[Bug 228255] Review Request: grub2 - grub next generation 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: grub2 - grub next generation tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228255 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 03:11 EST --- I'm looking into the the _start being missing now (not sure exactly what this is, or why it's now gone in x86-64 fc7 gcc). I've update the spec though to add smp to building. It appears to work fine (tried up to -j4 and it worked). http://jgotech.net/jerone/grub-1.95/grub2.spec http://jgotech.net/jerone/grub-1.95/grub2-1.95-5.src.rpm I'm going to see how grub cvs works under x86 and x86-64 fc7. Though currently grub 2 cvs needs a little kicking into shape. I'll see what I can do about it this week. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230798] Review Request: perl-Test-Simple - A basic Perl testing framework for creating tests to be run either standalone or under Test::Harness.
Please 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-Test-Simple - A basic Perl testing framework for creating tests to be run either standalone or under Test::Harness. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230798 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 03:26 EST --- The GeniusTrader application is not available in rpm format yet. At the moment, it is a set of Perl scripts that needs some Perl modules in order to work. The upstream maintainers do not want to spend time on packaging it. They prefer to install individual components separately. They have no objections to others packaging it. I will, in due course, want to package these other modules for Fedora as well. In fact, I think packaging GT for Fedora will be sensible only if all other requirements are in Fedora. The Test::Simple is needed at build time. The Test::Simple is detected but the upgrade is suggested at install time. I did not experiment to see if the upgrade was mandatory. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226451] Merge Review: sysstat
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: sysstat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226451 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 03:28 EST --- There should be a major changes which I want to discuss with upstream, so it will take some time to fix these problems. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225777] Merge Review: gawk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 03:42 EST --- (In reply to comment #20) The first sentence in the package description of gawk has a grammatical error. The typo has been fixed in CVS. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226118] Merge Review: mailx
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: mailx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226118 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 03:48 EST --- Thanks for your notice, you are right - the directory is added in mailx-8.1.1-46.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 225288] Merge Review: at
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: at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225288 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 03:54 EST --- It was stupid differnce between at_... and at-... Now are the sums the same. debian source 6e5857e23b3c32ea6995fb7f8989987e at_3.1.10.tar.gz cat sources 6e5857e23b3c32ea6995fb7f8989987e at_3.1.10.tar.gz -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 178922] Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178922 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 03:54 EST --- AFAIK, we have other packages which come with media that may only be used with that package, and that has never been a problem. remember sounds == content != code. For content the only demands are that: 1 its usefull for some program, iow no random photo collections, 2 its freely redistributable (together with the program using it). So I see no problem to just use the asterisk sounds, other wise ask Spot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230798] Review Request: perl-Test-Simple - A basic Perl testing framework for creating tests to be run either standalone or under Test::Harness.
Please 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-Test-Simple - A basic Perl testing framework for creating tests to be run either standalone or under Test::Harness. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230798 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 04:39 EST --- The Test::Simple is needed at build time. OK. The Test::Simple is detected but the upgrade is suggested at install time. Then something probably is broken with GeniusTrader. Using Test::Simple at run-time normally doesn't make any sense, nor does suggesting to upgrade at install-time. I'd suggest you to submit a GeniusTrader-rpm for review, so we can look into the details and suggest to close this Request until then. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226123] Merge Review: man-pages-de
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: man-pages-de
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226123
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 04:43 EST ---
- add dist flag
- the newer version is released
- change the BuildRoot to
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
rpmlint outut:
srpm:
W: man-pages-de summary-ended-with-dot German man pages from the Linux
Documentation Project.
E: man-pages-de tag-not-utf8 %changelog
E: man-pages-de non-utf8-spec-file man-pages-de.spec
W: man-pages-de mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 46, tab: line 39)
W: man-pages-de patch-not-applied Patch0: man-pages-de-0.2-rofffixes.patch
noarch.rpm
W: man-pages-de summary-ended-with-dot German man pages from the Linux
Documentation Project.
E: man-pages-de tag-not-utf8 %changelog
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230798] Review Request: perl-Test-Simple - A basic Perl testing framework for creating tests to be run either standalone or under Test::Harness.
Please 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-Test-Simple - A basic Perl testing framework for creating tests to be run either standalone or under Test::Harness. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230798 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 05:05 EST --- Thanks. I'm closing this request until I sort out the GT spec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230891] Review Request: recordmydesktop - Desktop session recorder with audio and video
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: recordmydesktop - Desktop session recorder with audio and video https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230891 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 05:15 EST --- Changes: - Remove duplicate BR - Add missing zlib-devel BR - Applied patch to Preserve timestamps Updated: SPEC: http://folk.ntnu.no/sindrb/packages/recordmydesktop.spec SRPM: http://folk.ntnu.no/sindrb/packages/recordmydesktop-0.3.3.1-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225255] Merge Review: arptables_jf
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: arptables_jf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225255
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 05:18 EST ---
MUSTFIX
- Epoch tag can be removed (0 is the default value)
- BuildRoot should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n
- no URL provided
- BuildPrereq: /usr/bin/perl can be removed, perl is on the exception list; if
you plan to keep it then you should use BuildRequires(pre) (and eventually
explain why you explicitely want it )
- Requires(post,postun): chkconfig should be split in Requires(post),
Requires(postun)
- You should stick with either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT but not both
- rm -rf %{buildroot} is not needed in %prep
- rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is missing in %install
- service should be added to Requires
- Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment
- $RPM_OPT_FLAGS is not used
- %config /etc/rc.d/init.d/arptables_jf should use a macro, not a fixed path
SHOULD FIX
- Summary ended with dot
- adding INSTALL=%{__install} -c -p to the make install line would preserve
timestamps
rpmlint has some info for us, too:
rpmlint of arptables_jf:
W: arptables_jf summary-ended-with-dot Userspace control program for the
arptables network filter.
W: arptables_jf no-url-tag
- We know about these two already
W: arptables_jf conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/arptables_jf
E: arptables_jf executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/arptables_jf
- /etc/rc.d/init.d/arptables_jf should not be marked as %config; could be left
as such till F8T1 according to last week's guidelines
W: arptables_jf service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/arptables_jf
- that's a good point. Do we need/want it enabled at start time?
E: arptables_jf incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/arptables_jf arptables
E: arptables_jf incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/arptables_jf arptables
E: arptables_jf incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/arptables_jf arptables
- Harmless, but maybe should be discussed. Why is the package called
arptables_jf and not arptables ?
