and guidelines are something really useful, but nothing will
ever beat using common sense as much as possible.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230071] Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230071 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 05:24 EST --- The Description is a bit terse. May I suggest "A wrapper for Exiv2 library to manipulate picture metadata, used by kipi-plugins, digiKam and other kipi host applications." ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl
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: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 05:30 EST --- Ok, I changed it in version tcl-8.4.13-12. We can discuss it by email. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 05:49 EST ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> MUST fix:
> =
> * put all the files under /usr/share/sdcc/lib/src and the .asm files under
> /usr/share/sdcc/lib/* in a seprate -src subpackage. AFAIK these files are
> only
> needed when one wants to look at the innerworkings of the C-library and are
> not needed for normal development, thus they shouldn't be part of the base
> package.
FIXED.
> * Remove the "Requires: gc" from the specfile, gc is a lib and an
> automatic dependency on the needed .so file will be generated.
FIXED.
> * We all agree a -devel package is bogus so remove the devel subpackage
> instead
> of just commenting it
> * sdcc's make install installs the docs under /usr/share/sdcc/doc, they
> should be installed under /usr/share/doc/sdcc-%{version} using %doc
> Tip: after the "make install" do:
> mv $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{name}/doc installed-docs
> and then to %files add "%doc installed-docs/*"
FIXED.
> * You must own the sdcc dirs the package create, under %files don't write:
> %{_libexecdir}/sdcc/*
> %{_datadir}/sdcc/*
> But write:
> %{_libexecdir}/%{name}
> %{_datadir}/%{name}
> Then the package will also own the %{_datadir}/sdcc and %{_libexecdir}/sdcc
> dirs
FIXED.
> * You must also own %{_datadir}/emacs as that is not a standard dir, easiest
> way
> todo this is to just write %{_datadir}/emacs under %files instead of
> %{_datadir}/emacs/site-lisp/*
>
FIXED.
The Source URL has also been updated according to the guidelines in the wiki.
STRIP=: has also been added to %configure as suggested in #23. The debuginfo
package is still created though...
Updated spec and srpm files are here: ftp://open-gnss.org/pub/fedora/sdcc/
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||.net) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 05:56 EST --- Brian, so what is your conclusion about this bug (theoretical discussions about Source0 URLs standard aside)? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler,
simulator.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 05:59 EST ---
Thanks Christian for pushing electronics applications in Fedora. I maintain the
geda suite. Perhaps we might work together to push more and more electronic apps
inside.
#001
I've seen during the %install /usr/bin/install -c -m . You should preserve
timestamps.
%{__make} prefix=%{buildroot}%{_prefix} \
bindir=%{buildroot}%{_bindir} \
libdir=%{buildroot}%{_libdir} \
libdir64=%{buildroot}%{_libdir} \
includedir=%{buildroot}%{_includedir} \
mandir=%{buildroot}%{_mandir} \
vpidir=%{buildroot}%{_libdir}/ivl/ \
INSTALL="install -p" install
#002
The tarball is mal-packaged.
It ships an autom4te.cache/.
I'd suggest to rm -rf autom4te.cache in %prep
You can delete them by
%{__rm} -rf autom4te.cache
for f in cadpli driver driver-vpi examples ivlpp libveriuser solaris tgt-fpga \
tgt-null tgt-pal tgt-stub tgt-verilog tgt-vvp vpi vpip vvm vvp; do
pushd $f
%{__rm} -rf autom4te.cache
popd
done
#003
You shouldn't ship %{_libdir}/*.a in the -devel package
Delete them
%{__rm} -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/{libveriuser,libvpi}.a
#004
# WARNING !!!
# %{?_smp_mflags} broken
Can you explain in one/two line (in the spec file) why it's broken?
#005 I disagree on how %{version} has been filled.