W: arptables_jf no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/arptables_jf
- harmless, although a reload which does just start+stop would be easy to
implement
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225255] Merge Review: arptables_jf
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: arptables_jf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225255 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 05:22 EST --- wrt BuildRequires(pre) .. should be read BuildRequires -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230891] Review Request: recordmydesktop - Desktop session recorder with audio and video
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: recordmydesktop - Desktop session recorder with audio and video https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230891 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 05:58 EST --- Good: - rpmlint checks do not return anything on source and binary rpm; the debuginfo package reports: W: recordmydesktop-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/recordmydesktop-0.3.3.1/src/load_cache.c W: recordmydesktop-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/recordmydesktop-0.3.3.1/include/rmdtypes.h W: recordmydesktop-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/recordmydesktop-0.3.3.1/src/cache_frame.c Probably a chmod -x on these three files in %prep should make rpmlint happy. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPL) is OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream, is latest version, sha1sum 3eb2ffe79a0fcf5e04962bd3d120c1e5587c178b recordmydesktop-0.3.3.1.tar.gz - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all file/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of foreign files/directories - no duplicate files - permissions ok (see rpmlint output on -debuginfo above) - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - not a GUI, so no need for .desktop file - no need for a separate -devel package - no .la files - no scriptlets - no static files SHOULD: - builds in mock for devel/x86_64 - works as advertised 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 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] 2007-03-05 06:07 EST --- dynamic pcre patch and a patch for bug #193159 added to privoxy-3.0.6-6.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 225708] Merge Review: dovecot
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: dovecot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225708 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 06:50 EST --- The newest fedora rls in which the old paths are used is FC-3. They are used in RHEL-4 as well. Should I remove the block then? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 07:00 EST ---
Instead of checking subsys, you could use the standard scriptlet.
It will be safer, too.
if [ $1 = 0 ]; then
/sbin/service script stop /dev/null 21 || :
/sbin/chkconfig --del script
fi
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=showredirect=ScriptletSnippets#head-97754e2c646616c5f6222f0cfc6923c60765133e
Similar for the postun scriptlet.
Regarding the Requires(...) in my opinion it should be along:
Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig coreutils
Requires(postun): /sbin/chkconfig /sbin/service
Requires(preun): /sbin/chkconfig /sbin/service
There are still places in %files and one in install
where %{_sysconfdir} should be uses, also %_sbindir in %files.
RPM_OPT_FLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS
seems dubious to me. I guess it comes from a patch. I'll review them
later.
If I'm not wrong this package seems not to have any upstream.
Is there a collaboration between linux distro package maintainers, and
BSD maintainers to share patches and things like that?
A suggestion (a personal preference):
For install call, I always add -mxxx to show clearly the permission
of installed files.
For that reason I prefer install over cp.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 07:04 EST ---
All of the issues I mentioned are fixed.
There are some minor issues I saw at the last check. The lines in the spec
%dir %{privoxyconf}
%dir %{privoxyconf}/templates
are redundant, since the following covers them:
%config(noreplace) %{privoxyconf}
A warning in rpmlint running the SRPM reveals an unescaped %files in the
changelog dating back in 2002.
Since those issues are not that important, this package is APPROVED. Please
also fix the aforementioned minor issues at your convenience.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230892] Review Request: gtk-recordmydesktop - GUI Desktop session recorder with audio and video
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtk-recordmydesktop - GUI Desktop session recorder with audio and video https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230892 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 07:10 EST --- MUSTFIXes: missing BR gettext,desktop-file-utils GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPL ) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream, is latest available version, sha1sum d1ba549ebff68157912b41e332941d84836d1fbb gtk-recordmydesktop-0.3.3.1.tar.g - package compiles on devel (x86_64) [*] - no unnecessary BR - locales properly handled [*] - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of foreign files/directories - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for separate -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - there are no scriptlets, no static code, no libtool/pkgconfig files SHOULD: - the package compiles and builds into binary rpms on FC6 and rawhide (tested only on x86_64); generated binary is a noarch so no issues should exist for x86 [*] - the package runs as advertised [*] [*] after adding the missing BRs Sindre, please fix the spec adding the missing BRs and I'll reverify/approve the package. As a sidenote, in the future I think it would be a good ideaif you would test your packages using rpmlint and by bulding in mock before submitting them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230831] Review Request: games-menus - Catagorized submenus for the GNOME/KDE Games menu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: games-menus - Catagorized submenus for the GNOME/KDE
Games menu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230831
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 07:14 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
** Package should own %{_datadir}/desktop-directories directory since it will
remain unowned if someone doesn't have gnome-menus nor kdebase installed
Good point, will fix.
** The much more important thing for me would be translating this package. In
my opinion we should try to make translations as many as it's possible,
because
it doesn't look fine if I have some categories in Polish and the rest in
English.
Agreed, feel free to send a patch with Polish translations, if all reading this
translate it into their native language, then others will have to follow over
time.
** Is there anything we shall do with URL tag? Maybe we could put your last
fedora-games-list mail somewhere on the wiki and link to it, couldn't we?
Good idea, I could change the link to:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-games-list/2007-March/msg3.html
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230831] Review Request: games-menus - Catagorized submenus for the GNOME/KDE Games menu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: games-menus - Catagorized submenus for the GNOME/KDE Games menu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230831 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 07:22 EST --- For anyone interested in reviewing this, see: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-games-list/2007-March/msg3.html For a lot more info on this. So anyone interested in reviewing 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 167147] Review Request: aqsis - 3D Rendering system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 07:29 EST --- (In reply to comment #75) One note: Currently I cannot access to http://download.aqsis.org/stable/source/tar/aqsis-1.2.0.tar.gz Our download site is down at the moment (hardware issue), though should be online again later this evening... apologies for the inconvenience but I will keep you posted. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 167147] Review Request: aqsis - 3D Rendering system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 07:36 EST --- (In reply to comment #77) New Package CVS Request === Package Name: aqsis Short Description: Open source RenderMan-compliant 3D rendering solution Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-5 FC-6 devel InitialCC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks for offering to maintain this package guys, most appreciated! Being a co-ordinator of our packaging efforts (Windows, Linux and OS X) would it be possible to add me to the 'CC' list of this too, along with Tobi? Many thanks in advance. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 167147] Review Request: aqsis - 3D Rendering system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 07:43 EST --- (In reply to comment #76) Yes, i also have this problem... This may prevent the build to success... As i remember the timestramp should be good (wget -N ). The URL also but it fails sometime... I may need to download from another place if it's really cause failures... In the (hopefully rare) event of our download site being offline, you can use SourceForge as an alternate source for the 'Official' tarball(s)... http://downloads.sourceforge.net/aqsis/aqsis-1.2.0.tar.gz Always good to have a contingency plan. ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188400] Review Request: ssmtp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ssmtp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |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 230586] Review Request: xdg-user-dirs-gtk - gnome/gtk+ integration of xdg-user-dirs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xdg-user-dirs-gtk - gnome/gtk+ integration of xdg-user-dirs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230586 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 08:41 EST --- I see fedora-cvs in the ? state, but it is already added to owners.list and devel branch is created. I don't see any further action needing to be taken. Setting to +. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-03-05 09:03 EST --- Hello Balint, Can you close this bug as next release 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 220393] Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 09:08 EST --- (In reply to comment #17) OK, I'll do that. However, I still have some questions: * Is the versioning of libSynopsis.so really necessary ? I don't plan to provide any kind of backward compatibility in the short term (the API and ABI still evolve a lot) Does this mean that API/ABI may change even on 0.9.X series? Anyway I recommend to provide somajor. * What tools other than rpmlint do you use to validate a package ? I did use that but couldn't see some of the issues you reported earlier. Actually the items the reviewer should check is not only rpmlint issue, mainly written on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets And a reviewer may check other points which are not written on these documents (well this depends on reviewers). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220393] Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 09:18 EST --- No, 0.9.1 will be fully compatible with 0.9. However, such a minor (bugfix-only) release is exceptional. Usually I avoid it precisely because I don't see any point in even trying to be compatible. libSynopsis.so is not meant to be used by the public just yet. It's Used by all python extension modules, and eventually may be used for C++-only programs, too. But I'm not there yet. OK, I'll add the major version as somajor. Thanks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218342] Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218342 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 09:53 EST --- Spec URL: http://manta.univ.gda.pl/~mgarski/fe/tibetan-machine-uni-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://manta.univ.gda.pl/~mgarski/fe/tibetan-machine-uni-fonts-001.000-1.src.rpm Let's start from the beginning :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231005] New: gnome-vfs2-obexftp: ObexFTP filesystem support for GNOME
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=231005 Summary: gnome-vfs2-obexftp: ObexFTP filesystem support for GNOME Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com The GNOME Virtual File System provides an abstraction to common file system operations like reading, writing and copying files, listing directories and so on. It is similar in spirit to the Midnight Commander's VFS (as it uses a similar URI scheme) but it is designed from the ground up to be extensible and to be usable from any application. This contains the obexftp split from the main gnome-vfs2 package. Source RPM: http://people.redhat.com/bnocera/gnome-vfs2-obexftp/gnome-vfs2-obexftp-0.2-1.src.rpm Spec file: http://people.redhat.com/bnocera/gnome-vfs2-obexftp/gnome-vfs2-obexftp.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225809] Merge Review: gmp
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: gmp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225809 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||laurent.rineau__fedora_extra ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] BugsThisDependsOn||211762, 218041 OtherBugsDependingO||225778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 10:04 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) According to upstream (http://www.swox.com/gmp/), the most current version is 4.2.1, while the packaged version is 4.1.4. At least a note explaining the reason for not upgrading should be included in the spec. That is bug #211762. gmp is a build-dependency of gcc. That is why the upgrade is not that safe. Another bug that concerns this review is bug #218041: the gmp-4.1.x package ships a static version of libmpfr. Static libraries should be removed from Fedora, according to guidelines. A bug about unsafe use of something in scriptlets, with a patch from Ville Skyttä: bug #223692. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc
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: gcc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225778 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||225809 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228293] Review Request: gkrellm-moon - Moon clock plugin for GKrellM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gkrellm-moon - Moon clock plugin for GKrellM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228293 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version||0.6-2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228294] Review Request: gkrellm-sun - Sun clock plugin for GKrellM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gkrellm-sun - Sun clock plugin for GKrellM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228294 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version||1.0.0-2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192436] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xgl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xgl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192436 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 10:06 EST --- SPEC: http://download.tuxfamily.org/fedoraxgl/SPECS/xorg-x11-server-Xgl.spec SRPM: http://download.tuxfamily.org/fedoraxgl/SRPMS/xorg-x11-server-Xgl-0-0.4.20070102git.fc6.src.rpm Last specfile was not correctly overwrite on the ftp, have make the trick to quickly, sorry. Change between 0-3 and 0-4 - Add BR suggested by Steffan and remove the %post script. Sometimes ago, I have wrote (just for the fun) a simple tools to configure the system to choice a Xorg implementation. Today , I have implement support to add a server definitions for Xgl in GDM, the idea is to use this tools in the posts script. What do you thing of such a solution to replace the crazy post script? system-config-xselector SPEC: http://download.tuxfamily.org/fedoraxgl/SPECS/system-config-xselector.spec SRPM: http://download.tuxfamily.org/fedoraxgl/SRPMS/system-config-xselector-0.1-1.src.rpm RPM: http://download.tuxfamily.org/fedoraxgl/6/i386/system-config-xselector-0.1-1.noarch.rpm ps: sorry for not answer quickly but I had hard work these last weeks. Thanks all, -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227106] Review Request: plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp - Plexus Common Utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp - Plexus Common Utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227106 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |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 227101] Review Request: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227101 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |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 217350] Review Request: ipw2100-firmwa re - Firmware for Intel® PRO/Wireless 2100 net work 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: ipw2100-firmware - Firmware for Intel® PRO/Wireless 2100 network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217350 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 10:20 EST --- http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/ipw2100-firmware/ * Mon Mar 5 2007 Matthias Saou http://freshrpms.net 1.3-7 - Change group and license fields to reflect latest firmware guidelines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 217351] Review Request: ipw2200-firmwa re - Firmware for Intel® PRO/Wireless 2200 net work 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: ipw2200-firmware - Firmware for Intel® PRO/Wireless 2200 network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217351 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 10:20 EST --- http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/ipw2200-firmware/ * Mon Mar 5 2007 Matthias Saou http://freshrpms.net 3.0-8 - Change group and license fields to reflect latest firmware guidelines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2007-03-05 10:21 EST --- http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/iwlwifi-firmware/ * Mon Mar 5 2007 Matthias Saou http://freshrpms.net 2.14.1-3 - Change group and license fields to reflect latest firmware guidelines. - Replace microcode with firmware in summary and description. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194278] Review Request: kdeadmin: Administrative tools for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdeadmin: Administrative tools for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194278 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 10:23 EST --- i have reviewed and merged the change. Please take a look at kdeadmin-3.5.6-2.fc7 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 194278] Review Request: kdeadmin: Administrative tools for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdeadmin: Administrative tools for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194278 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords||Reopened Resolution|NEXTRELEASE | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227098] Review Request: plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-0.a7s.2jpp - Plexus Component Creator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-0.a7s.2jpp - Plexus Component Creator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227098 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 10:24 EST --- i'll take this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231005] gnome-vfs2-obexftp: ObexFTP filesystem support for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: gnome-vfs2-obexftp: ObexFTP filesystem support for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231005 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 10:35 EST --- Note that: hcid needs to be started with -x and to obex:/// will only show paired devices. You can open a specific device with: nautilus obex://[00:00:00:00:00]/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 10:39 EST --- Just talked with Robin. Proposed to make this this transition smoother in the future is to add Provides: perl-devel to the older versions of the perl package when perl is updated in those distros. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231011] New: Review Request: cowpatty - Audit Wpa pre-shared keys
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=231011
Summary: Review Request: cowpatty - Audit Wpa pre-shared keys
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://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/SPECS/cowpatty.spec
SRPM URL:
http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/SRPMS/cowpatty-2.0-1.kwizart.fc6.src.rpm
Description: Audit Wpa pre-shared keys
coWPAtty is designed to audit the security of pre-shared keys selected
in WiFi Protected Access (WPA) networks.