"iverilog -v" shows:
Icarus Verilog version 0.9.devel ($Name: s20070123 $)
You missed the 0.9.XX
I'll rather opt for :
%define snapshot 20070123
Name: iverilog
Version: 0.9.0.%{snapshot}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226316] Merge Review: privoxy
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: privoxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226316 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 06:06 EST --- OK, all of the issues I saw were addressed with one exception: - The crash that can be seen with a dynamically linked pcre. I have reformatted the patch mentioned in comment #4 to apply in virgin 3.0.6 sources and attach it here. For reference see also https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1621173&group_id=8&atid=18 http://bugs.debian.org/404284 http://ijbswa.cvs.sourceforge.net/ijbswa/current/filters.c?r1=1.72&r2=1.73 Other things (informational only): rpmlint is not silent but the things it complains about can be ignored e.g. dozens of E: privoxy non-standard-uid /etc/privoxy privoxy E: privoxy non-standard-gid /etc/privoxy privoxy and a warning W: privoxy incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/privoxy $PRIVOXY_PRG which can be ignored since the variable $PRIVOXY_PRG is defined to privoxy in the init file. Open bugs of the package are the bugs #193159, #198402, and #205011. The first is an init file issue replacing "kill -HUP" with "kill -s HUP" (I can't reproduce the problem locally), the second is an (ongoing?) effort to add IPv6 support and the last one is a SELinux issue about writing in /etc/privoxy. All of those are considered normal or low priority. So, if the patch fixing dynamic pcre issues is applied, this 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 225910] Merge Review: ipv6calc
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: ipv6calc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225910 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 06:07 EST --- Fixed in ipv6calc-0.61-2.fc7. W: ipv6calc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/ipv6calc-0.61/ipv6logstats/collect_ipv6logstats.pl /usr/bin/perl W: ipv6calc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/ipv6calc-0.61/ipv6logconv/run_analog.sh /bin/sh W: ipv6calc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/ipv6calc-0.61/ipv6logstats/example_ipv6logstats.sh /bin/sh W: ipv6calc-debuginfo invalid-license GNU GPL version 2 These problems stay, because in doc are example scripts, which has to be executable, also they make the dependency on perl, bash. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226316] Merge Review: privoxy
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: privoxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226316 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 06:08 EST --- Created an attachment (id=148855) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148855&action=view) Proposed patch from upstream to work with current dynamic pcre. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao
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: cdrdao https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 06:36 EST --- > What is the rationale for building against the version of cdrtools that's part of the tarball? Removing/Replacing cdrtools from Fedora. The rest was in there for historical reasons :) Should I link statically against a GPL version of cdrtools? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 06:38 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ogdi Short Description: Open Geographic Datastore Interface Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-5 FC-6 devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225296] Merge Review: autoconf
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: autoconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225296 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 06:38 EST --- sounds reasonable, fixed in -8 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 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 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 06:41 EST --- I would also recommend you to add examples on the iverilog package instead of -devel package. Its size is small and a normal user would not install a -devel package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 06:46 EST --- I haven't seen your name appearing in the list of members to be sponsored. Did I miss 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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 06:50 EST --- i did it a bit later. Can re-check now ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 06:57 EST --- You should be sponsored now. I don't know how much time it takes to propagate, and unless I'm wrong there is also some action to be taken to create the branch and add you in owners.list. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226496] Merge Review: tn5250
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: tn5250 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226496 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 07:01 EST --- I prefer having slashes between the macros for better readability. It shouldn't do any harm as _libdir and _datadir never have relative paths. The rest is fixed in -13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230071] Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230071 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 07:02 EST --- It's just what is in the README. (: Besides, only digikam uses it, for now, but I'd rather not mention client apps, since that could likely change. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230161] Review Request: rt61-firmware - Firmware for RT61 802.11 wireless devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rt61-firmware - Firmware for RT61 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230161 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 07:23 EST --- for this lib macros, check if you have an build error -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225693] Merge Review: dialog
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: dialog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225693
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 07:30 EST ---
so, you want, that I introduce Epoch ... :-/
%define SubVersion 20060221
Version: 1.0
Release: 1.%{SubVersion}svn%{?dist}
Epoch: 1
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225762] Merge Review: fonts-hebrew
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: fonts-hebrew https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225762 [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 225762] Merge Review: fonts-hebrew
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: fonts-hebrew https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225762 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 07:35 EST --- Created an attachment (id=148860) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148860&action=view) Modified SPEC file Had a look at SPEC. Its written using old packaging guidelines.I have created a patch for you. Use this patch and generate a new release. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226529] Merge Review: vixie-cron
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: vixie-cron
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226529
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 07:41 EST ---
Complete output from rpmlint. I commented out uninteresting lines
W: vixie-cron summary-ended-with-dot The Vixie cron daemon for executing
specified programs at set times.
W: vixie-cron invalid-license distributable
W: vixie-cron no-url-tag
W: vixie-cron conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/pam.d/crond
#W: vixie-cron conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/crond
E: vixie-cron executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/crond
#E: vixie-cron non-readable /etc/pam.d/crond 0600
#E: vixie-cron non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/cron 0700
#E: vixie-cron non-standard-dir-perm /etc/cron.d 0700
#E: vixie-cron setuid-binary /usr/bin/crontab root 06755
#E: vixie-cron setgid-binary /usr/bin/crontab root 06755
#E: vixie-cron non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/crontab 06755
#W: vixie-cron service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/crond
#W: vixie-cron incoherent-init-script-name crond
Some issues in specfile
- standardize buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
- use Requires instead of Prereq
- call make with %{?_smp_mflags} (be sure if package has been built correctly.