rpmlint is silent
need to disable %{?_smp_mflags} so it can build
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230935] Review Request: aircrack-ng - 802.11 (wireless) sniffer and WEP/WPA-PSK key cracker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aircrack-ng - 802.11 (wireless) sniffer and WEP/WPA-PSK key cracker Alias: aircrack-ng https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230935 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 10:51 EST --- imported and built http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-6-extras/28757-aircrack-ng-0.7-1.fc6/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227087] Review Request: modello-1.0-0.a8.4jpp - Modello Data Model toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: modello-1.0-0.a8.4jpp - Modello Data Model toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227087 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 10:55 EST --- X license field matches the actual license. I can't find the license for this project, could you please point me to it? http://maven.apache.org/maven-1.x/plugins/modello/license.html X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - please put clear instructions on how to generate the the source drop, the svn export command doesn't work The svn export command works for me. X rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output W: modello non-standard-group Development/Java - this is ok W: modello unversioned-explicit-provides modello-maven-plugin -please fix W: modello mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 36) -please fix When I fixed the mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs warning, the unversioned-explicit-provides warning disappeared. Perhaps you could double check this? X specfile is legible - should have %define _with_gcj_support 1 at the top of the spec file, please get rid of %define _with_gcj_support 0 and %define gcj_support 0, and the %define gcj_support doesn't seems like it can be split up into multiple lines When I do this, I am no longer able to build: java-gcj-compat-devel is needed by modello-1.0-0.1.a8.4jpp.1.i38 X make sure lines are = 80 characters There are a couple of lines that are 80, please fix those if possible. I fixed most of them. The ones that I didn't, were causing build errors. Here are the links to the the source rpm and spec file: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/249/modello.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/250/modello-1.0-0.1.a8.4jpp.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 208034] Review Request: HippoDraw - Interactive and Python scriptable data analysis application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: HippoDraw - Interactive and Python scriptable data analysis application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208034 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 10:57 EST --- The build failed because latex was not found and the configure script issued an error instead of a warning. If latex (and dvips and netpbm-progs) are found an additional feature is built in the main program. Question: should I add these the build requirements or fix the configure to issue a warning instead of error or both? Is it bad practice to add addtional build requirements to enable non-essential features? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226122] Merge Review: man-pages-da
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: man-pages-da https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226122 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226128] Merge Review: man-pages-pl
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: man-pages-pl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226128 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226129] Merge Review: man-pages-ru
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: man-pages-ru https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226129 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 11:10 EST --- I agree with Ralf. A -devel split makes sense iff someone can come up with a sensible definition for what goes into -devel, but as-is it just look like a knee-jerk reaction to an rpmlint warning. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227098] Review Request: plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-0.a7s.2jpp - Plexus Component Creator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-0.a7s.2jpp - Plexus Component
Creator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227098
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 11:11 EST ---
Please fix items marked by X:
MUST:
* package is named appropriately
- match upstream tarball or project name
- try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
- specfile should be %{name}.spec
- non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
something)
- for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
- if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be
not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name
* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
- OSI-approved
- not a kernel module
- not shareware
- is it covered by patents?
- it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
- no binary firmware
X license field matches the actual license.
This is MIT-Style license
* license is open source-compatible.
- use acronyms for licences where common
* specfile name matches %{name}
X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
- the tar command in the comments will create a
plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-alpha-7-SNAPSHOT.tar.gz, but Source0 is
%{name}-src.tar.gz.
- md5sum mismatch, but diff -r shows contents are the same.
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
* correct buildroot
- should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
X license text included in package and marked with %doc
- no license marked with %doc
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
X rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output
W: plexus-bsh-factory non-standard-group Development/Java -this is ok
W: plexus-bsh-factory mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line
57) -please fix this
* changelog format is ok
* Packager tag should not be used
* Vendor tag should not be used
* Distribution tag should not be used
* use License and not Copyright
* Summary tag should not end in a period
* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
X specfile is legible
- should have %define _with_gcj_support 1 at the top of the spec file, please
get rid of %define _with_gcj_support 0 and %define gcj_support 0
- the %define gcj_support doesn't seems like it can be split up
into multiple lines
- don't we need a %define _without_maven 1 for building in plague?
- for the %post and %postun, the if condition should probably be before the
the %post[,un] so that there won't be an empty %post[,un] if gcj_support is 0.