If not, remove this flag)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225662] Merge Review: crontabs
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: crontabs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225662
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 07:53 EST ---
output from rpmlint:
W: crontabs summary-ended-with-dot Root crontab files used to schedule the
execution of programs.
W: crontabs no-url-tag
W: crontabs no-documentation
=> nothing interesting...
- standardize buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230096] Review Request: iwlwifi-firmwa re - Microcode for Intel® PRO/Wireless 3945 A/ B/G network adaptors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: iwlwifi-firmware - Microcode for Intel® PRO/Wireless
3945 A/B/G network adaptors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230096
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 07:59 EST ---
Hi Matthias,
indeed, there's some things can be ignored in review and from rpmlint ouput
error.
> That's invalid for firmware. /lib is correct.
for %{_lib}, it works for me and no build error.
> Typo: # This is so that the noarch packages only appears for these archs
> And what about pcc arch ?
>
> This driver is invalid on PPC.
So, this : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179260
should be read.
> For instance "you must use a %{?dist}
> tag" is incorrect, and in this case, it's _deliberate_ to not use one, since
> it
> allows hardlinking the package across multiple releases.
I understand that. also the fact it's a noarch package.
Now i wonder if it's accepted in CVS build procedure.
> Your only valid comment is the one about the %changelog, but please realize
> that
> it's pretty much useless to have multiple entries for the same day, especially
> if they're so minor. The wrong thing would have been not to increment the
> release.
I a little bit agree with you about that (i don't make multiple entries for the
same day when i build my own packages) but, it's important for review to avoid
confusions and to follow the work (changes, modification, ...) of the owner of
the package.
however, I maintains that the Group tag isn't good.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225662] Merge Review: crontabs
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: crontabs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225662 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 08:07 EST --- No url tag -> no upstream Warning in package are irrelevant. Fix in crontabs-1.10-14.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 230096] Review Request: iwlwifi-firmwa re - Microcode for Intel® PRO/Wireless 3945 A/ B/G network adaptors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: iwlwifi-firmware - Microcode for Intel® PRO/Wireless
3945 A/B/G network adaptors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230096
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 08:08 EST ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> > That's invalid for firmware. /lib is correct.
>
> for %{_lib}, it works for me and no build error.
But %_lib = lib64 on x86_64, so your firmware file will end up in the wrong
place, since it needs to be in /lib/firmware on x86_64, not in /lib64/firmware,
pretty much like the kernel modules needs to be in /lib/modules/...
> > This driver is invalid on PPC.
>
> So, this : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179260
> should be read.
It's not that is doesn't build or work on ppc. It's just that it doesn't make
sense because it's a firmware for hardware which is only to be found in x86 and
x86_64 hardware (actually, almost certainly only x86_64 hardware, but since you
can install an x86 OS on it, it also makes sense to have available for the x86
OS).
> > For instance "you must use a %{?dist}
> > tag" is incorrect, and in this case, it's _deliberate_ to not use one,
> > since it
> > allows hardlinking the package across multiple releases.
>
> I understand that. also the fact it's a noarch package.
> Now i wonder if it's accepted in CVS build procedure.
Of course it is. You seem to be confusing a lot of "mandatory" vs. "suggested"
packaging points.
> > Your only valid comment is the one about the %changelog, but please realize
> > that
> > it's pretty much useless to have multiple entries for the same day,
> > especially
> > if they're so minor. The wrong thing would have been not to increment the
release.
>
> I a little bit agree with you about that (i don't make multiple entries for
> the
> same day when i build my own packages) but, it's important for review to avoid
> confusions and to follow the work (changes, modification, ...) of the owner of
> the package.
You are right, but one should realize that this is pretty much irrelevant.
> however, I maintains that the Group tag isn't good.
It's a work in progress. Some specific packaging rules for firmwares are being
discussed right now. As of this very instant, it's the correct one. It might
change, in which case I'll change it too.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-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: bitmap-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225617
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 08:14 EST ---
bitmap-fonts-0.3-5.1.2.fc7 has the following things fixed...
(In reply to comment #1)
> Random notes:
> * rpmlint output:
> W: bitmap-fonts invalid-license distributable
> W: bitmap-fonts no-url-tag
> W: bitmap-fonts-cjk invalid-license distributable
> W: bitmap-fonts-cjk no-url-tag
> W: bitmap-fonts-cjk no-documentation
>
> * It seems that the Lucida fonts are not free software. See the LU_LEGALNOTICE
> in the package.
>
> * As this is actually three different set of fonts, the version (0.3) is quite
> arbitrary. Also, at least ucs-fonts has released a newer version in 2006,
> while
> the version in bitmap-fonts is from 2003.
>
> * Release is complicated (5.1.1) for no real reason. Should be changed to
> integer value (6?).
FIXXED
> * BuildRoot should be changed to
> %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
FIXED
> * In the "cjk" subpackage summary, CJK should be spelled with capital letters.
FIXED
> * "Prereq" should be replaced by "Requires" (see
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#tags)
FIXED
Others - added the dist tag.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-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: bitmap-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225617 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 08:15 EST --- Hi Roozbeh, How do we handle the LU_LEGALNOTICE issue? And how do we solve the no-url-tag & no-documentation issues? Thanks, Mayank -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-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: bitmap-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225617 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||nfo) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230096] Review Request: iwlwifi-firmwa re - Microcode for Intel® PRO/Wireless 3945 A/ B/G network adaptors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: iwlwifi-firmware - Microcode for Intel® PRO/Wireless 3945 A/B/G network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230096 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 08:33 EST --- > But %_lib = lib64 on x86_64, so your firmware file will end up in the wrong > place, since it needs to be in /lib/firmware on x86_64, not in > /lib64/firmware, > pretty much like the kernel modules needs to be in /lib/modules/... indeed. > It's not that is doesn't build or work on ppc. It's just that it doesn't make > sense because it's a firmware for hardware which is only to be found in x86 > and > x86_64 hardware (actually, almost certainly only x86_64 hardware, but since > you > can install an x86 OS on it, it also makes sense to have available for the x86 OS). OK ;-) > You seem to be confusing a lot of "mandatory" vs. "suggested" packaging points. A lil' bit, you don't explicitly comment on you fisrt post the use of many thing that doesn't match with packaging guidlines and it's why I put myself questions ;-) > It's a work in progress. Some specific packaging rules for firmwares are being > discussed right now. As of this very instant, it's the correct one. It might > change, in which case I'll change it too. ok, i'll follow this discussion. So, if we agree with all things from this pacakge, a full review can be done ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler,
simulator.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 08:35 EST ---
Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/iverilog.spec
SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/iverilog-0.9.20070123-5.src.rpm
- clean junks from tarball
- exlude static library
- smp build seems fine
- use snapshot instead of cvsver macro
- follow package n-v-r from fedora standard
(In reply to comment #9)
> Thanks Christian for pushing electronics applications in Fedora. I maintain
the
> geda suite. Perhaps we might work together to push more and more electronic
apps
> inside.
>
> #001
> I've seen during the %install /usr/bin/install -c -m . You should preserve
> timestamps.
>
> %{__make} prefix=%{buildroot}%{_prefix} \
> bindir=%{buildroot}%{_bindir} \
> libdir=%{buildroot}%{_libdir} \
> libdir64=%{buildroot}%{_libdir} \
> includedir=%{buildroot}%{_includedir} \
> mandir=%{buildroot}%{_mandir} \
> vpidir=%{buildroot}%{_libdir}/ivl/ \
> INSTALL="install -p" install
updated.
>
> #002
> The tarball is mal-packaged.
> It ships an autom4te.cache/.
>
> I'd suggest to rm -rf autom4te.cache in %prep
>
> You can delete them by
> %{__rm} -rf autom4te.cache
>
> for f in cadpli driver driver-vpi examples ivlpp libveriuser solaris
tgt-fpga \
> tgt-null tgt-pal tgt-stub tgt-verilog tgt-vvp vpi vpip vvm vvp; do
> pushd $f
> %{__rm} -rf autom4te.cache
> popd
> done
i did it. olso '.cvsignore; are cleaned, verifyed UTF-8 stuff and if files
contain tab mixage with spaces.
>
> #003
> You shouldn't ship %{_libdir}/*.a in the -devel package
> Delete them
> %{__rm} -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/{libveriuser,libvpi}.a
i excluded tham from %file devel.
>
> #004
> # WARNING !!!
> # %{?_smp_mflags} broken
> Can you explain in one/two line (in the spec file) why it's broken?
smp seems to be fine. re-enabled.
> #005 I disagree on how %{version} has been filled.
>
> "iverilog -v" shows:
> Icarus Verilog version 0.9.devel ($Name: s20070123 $)
>
> You missed the 0.9.XX
updated.
right. wasnt sure to do 0.9 or not.