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
- builds in mock will flush out problems here
- the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires:
bash
bzip2
coreutils
cpio
diffutils
fedora-release (and/or redhat-release)
gcc
gcc-c++
gzip
make
patch
perl
redhat-rpm-config
rpm-build
sed
tar
unzip
which
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
* make sure lines are = 80 characters
* specfile written in American English
* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
- see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
* don't use rpath
* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
* should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
* use macros appropriately and consistently
- ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
* don't use %makeinstall
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
- if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
end of %install
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package should probably not be relocatable
* package contains code
- see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
- in general, there should be no offensive content
* package should own all directories and files
* there should be no %files duplicates
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
[Bug 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 11:13 EST --- As the person who wrote the new spec file, I can assure you that it was not a knee-jerk reaction to an rpmlint warning. The packaging guidelines are rather clear about when a package needs a -devel, and perl needed one. Now, in the same breath, I'm more than willing to cede that there are some bits missing in -devel. All of ExtUtils::MakeMaker needs to move over, for example (I'm not sure we can put it in a separate package, not tested whether perl can build without a local copy). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 11:21 EST --- The 25/02/2007 rpm installs but wouldn't load because I didn't have the pkg_resources module. Could python-setuptools be added as a dependency? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 11:28 EST --- (In reply to comment #61) The 25/02/2007 rpm installs but wouldn't load because I didn't have the pkg_resources module. Could python-setuptools be added as a dependency? I added this as a buildrequires but can quite happily add it as a dependency. I will rebuild and pull updates from svn as well, then re-post. Many thanks for your comments. Regards Chris -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 11:28 EST --- A knee-jerk reaction to a packaging guideline has the same effect :) CPAN depends on MakeMaker. Will CPAN be moved to -devel 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 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 11:36 EST --- AND... for the record, it was not a knee-jerk reaction to a packaging guideline either: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00025.html I proposed it and no one else on the Packaging Committee was on board with permitting perl to be an exception case. So, here we are. Are you done with knee-jerking? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208034] Review Request: HippoDraw - Interactive and Python scriptable data analysis application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: HippoDraw - Interactive and Python scriptable data analysis application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208034 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 11:37 EST --- IMO - you should enable all available features at build time, and the use has no way of adding it later. Try to aviod adding excessive runtime Requires though. Sometimes this can be accomplished by moving some libraries/programs that require other libraries into a subpackage. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227105] Review Request: plexus-runtime-builder-1.0-0.a9.2jpp - Plexus Component Descriptor Creator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plexus-runtime-builder-1.0-0.a9.2jpp - Plexus Component Descriptor Creator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227105 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 11:39 EST --- X license field matches the actual license. This is MIT-Style license X license text included in package and marked with %doc no license marked with %doc No license text is included, or at least one that I could find. X rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output W: plexus-runtime-builder non-standard-group Development/Java - this is OK W: plexus-runtime-builder mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 53) -please fix this When I run rpmlint on the source rpm, I don't get the mixed-used-of-spaces-and-tabs warning. X specfile is legible - should have %define _with_gcj_support 1 at the top of the spec file, please get rid of %define _with_gcj_support 0 and %define gcj_support 0 - the %define gcj_support doesn't seems like it can be split up into multiple lines I changed this, but I cannot build: java-gcj-compat-devel is needed by plexus-runtime-builder-1.0-0.1.a9.2jpp.1.i386 X make sure lines are = 80 characters There are a couple of lines that are 80, please fix those if possible. Fixed. Here are the links to the updated source rpm and spec file: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/238/plexus-runtime-builder.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/239/plexus-runtime-builder-1.0-0.1.a9.2jpp.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 226813] Merge Review: zsh
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: zsh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226813 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 11:52 EST --- ok, but then do they need the #!/bin/zsh at the top of each file if they aren't going to be executed? They don't need it, I regard that as a comment saying this is designed to work with zsh. I could remove the comment, or more likely make the files executable just to silence the warning ... I guess. It's kind of hacky but maybe the least resistence solution. Can't RPM_SOURCE_DIR just be removed from that? The install section should be run with a current working dir of the top of the source dir I think... I'm not sure, I can try it to see. I tried to find documentation that told me of a better way to do that but couldn't find any ... so just left it alone. 2. W: zsh mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 72, tab: line 108) Only a nitpick. Remove if you like while making other changes. I looked at this, IMNSHO rpmlint needs to be fixed for this. The tab is in a string which is output, removing that would be very bad. I thought about changing it to use \t ... but I'd rather not change it at all, and rpmlint is certainly the wrong one here. I'll probably remove the patch, Colin added it in Jan, 2005 and it hasn't ever been enabled AFAICS. Is there policy text anywhere about why doing the dep. on /sbin/install-info is the right approach? Dito. %makeinstall ... I'd just like to know (and have it documented here) why that should 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 208034] Review Request: HippoDraw - Interactive and Python scriptable data analysis application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: HippoDraw - Interactive and Python scriptable data analysis application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208034 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 11:57 EST --- Well, for conditional dependencies (ref: Conditional dependencies of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines ) * generally you should enable all features which can be done by using rpms available on fedora. In short, default is ALL. * If you have some reason you want to disable some feature, you must explicitly disable it (e.g. --without-*** or so) and explain why. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227064] Review Request: jakarta-commons-io-1.2-2jpp - Commons IO Package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jakarta-commons-io-1.2-2jpp - Commons IO Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227064 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 11:58 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: jakarta-commons-io Short Description: Utilities to assist with developing IO functionality Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: 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 230142] Review Request: SBLIM megapackage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: SBLIM megapackage https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230142 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 11:59 EST --- Does anyone have any spare cycles to look at this? This new package is a combination of the four existing packages and adding some new ones based on the templates of the four already approved packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227063] Review Request: jakarta-commons-cli-1.0-7jpp - Jakarta Commons CLI, a Command Line Interface for Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jakarta-commons-cli-1.0-7jpp - Jakarta Commons CLI, a Command Line Interface for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227063 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 12:00 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: jakarta-commons-cli Short Description: A Command Line Interface for Java Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: 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 227117] Review Request: tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp - A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp - A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227117 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 12:02 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: tagsoup Short Description: A SAX-compliant HTML parser written in Java Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: 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 227034] Review Request: asm2-2.1-2jpp - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: asm2-2.1-2jpp - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227034 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 12:03 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: asm2 Short Description: A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: 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 227065] Review Request: jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-1jpp - Jakarta Commons Net Package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-1jpp - Jakarta Commons Net Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227065 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 12:05 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: jakarta-commons-net Short Description: Internet protocol suite Java library Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: 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 231011] Review Request: cowpatty - Audit Wpa pre-shared keys
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cowpatty - Audit Wpa pre-shared keys https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231011 [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 227102] Review Request: plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp - Plexus I18N Component
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp - Plexus I18N Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227102 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 12:06 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: plexus-i18n Short Description: Plexus I18N Component Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: 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 167147] Review Request: aqsis - 3D Rendering system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 12:09 EST --- (In reply to comment #79) (In reply to comment #75) One note: Currently I cannot access to http://download.aqsis.org/stable/source/tar/aqsis-1.2.0.tar.gz Our download site is down at the moment (hardware issue), though should be online again later this evening... apologies for the inconvenience but I will keep you posted. Our download site is now (back) online... http://download.aqsis.org Enjoy! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 13:20 EST --- Aurelien? review status? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194279] Review Request: kdeartwork: Extra KDE artwork (themes, sound themes, ...) for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdeartwork: Extra KDE artwork (themes, sound themes, ...) for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194279 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225961] Merge Review: kdebase
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: kdebase https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225961 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 195485] Review Request: kdegraphics: K Desktop Environment - Graphics Applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdegraphics: K Desktop Environment - Graphics Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195485 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||om) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225961] Merge Review: kdebase
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: kdebase https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225961 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|Reopened| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 13:26 EST --- Obligatory rpmlint runs: $rpmlint kdebase-devel-3.5.6-1.fc7.i386.rpm W: kdebase-devel incoherent-version-dependency-on kdebase 6:3.5.6-1.fc7.i386 3.5.6 W: kdebase-devel no-documentation $rpmlint kdebase-3.5.6-1.fc7.i386.rpm E: kdebase useless-explicit-provides kdebase E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_kxkb.so libkdeinit_kxkb.so E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_konsole.so libkdeinit_konsole.so E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_kate.so libkdeinit_kate.so E: kdebase invalid-directory-reference /usr/lib/kde3/kded_homedirnotify.la E: kdebase invalid-directory-reference /usr/lib/kde3/kio_home.la E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_kaccess.so libkdeinit_kaccess.so E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_kmenuedit.so libkdeinit_kmenuedit.so E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_kcontroledit.so libkdeinit_kcontroledit.so E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_khelpcenter.so libkdeinit_khelpcenter.so E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_kcminit_startup.so libkdeinit_kcminit_startup.so E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_kfmclient.so libkdeinit_kfmclient.so E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_klipper.so libkdeinit_klipper.so E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_kdesktop.so libkdeinit_kdesktop.so E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_appletproxy.so libkdeinit_appletproxy.so E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_khotkeys.so libkdeinit_khotkeys.so E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_kprinter.so libkdeinit_kprinter.so E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_keditbookmarks.so libkdeinit_keditbookmarks.so E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_kjobviewer.so libkdeinit_kjobviewer.so E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_kcminit.so libkdeinit_kcminit.so E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_kwin.so libkdeinit_kwin.so E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_konqueror.so libkdeinit_konqueror.so E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_kwrite.so libkdeinit_kwrite.so E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_ksmserver.so libkdeinit_ksmserver.so E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_kcontrol.so libkdeinit_kcontrol.so E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_kicker.so libkdeinit_kicker.so E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_extensionproxy.so libkdeinit_extensionproxy.so E: kdebase invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit_kwin_rules_dialog.so libkdeinit_kwin_rules_dialog.so E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/clockappletrc E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/katerc E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/kcmnspluginrc E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/kdeglobals E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/kdesktop_custom_menu1 E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/kdesktop_custom_menu2 E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/kdesktoprc E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/kdewizardrc E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/kdm E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/kickerrc E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/klaunchrc E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/klipperrc E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/kmailrc E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/kminipagerappletrc E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/knotify.eventsrc E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/knotifyrc E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/konqsidebartng.rc E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/konquerorrc E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/konsolerc E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/korgacrc E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/kshorturifilterrc E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/ksplashrc E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/ktiprc E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/kwinrc E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/kxkb_groups E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/profilerc E: kdebase file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/xsessions/kde.desktop E: kdebase script-without-shellbang
[Bug 226276] Merge Review: perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 13:40 EST --- (In reply to comment #20) https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00025.html I proposed it and no one else on the Packaging Committee was on board with permitting perl to be an exception case. I read the replies to the above message pretty much exactly the opposite - I don't see anyone being explicitly against it. rdieter and tibbs were explicitly on board, and myself, f13 and thimm more or less without an opinion formed at that point (FWIW, I still haven't, but the clock is ticking). https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00027.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00029.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00038.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00039.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00047.html There were also a few non-FPC member comments to the suggestion, slightly leaning towards being leaving things as is. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230831] Review Request: games-menus - Catagorized submenus for the GNOME/KDE Games menu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: games-menus - Catagorized submenus for the GNOME/KDE Games menu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230831 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 13:45 EST --- Created an attachment (id=149278) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=149278action=view) Polish translation patch Polish translations of all untranslated categories. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227087] Review Request: modello-1.0-0.a8.4jpp - Modello Data Model toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: modello-1.0-0.a8.4jpp - Modello Data Model toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227087 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 13:49 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) X license field matches the actual license. I can't find the license for this project, could you please point me to it? http://maven.apache.org/maven-1.x/plugins/modello/license.html That seems to be the license for the modello plugin for maven, i took a look at their files, and it should be MIT Style license. X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - please put clear instructions on how to generate the the source drop, the svn export command doesn't work Hmm.. don't know why it wasn't working before. Sorry about that. The svn export command works for me. X rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output W: modello non-standard-group Development/Java - this is ok W: modello unversioned-explicit-provides modello-maven-plugin -please fix W: modello mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 36) -please fix When I fixed the mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs warning, the unversioned-explicit-provides warning disappeared. Perhaps you could double check this? I'm still getting all the warnings, could you please double check as well? I tried both spec file by installing the rpm or just downloading the one from your url. X specfile is legible - should have %define _with_gcj_support 1 at the top of the spec file, please get rid of %define _with_gcj_support 0 and %define gcj_support 0, and the %define gcj_support doesn't seems like it can be split up into multiple lines When I do this, I am no longer able to build: java-gcj-compat-devel is needed by modello-1.0-0.1.a8.4jpp.1.i38 Let's find a machine that you can build this on. X make sure lines are = 80 characters There are a couple of lines that are 80, please fix those if possible. I fixed most of them. The ones that I didn't, were causing build errors. OK. Another thing is we'll need a without_maven option for this since this is a dependency for maven Here are the links to the the source rpm and spec file: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/249/modello.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/250/modello-1.0-0.1.a8.4jpp.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 227087] Review Request: modello-1.0-0.a8.4jpp - Modello Data Model toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: modello-1.0-0.a8.4jpp - Modello Data Model toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227087 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 13:50 EST --- Reassigning... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225961] Merge Review: kdebase
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: kdebase
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225961
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 13:51 EST ---
0. rpmlint has its usual, but mostly misplaced (kde-wise) complaints.
1. SHOULD drop
Provides: %{name} = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release}.%{_arch}
not sure why this was added, but I'm pretty sure it's neither needed or a good
idea.