> I'll rather opt for :
> %define snapshot 20070123
>
> Name: iverilog
> Version: 0.9.0.%{snapshot}
updated that macro.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 08:36 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) > I would also recommend you to add examples on the iverilog package instead of > -devel package. Its size is small and a normal user would not install a -devel > package. olso fixed in -5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230096] Review Request: iwlwifi-firmwa re - Microcode for Intel® PRO/Wireless 3945 A/ B/G network adaptors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: iwlwifi-firmware - Microcode for Intel® PRO/Wireless 3945 A/B/G network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230096 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 08:38 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) > So, if we agree with all things from this pacakge, a full review can be done ? If you see anything in the package that is mandatory to change or fix, you can just say so now. But for the complete review and possible approval of the package, it's best to wait for the outcome of the firmware packaging discussions. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194276] Review Request: kdeaccessibility: KDE accessibility tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdeaccessibility: KDE accessibility tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194276 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 08:42 EST --- it's now comitted in CVS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230161] Review Request: rt61-firmware - Firmware for RT61 802.11 wireless devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rt61-firmware - Firmware for RT61 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230161 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 08:43 EST --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License is Distributable OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum OK - BuildRequires isn't required OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. + - rpmlint output: SRPM: E: hardcoded-library-path -> can be ignored RPM : E: hardcoded-library-path -> can be ignored OK - build in mock (FC-6 and FC-devel). OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230164] Review Request: rt71w-firmware - Firmware for RT71 802.11 wireless devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rt71w-firmware - Firmware for RT71 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230164 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 08:47 EST --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License is Distributable OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum OK - BuildRequires isn't required OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. + - rpmlint output: SRPM: E: hardcoded-library-path -> can be ignored RPM : E: hardcoded-library-path -> can be ignored OK - build in mock (FC-6 and FC-devel). OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 224365] Review Request: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224365 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 08:53 EST --- http://people.redhat.com/harald/downloads/cdrkit/cdrkit-1.1.2-3/ -- 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 226496] Merge Review: tn5250
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: tn5250 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226496 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 08:54 EST --- * Still many warnings from desktop-file-install (not blocking) /home/dumas/src/fc-cvs/tn5250/devel/xt5250.desktop: missing encoding (guessed UTF-8) /home/dumas/src/fc-cvs/tn5250/devel/xt5250.desktop: key "Categories" string list not semicolon-terminated, fixing /var/tmp/tn5250-0.17.3-13-root-dumas//usr/share/applications/fedora-xt5250.desktop: warning: boolean key "Terminal" has value "0", boolean values should be "false" or "true", although "0" and "1" are allowed in this field for backwards compatibility /var/tmp/tn5250-0.17.3-13-root-dumas//usr/share/applications/fedora-xt5250.desktop: warning: non-standard key "XClassHintResName" lacks the "X-" prefix /var/tmp/tn5250-0.17.3-13-root-dumas//usr/share/applications/fedora-xt5250.desktop: warning: file contains key "MapNotify", usage of this key is not recommended, since it has been deprecated * after rpmbuild -ba, rpmbuild -bi --short-circuit fails with: + mv linux/README README.Linux mv: cannot stat `linux/README': No such file or directory Instead of mv you could do cp -pf linux/README README.Linux -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226496] Merge Review: tn5250
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: tn5250 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226496 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 08:57 EST --- Also your icon cache scriptlets may be right, but to be on the safe side, and for consistency, I suggest using those from the guidelines, at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=show&redirect=ScriptletSnippets#head-7103f6c38d1b5735e8477bdd569ad73ea2c49bda -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 09:07 EST --- Follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVSAdminProcedure for the CVS Request procedure. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 09:16 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: iverilog Short Description: Icarus Verilog is a verilog compiler and simulator Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-5 FC-6 devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 [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 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao
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: cdrdao https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 09:32 EST --- > The rest was in there for historical reasons :) That was my guess :-) Yes, I would suggest to compile statically against cdrecord-devel. This implies adding a BuildRequires on cdrecord-devel, and using the '--with-scglib=sys' configure option. As i said, the partial cdrtools snapshot that is shipped with cdrdao is pretty old, and Fedora's cdrtools contains many patches that cdrdao can benefit from. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230164] Review Request: rt71w-firmware - Firmware for RT71 802.11 wireless devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rt71w-firmware - Firmware for RT71 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230164 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 09:33 EST --- Typo : + - licences and Doc are requesting -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230161] Review Request: rt61-firmware - Firmware for RT61 802.11 wireless devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rt61-firmware - Firmware for RT61 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230161 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 09:37 EST --- Typo : - OK - License file included in package + + - licences and Doc are requesting -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao
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: cdrdao https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 09:52 EST --- If cdrtools is removed completly, I have to pull in the cdrtools source in the cdrdao src.rpm. Did you consider using cdrkit? http://people.redhat.com/harald/downloads/cdrkit/cdrkit-1.1.2-3/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200236] Review Request: kdeaddons: K Desktop Environment - Plugins
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdeaddons: K Desktop Environment - Plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200236 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 10:09 EST --- i have merged the changes, added subpackage -extras and removed -xmms and -atlantikdesigner. It's already commited into CVS. The new kdeaddon-3.5.6-2.fc7 is built in 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 200236] Review Request: kdeaddons: K Desktop Environment - Plugins
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdeaddons: K Desktop Environment - Plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200236 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227646] Review Request: grass - 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 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||230223 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225691] Merge Review: dhcp
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: dhcp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 11:32 EST --- Ok, change the license to ISC and I'll approve this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227646] Review Request: grass - 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 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 Bug 227646 depends on bug 230223, which changed state. Bug 230223 Summary: glXGetCurrentContext symbol missing in -devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230223 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 227083] Review Request: maven-shared-1.0-4jpp - Maven Shared Components
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: maven-shared-1.0-4jpp - Maven Shared Components https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227083 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 11:40 EST --- Here are the links to the updated source rpm and spec file: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/253/maven-shared.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/254/maven-shared-1.0-4jpp.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 230228] New: Review Request: perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5 - Provides interoperable MD5-based crypt() functions
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=230228 Summary: Review Request: perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5 - Provides interoperable MD5-based crypt() functions 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: http://mmcgrath.net/~mmcgrath/perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5/perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5.spec SRPM: http://mmcgrath.net/~mmcgrath/perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5/perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5-1.3-1fc7.src.rpm Description: Provides interoperable MD5-based crypt() functions -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl
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: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||228177 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 230228] Review Request: perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5 - Provides interoperable MD5-based crypt() functions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5 - Provides interoperable MD5-based crypt() functions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230228 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 225691] Merge Review: dhcp
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: dhcp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 11:50 EST --- Done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225691] Merge Review: dhcp
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: dhcp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225691 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229490] Review Request: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229490 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 11:54 EST --- pong! (I'm busy at school. Just one more test!) W: symlink-should-be-relative I can't do anything else. If the link is relative, it links to the building environment (/var/tmp/pypar2-1.2-1.fc6.maxca-root-builder/usr/share/pypar2/src/main.py). And actually, due to macro, it is relative (I think). PS : I still need a 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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 12:03 EST --- it's now fixed in kdelibs-3_5_6-2_fc7. New package has been built in 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 230228] Review Request: perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5 - Provides interoperable MD5-based crypt() functions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5 - Provides interoperable
MD5-based crypt() functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230228
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 12:06 EST ---
* source files match upstream (MD5 & SHA1)
368205b1be8c0d4f807afe25d6fbd1ad Crypt-PasswdMD5-1.3.tar.gz
368205b1be8c0d4f807afe25d6fbd1ad Crypt-PasswdMD5-1.3.tar.gz.1
887782eb7fd1568ce9514f46156a08c415c26fdf Crypt-PasswdMD5-1.3.tar.gz
887782eb7fd1568ce9514f46156a08c415c26fdf Crypt-PasswdMD5-1.3.tar.gz.1
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text not included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (fc6 i386, fc7 i386).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint says (after applying patch below):
W: perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5 mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line
1)
Can be ignored/cleaned up later.
* %check present; Test code runs successfully.
* no shared libraries are present
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets are OK
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers
* no unversioned .so file
* no pkconfig file
* no libtool .la droppings.
I noticed that the README appears to be in ISO-8859-1, but since it's
PGP signed it's not possible to change it to UTF-8. So, assuming the
following patch is applied, the package is APPROVED.
--- perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5.spec.save 2007-02-27 10:41:07.0 -0600
+++ perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5.spec 2007-02-27 10:47:55.0 -0600
@@ -17,6 +17,8 @@
%prep
%setup -q -n Crypt-PasswdMD5-%{version}
+%{_bindir}/iconv -f iso-8859-1 -t utf-8 -o PasswdMD5.pm.new PasswdMD5.pm && mv
PasswdMD5.pm.new PasswdMD5.pm
+%{__sed} -i -e 's/ISO-8859-1/UTF-8/' PasswdMD5.pm
%build
%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
@@ -43,5 +45,5 @@
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
-* Tue Feb 27 2007 Mike McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 1.3.1
+* Tue Feb 27 2007 Mike McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 1.3-1
- Initial Packaging
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229490] Review Request: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229490
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 12:06 EST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> pong!
> (I'm busy at school. Just one more test!)
>
> W: symlink-should-be-relative
> I can't do anything else.