2. SHOULD
+Requires: psmisc
for /sbin/fuser (and kio_media_mounthelper)
(can be addressed post-review)
3.
Not sure of the wisdom for the scriptlet:
%{_bindir}/kbuildsycoca --noincremental --global /dev/null 21 || :
though if we *do* want this, kdelibs should own this global cache:
%ghost %{_datadir}/services/ksycoca
This can also be discussed/decided post-review.
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 230831] Review Request: games-menus - Catagorized submenus for the GNOME/KDE Games menu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: games-menus - Catagorized submenus for the GNOME/KDE Games menu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230831 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 13:51 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) For a lot more info on this. So anyone interested in reviewing this? I'm interested in reviewing if you fix things I mentioned above. Also I think that we can get rid of rpmlint no-documentation warning by including https:// www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-games-list/2007-March/msg3.html as a README. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227094] Review Request: plexus-ant-factory-1.0-0.a1.2jpp - Plexus Component Creator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plexus-ant-factory-1.0-0.a1.2jpp - Plexus Component Creator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227094 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 13:57 EST --- I'll take this one as 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 230831] Review Request: games-menus - Catagorized submenus for the GNOME/KDE Games menu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: games-menus - Catagorized submenus for the GNOME/KDE Games menu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230831 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 14:04 EST --- Is there a plan to get this integrated into the gnome-menus (redhat-menus?) and/or kde-menus(?) packages? In the long term that seems like the right place to put these menus. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220630] Review Request: qpidc - C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid. Upstream for Red Hat Messaging.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qpidc - C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid. Upstream for Red Hat Messaging. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220630 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 14:07 EST --- Please add Nuno Santos [EMAIL PROTECTED] as an owner of the qpidc package. He'll be helping to maintain it going forward. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230142] Review Request: SBLIM megapackage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: SBLIM megapackage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230142
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 14:07 EST ---
Just a few comments from a beginner
- all SourceN should be full URL; according to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL , one should use smtg similar
to Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- Could you please explain why %dist provided by the build system is not
satisfactory and you rely on a specific custom macro (%{?!LINUX_DISTRIBUTION:
%define LINUX_DISTRIBUTION fc6}) ?
- perl is on the exception list, so it does not need to be listed as BR; OTOH
depending on the requirements of the packaged software and on the avenue taken
by the on-going discussions which take place these days, perl-devel MIGHT need
to be needed. See
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00025.html for
some details.
And last but not least, mock build fails. The build log ends with:
Binary file
/var/tmp/sblim-1-12.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/cmpi/libLinux_NFSv3SettingContext.so
matches
Binary file
/var/tmp/sblim-1-12.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/cmpi/libcmpiOSBase_BootOSFromFSProvider.so
mat
ches
Binary file
/var/tmp/sblim-1-12.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/cmpi/libSyslog_ServiceProcess.so
matches
Binary file
/var/tmp/sblim-1-12.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/cmpi/libSyslog_LogRecord.so
matches
Found '/var/tmp/sblim-1-12.fc6-root-mockbuild' in installed files; aborting
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.44358 (%install)
- your approach of including 11 different programs in a single megapackage leads
to the situation that, if any of the 11 needs rebuilding, the only solution is
to rebuild ALL of them. Even if the version and releases for the non-modified 10
other are preserved, they will still be built (even if they will not be pushed
after that)
- The actual install is done in a global %build. This kind of violates the
current practices.
I for one am in favor of keeping the packages separated, with clean and clear
(read: %make / %install) specs for each one of them. If needed, a meta-package
could also be created so that yum install sblim would pull in all the stuff.
Since they are similar, 4 of them have already been approved and provide rather
important stuff, I am confident that the reviews would not have problems.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229910] Review Request: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect via backend drivers.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect via backend drivers. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229910 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 14:14 EST --- http://people.redhat.com/bpeck/conmux/conmux-0-1.493svn.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/bpeck/conmux/conmux.spec Updated to newer upstream, dropped socket patch. Updated perl_sitelib to perl_vendorlib Can anyone see anything else that I need to fix? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230142] Review Request: SBLIM megapackage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: SBLIM megapackage https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230142 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 14:16 EST --- Oh well, working in too many windows + copy/paste from a text console is evil. Please bear with the need to be needed which should be read need to be added and with the wrong order of paragraphs. The last but not least should have been the last paragraph. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-03-05 14:19 EST --- I have applied more style updates to the dhcp.spec file and I've broken out some of the files that appeared in patches but that you thought would be better listed as Source files. I've added some comments in places where you suggested they be added. Still working on breaking out patches in to individual features. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230831] Review Request: games-menus - Catagorized submenus for the GNOME/KDE Games menu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: games-menus - Catagorized submenus for the GNOME/KDE Games menu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230831 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 14:22 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #3) For a lot more info on this. So anyone interested in reviewing this? I'm interested in reviewing if you fix things I mentioned above. Also I think that we can get rid of rpmlint no-documentation warning by including https:// www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-games-list/2007-March/msg3.html as a README. Okay, I usually wait for a complete review (which most of the times turns up more things to fix) and then fix everything in one go, but if you want a fixed version first let me know and I'll create a version with the things mentioned sofar fixed. (In reply to comment #6) Is there a plan to get this integrated into the gnome-menus (redhat-menus?) and/or kde-menus(?) packages? In the long term that seems like the right place to put these menus. Well for people who do not install a gazillion games this isn't needed, and I foresee huge resistance to making this a standard part of xxx-menus . So I'm not going todo that, but if someone else wants to try I won't stop him :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220630] Review Request: qpidc - C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid. Upstream for Red Hat Messaging.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qpidc - C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid. Upstream for Red Hat Messaging. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220630 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 14:22 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 190000] Review Request: partimage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: partimage https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||INSUFFICIENT_DATA OtherBugsDependingO|188268 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 14:43 EST --- Closing as dead review. -- 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 228894] Review Request: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228894 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 14:46 EST --- What is the status of coordinating this with the removal of portmap? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230831] Review Request: games-menus - Catagorized submenus for the GNOME/KDE Games menu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: games-menus - Catagorized submenus for the GNOME/KDE Games menu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230831 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 14:51 EST --- What about following this article for translations? Wouldn't it be easier to maintain? http://www.redhat.com/magazine/013nov05/features/freedesktop/ I hope it is still actual though. Andrea. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226813] Merge Review: zsh
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: zsh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226813 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 15:21 EST --- -6 is building now. It doesn't fix the TABs in strings, or use of makeinstall macro. I think everything else is fixed though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229910] Review Request: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect via backend drivers.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect
via backend drivers.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229910
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 15:23 EST ---
Quick glance:
- GOOD: package builds fine in mock/devel/x86_64
- estethic :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] conmux]$ rpmlint conmux-0-1.493svn.fc7.src.rpm
W: conmux mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 21, tab: line 1)
The fix is obvious...