Hint:
rm %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name}
ln -s %{_datadir}/%{name}/src/main.py %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name}
This symlink uses absolute path for main.py
One of the easiest way to create relative symlink is:
-
rm %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name}
pushd %{buildroot}%{_bindir}
ln -sf `find .. -name main.py` %{name}
popd
--
This creates a symlink as
pypar2 -> ../share/pypar2/src/main.py
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229490] Review Request: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229490
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 12:24 EST ---
I tried this way:
ls -s ../..%{_datadir}/%{name}/src/main.py %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name}
it's work but symlink point like that :
/usr/bin/pypar2 -> ../../usr/share/pypar2/src/main.py
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206814] Review Request: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206814 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 12:26 EST --- Just another thought from reading this review request: Would it be possible to get the changes that are needed for this package added to the fedora vigra package? ie, patch in our version until upstream finishes merging them in and then we can drop the patch. Then, this package wouldn't need to use a local vigra copy... Or possibly get the upstream vigra folks to merge in their VCS system the patches, and we can move our vigra version to a snapshot? Would it be worth mailing some vigra/hugin maintainers to comment here on which way forward they would prefer? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229490] Review Request: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229490 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 12:26 EST --- typo: it's "ln -s" not "ls -s" -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228434] Review Request: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228434 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 12:42 EST --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License is GPL OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Requires isn't required OK - Patch is correctly applied and work. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch (i386). OK - Package preserves timestamps on files. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files present and don't affect runtime. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package has a correct %changelog section. OK - Mock build on i386 and x86_64 (FC-6 and FC-devel) OK - RPMLINT is silent on both RPM and SRPM. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should package latest version APPROVED by me -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228434] Review Request: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228434 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| 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 225655] Merge Review: coreutils
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: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 12:46 EST --- Okay, this has already been fixed in 6.8 which I hope to include in Fedora 7. Is that sufficient, or do you need to see the backport (or a coreutils-6.8 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 226479] Merge Review: tcl
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: tcl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 12:58 EST ---
I recently discovered that bz #227200 is really a multilib problem with Tcl.
That is, it's not possible to install both x86_64 and i386 versions of Tcl
extensions simultaneously due to the symlink and missing %{_libdir}/tcl8.4 from
the package path. I'll try to get some guidance from the mailing lists if this
multilib problem needs to be fixed as part of the merge review or not.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196837] Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for
unit tests
Alias: pear-PHPUnit3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196837
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 13:16 EST ---
REVIEW
* source files match upstream:
fca4887ed95996a4b18e0cb0b8ff8130 PHPUnit-3.0.5.tgz* package meets naming and
packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible (BSD).
* latest version is being packaged (3.0.5)
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (FC6).
* package installs properly
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides are sane:
php-pear(pear.phpunit.de/PHPUnit) = 3.0.5
php-pear-PHPUnit = 3.0.5-1.fc7
=> final Requires are sane:
see comment
* %check is not present;
=> don't owns the directories it creates
* don't own directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets are OK (pear install)
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
Samples works well.
So MUST
- remove Conflicts (add Obsoletes)
- Requires: php-pear(PEAR) >= 1.5.0
- own %{pear_testdir}/%{pear_name}
Should
- Remove (build safely, even in mock without)
# Need to allow installation in channel://pear.phpunit.de/
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{pear_phpdir}
cp -r %{pear_phpdir}/.channels $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{pear_phpdir}/.channels
- simplify under doc (remove PHPUnit subdir)
%doc %{pear_name}-%{version}/docdir/%{pear_name}/%{pear_name}/*
- only uninstall old PHPunit on upgrade
%post
if [ $1 -gt 1 ] ; then
...
fi
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196837] Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests Alias: pear-PHPUnit3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196837 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196837] Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests Alias: pear-PHPUnit3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196837 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225235] Merge Review: a2ps
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: a2ps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225235 Bug 225235 depends on bug 203536, which changed state. Bug 203536 Summary: split a -devel package? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203536 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|MODIFIED|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 225655] Merge Review: coreutils
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: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 13:21 EST --- (In reply to comment #24) > Okay, this has already been fixed in 6.8 which I hope to include in Fedora 7. > Is that sufficient, or do you need to see the backport (or a coreutils-6.8 > package..)? Do as you like. In case you keep things as is, please comment out the %check with a comment stating that it should be fixed in 6.8. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230071] Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230071 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 13:23 EST --- I know. But their web site / sf repository is a bit more informative. If not for the presence of "exif" in the description, I would have had absolutely no idea what's the purpose of the library, especially since "exiv" rang no bells. In my opinion, the presence of "picture metadata" and/or "digikam" would be better hints. My suggestion was based on info retrieved from upstream's web site. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227081] Review Request: maven-jxr-1.0-2jpp - Maven JXR is a source cross referencing tool.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: maven-jxr-1.0-2jpp - Maven JXR is a source cross referencing tool. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227081 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 13:43 EST --- Here are the links to an updated spec file and source rpm: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/256/maven-jxr.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/257/maven-jxr-1.0-2jpp.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 230250] New: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits
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=230250 Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits 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.redhat.com/notting/review/gtkhtml38.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/gtkhtml38-3.12.3-2.src.rpm Description: GtkHTML is a lightweight HTML rendering/printing/editing engine. It was originally based on KHTMLW, but is now being developed independently of it. This package implements the GtkHTML 3.8 API, for packages who cannot use newer versions of GtkHTML. The gtkhtml api & abi changed in the development tree with the move from libgnomeprint to gtkprint. Various apps may not be able to cope with the change, either due to the scope of the printing changes required, or the fact that they depend on other libraries not yet ported to GtkPrint. Hence, a compat library for them to build and run against. See also: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401970 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227082] Review Request: maven-scm-1.0-0.b3.2jpp - Basic API for lightweight logging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: maven-scm-1.0-0.b3.2jpp - Basic API for lightweight logging https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227082 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229377] Review Request: latexmk - a make-like utility for LaTeX documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: latexmk - a make-like utility for LaTeX documents https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229377 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 14:26 EST --- While I'm waiting, I decided to go ahead and create an /etc/latexmk.conf showing all of the configuration parameters with their default values, commented out. The new spec file and source RPM are at the same URLs as before. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 224365] Review Request: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224365 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|188267 |188268 nThis|| Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 14:27 EST --- OK, everything looks good: No complaints from rpmlint. Buildroot is good. The license is in each package. (And I'll reiterate: normally this wouldn't be an issue, but these packages don't seem to be related to each other in name, and users shouldn't have to go figuring out what other packages are built from the SRPM just to find the license.) The compiler flags look good, and the debuginfo package is now complete. APPROVED If I'm reading the account system correctly, you require sponsorship. Go ahead and apply for cvsextras and fedorabugs and I'll get you set up. -- 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 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230250 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 14:33 EST --- Since this is a compatibility package, shouldn't it be named compat-gtkhtml38? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230071] Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230071 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 14:38 EST --- OK, I'm convinced, and will include it in the next pkg update (after someone comits to doing a pkg 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 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 14:49 EST --- Balint Cristian, you are not yet sponsored ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230250 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 14:53 EST --- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines implies gtkhtml38, like openssl096b. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 14:57 EST --- i am sposored in cvsextras group in my fedora account. (have another package already) I set flag '?' on fedora cvs, for this bz, is there more things to do for creation of 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 227082] Review Request: maven-scm-1.0-0.b3.2jpp - Basic API for lightweight logging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: maven-scm-1.0-0.b3.2jpp - Basic API for lightweight logging https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227082 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 14:58 EST --- Here are the links to an updated spec file and source rpm: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/259/maven-scm.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/260/maven-scm-1.0-0.1.b3.2jpp.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 221027] Review Request: LabPlot - Data Analysis and Visualization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: LabPlot - Data Analysis and Visualization https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221027 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 14:59 EST --- Updated Spec URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/LabPlot/LabPlot.spec SRPM URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/LabPlot/LabPlot-1.5.1.5-4.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227080] Review Request: maven-doxia-1.0-0.a7.3jpp - Doxia is a content generation framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: maven-doxia-1.0-0.a7.3jpp - Doxia is a content generation framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227080 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 15:06 EST --- I see. For some reason, I received a mail for your request. Forget it. All you need to do now is wait :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221015] Review Request: ksplash-engine-moodin - Moodin is a splash engine for KDE Desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ksplash-engine-moodin - Moodin is a splash engine for KDE Desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221015 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 15:15 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ksplash-engine-moodin Short Description: Moodin is a splash engine for KDE Desktop Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-5 FC-6 devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221015] Review Request: ksplash-engine-moodin - Moodin is a splash engine for KDE Desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ksplash-engine-moodin - Moodin is a splash engine for KDE Desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221015 [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 230071] Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230071 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 15:37 EST --- Well, just to push you a bit 1. There is a typo error in %clean: rm -rf $FPM_BUILD_ROOT 2. mock build fails with: checking for gawk... gawk checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... yes checking for kde-config... not found configure: error: The important program kde-config was not found! Please check whether you installed KDE correctly. error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.91758 (%build) => kdelibs is missing as BR. Adding that, build fails again, this time with: checking for vsnprintf... yes checking for snprintf... yes checking for X... configure: error: Can't find X includes. Please check your installation and add the correct path s! error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.6018 (%build) => kdelibs-devel is missing as BR So, please add kdelibs-devel as BR, correct the FPM into RPM and I'll try to do a review. It would the first one for a package which relies on pkgconfig, so please be kind to me :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230071] Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230071 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 15:41 EST --- crud, I coulda sworn I did a mock build prior to package submission... oh well. (: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230071] Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230071 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 15:53 EST --- Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/libkexiv2.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/libkexiv2-0.1.1-2.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Feb 27 2007 Rex Dieter 0.1.1-2 - fix %%clean - update %%description - BR: kdelibs-devel -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