- MUSTFIX:
rpmlint conmux-0-1.493svn.fc7.noarch.rpm
E: conmux version-control-internal-file
/usr/share/doc/conmux-0/examples/.svn/text-base/README.svn-base
W: conmux hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/conmux-0/examples/.svn
W: conmux hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/conmux-0/examples/.svn
E: conmux version-control-internal-file
/usr/share/doc/conmux-0/examples/.svn/props
E: conmux version-control-internal-file
/usr/share/doc/conmux-0/examples/.svn/prop-base/direct.cf.svn-base
E: conmux version-control-internal-file
/usr/share/doc/conmux-0/examples/.svn/tmp/prop-base
E: conmux version-control-internal-file
/usr/share/doc/conmux-0/examples/.svn/text-base/command.cf.svn-base
E: conmux version-control-internal-file
/usr/share/doc/conmux-0/examples/.svn/prop-base
E: conmux version-control-internal-file
/usr/share/doc/conmux-0/examples/.svn/text-base/socket.cf.svn-base
E: conmux version-control-internal-file
/usr/share/doc/conmux-0/examples/.svn/prop-base/socket.cf.svn-base
E: conmux version-control-internal-file
/usr/share/doc/conmux-0/examples/.svn/text-base/direct.cf.svn-base
E: conmux version-control-internal-file
/usr/share/doc/conmux-0/examples/.svn/tmp/text-base
E: conmux version-control-internal-file
/usr/share/doc/conmux-0/examples/.svn/format
E: conmux version-control-internal-file
/usr/share/doc/conmux-0/examples/.svn/tmp/props
E: conmux version-control-internal-file
/usr/share/doc/conmux-0/examples/.svn/prop-base/command.cf.svn-base
E: conmux version-control-internal-file
/usr/share/doc/conmux-0/examples/.svn/tmp
E: conmux version-control-internal-file
/usr/share/doc/conmux-0/examples/.svn/prop-base/README.svn-base
E: conmux version-control-internal-file
/usr/share/doc/conmux-0/examples/.svn/text-base
E: conmux version-control-internal-file
/usr/share/doc/conmux-0/examples/.svn/entries
Since there are a couple of other useless .svn directories, I suggest using
something similar to find /path -name .svn -type d -exec rm -fR {} \; in
order to remove all of them.
- other messages from rpmlint:
W: conmux no-reload-entry /etc/init.d/conmux
This one can be ignored
E: conmux subsys-not-used /etc/init.d/conmux
I admit I cannot figure out why does rpmlint complain here
- rpmlint warns about no docs in -common and -client. Those can be safely
ignored.
- The name of the doc folder is /usr/share/doc/conmux-0. Is the ending -0
really intended? If yes, why? If not...
- Timestamps of the scripts (init.d / logrotate) are not preserved at install
time. Usually adding INSTALL=%{__install} -p to make install fixes that.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jokosher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 15:30 EST ---
(In reply to comment #60)
The fixes in previous comments have either been applied upstream or are no
longer relevant. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. The build now runs
from the setup.py file. The srpms are at the URI you indicated. I am building
pre-release packages from svn in readiness for 0.9 final which is due in a few
weeks.
There were some fixes to the spec file that have been lost as well.
Good to know it is building okay for you in x86_64. I'm still concerned about
David's issue however - any thoughts? What needs to happen now to get this
accepted?
I've found David's issue and will attach a patch that you can take upstream. As
for getting this in, I don't have time for a complete review but I do have a few
comments. Maybe after you fix these and apply the patch, David can continue to
do the review::
* Cosmetic: The tarball you've created is really a .tar file, not a .tar.gz.
Rpm knows how to handle it, however, and also compresses its payload so it's not
strictly necessary to fix this. It would be nice to be accurate when a human
extracts the source rpm and tries to look at the sources, though. So having
jokosher-0.9.tar or actually gzipping the tarball would be appropriate :-)
* A recent addition to the Packaging Guidelines is that for packaging snapshots
you need to show how to recreate the snapshot either in a script that you
include as another Source line or in a comment. ie::
# This tarball is a snapshot. You can recreate it by doing:
# svn co -r 321 http://svn.jokosher.org/trunk jokosher-0.9
# tar -czvf jokosher-20070225.snap.tar.gz jokosher-0.9
This allows reviewers to easily check that the sources are coming from upstream.
* The BuildArch: noarch is missing from the spec file
* You aren't cleaning the buildroot prior to installing (rpmlint warns about
this)
* You aren't installing the omf file and registering with scrollkeeper within
the %post/%postun in the spec file so the help files won't be found.
* You aren't calling update-mime-database or update-desktop-database in the spec
file's %post/%postun so jokosher's mimetype and mailcap entries aren't being
created.
* You have a raft of unowned directories. As an example, changing your file
entries from this:
%{_datadir}/%{name}/pixmaps/*.png
into this:
%{_datadir}/%{name}/
will own the jokosher directory and all of its subdirectories and files.
Where you cannot do this because you don't want all of the files inside the
directories you can change from this::
%exclude %{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/Profiler.py
%{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/*.py
%{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/*.pyo
%{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/*.pyc
into this:
%exclude %{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/Profiler.py
%dir %{python_sitelib}/Jokosher
%{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/*.py
%{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/*.pyo
%{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/*.pyc
* It looks like you've got the jokosher help in three places:
/usr/share/gnome/help/jokosher, /usr/share/doc/jokosher-0.9/userguide, and
/usr/share/doc/jokosher-0.9/jokosher
It probably only neds to be in /usr/share/gnome/help/
* You need to use the %find_lang macro to include the *.mo files, not just
include them in the %files section. The way you've currently got it setup,
people won't be able to specify which languages they're interested in when they
install this.
* David's error is coming from the section of setup.py dealing with installing
omf files. However, the whole handling of omf files has issues. Attaching a
patch.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-05 15:33 EST --- Created an attachment (id=149290) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=149290action=view) Rework omf file installation Patch to setup.py that better handles omf file installation. OMF files are always installed now. But we don't register them with scrollkeeper unless the user is root. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
