[Bug 227676] Review Request: scorchwentbonkers - Realtime remake of Scorched Earth
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: scorchwentbonkers - Realtime remake of Scorched Earth Alias: scorchwentbonkers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227676 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 04:05 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 232070] Review Request: hawknl - Game oriented network library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hawknl - Game oriented network library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232070 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 04:10 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 232399] New: Review Request: gscan2pdf - A GUI for producing a multipage PDF from a scan
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=232399 Summary: Review Request: gscan2pdf - A GUI for producing a multipage PDF from a scan Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/gscan2pdf.spec SRPM URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/gscan2pdf-0.9.5-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: A GUI to ease the process of producing a multipage PDF from a scan. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206814] Review Request: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206814 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 04:20 EST --- Okay small item in the build log. checking for wxWindows version >= 2.4.2 (--unicode=no)... Warning: No config found to match: /usr/bin/wx-config --static --libs in /usr/lib/wx/config If you require this configuration, please install the desired library build. If this is part of an automated configuration test and no other errors occur, you may safely ignore it. You may use wx-config --list to see all configs available in the default prefix. I assume this is a bogus warning since the hugin application does appear to function. But I thought I'd point it out for comments from the submitter and possible the upstream author. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232394] Review Request: pdfedit - A complete pdf document editing solution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pdfedit - A complete pdf document editing solution https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232394 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 04:20 EST --- According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets?highlight=%28install%29%7C%28icons%29#head-7ffd8ce2de15fe69c6de937ac04b2b65e80187a1 it would be wise to add a couple of lines in %post -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221027] Review Request: LabPlot - Data Analysis and Visualization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: LabPlot - Data Analysis and Visualization https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221027 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 04:33 EST --- Ping ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225791] Merge Review: gettext
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: gettext https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225791 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 05:05 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) > > W: gettext-devel unused-direct-shlib-dependency > > /usr/lib/libasprintf.so.0.0.0 > > /lib/libm.so.6 > > This seems to be due to the libtool in gettext-runtime/libasprintf/. > Not sure if it is worth fixing. Fix this if you want. Currently this warning is ignored. This means that linkage against libm.so.6 is not needed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206814] Review Request: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to
PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206814
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 05:18 EST ---
Okay here's my formal review. There are two blockers that need to be address.
A directory ownership issue and the desktop file install process.
Get these fixed and I can approve.
-jef
Full review:
+ Good - BAD ? Questionable N/A Not Applicable
Items that need to be addressed
- A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
Problems:
/usr/share/mime/packages/hugin.xml
/usr/share/mime/packages/ is owned by shared-mime-info, hugin should require
shared-mime-info
/usr/share/icons/gnome/48x48/mimetypes/gnome-mime-application-x-ptoptimizer-script.png
/usr/share/icons/gnome/48x48/mimetypes/ is owned by openoffice.org-core
It's very difficult to say that hugin should require openoffice.org.core. This
directory ownership appears to be in error and thus I think its okay to make an
exception and have hugin NOT require openoffice.org.core just for the directory
ownership chain.
- includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the
desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop
Items which pass review.
+ rpmlint hugin-0.6.1-4.fc7.i386.rpm
clean
+ The package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
+ The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
Note: there are multiple codebases in the package and the License tag has the
most reasonable license for the collection.
+ If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its
own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package
must be included in %doc.
Note: Contains COPYING for the hugin codebase
Contains LICENCE_JHEAD for the public domain jhead codebase
Contains LICENCE_VIGRA for the MIT licensed vigra codebase
+ The spec file is written in American English-ese.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package match the upstream source,
md5sum
46bc3136d42acbabab837128ff471507 hugin-0.6.1.tar.bz2
+ The package builds on x86
+ BuildRequires look good, assuming the warning concerning wx-config is bogus..
as i believe it is.
+ The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
+ no shared libs
+ not designed to be relocatable
+ No duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ Permissions on files look okay.
+ %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
+ package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissable content.
+ no large docs
+ %doc files do not affect the runtime of the application.
+ no Header files
+ no static libraries in payload.
+ no pkgconfig(.pc)
+ no library files
+ no devel package
+ no .la libtool archives
+ Package does not own files or directories already owned by other 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 232406] New: Review Request: unpaper - Post-processing of scanned and photocopied book pages
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=232406 Summary: Review Request: unpaper - Post-processing of scanned and photocopied book pages Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/unpaper.spec SRPM URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/unpaper-0_2-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: unpaper is a post-processing tool for scanned sheets of paper, especially for book pages that have been scanned from previously created photocopies. The main purpose is to make scanned book pages better readable on screen after conversion to PDF. Additionally, unpaper might be useful to enhance the quality of scanned pages before performing optical character recognition (OCR). unpaper tries to clean scanned images by removing dark edges that appeared through scanning or copying on areas outside the actual page content (e.g. dark areas between the left-hand-side and the right-hand-side of a double- sided book-page scan). The program also tries to detect disaligned centering and rotation of pages and will automatically straighten each page by rotating it to the correct angle. This process is called "deskewing". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232394] Review Request: pdfedit - A complete pdf document editing solution
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pdfedit - A complete pdf document editing solution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232394
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 06:03 EST ---
GOOD
- rpmlint does not return anything either on source or on binary rpm
- 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 version, sha1sum
f011d456d5ccbf2b644338ba6ada2294fcca5606 pdfedit-0.2.5.tar.bz2
- package compiles on devel (x86_64)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- locales are treated by the app itself, no presence of %{_datadir}/locale/* in
the spec
- not relocatable
- owns all files and directories that it creates, does not take ownership of
foreign files/dirs
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs [*]
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- app is a GUI, desktop file correctly provided and used
- no .la./.pc/static files
SHOULD
- package builds in mock / devel & fc6/ x86_64
- program can be used (does not crash, loads a pdf ..)
Bernard, please include the missing scriptlets (see comment #1) and the missing
doc folder (or justify why it would not be needed) and I will approve the
package.
[*] please consider shipping the content of the /doc directory
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232408] New: Review Request: perl-GD-SVG - SVG output from scripts written using GD
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=232408 Summary: Review Request: perl-GD-SVG - SVG output from scripts written using GD Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://allele5.biol.berkeley.edu/~alex/fedora/perl-GD-SVG.spec SRPM URL: http://allele5.biol.berkeley.edu/~alex/fedora/perl-GD-SVG-0.28-1.src.rpm Description: Enables SVG output from scripts written using GD GD::SVG seamlessly enables the scalable vector graphics (SVG) output from scripts written using GD. It accomplishes this by translating GD functions into SVG functions. Part of a series of requirements for bioperl, see also: bug #232193. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 06:32 EST --- As I see gdal-1.4 will be soon available in Fedora Core 6 ande Fedora 7. Will you please make gpsdrive available soon afterwards because gdal is the mail dependency for it. Thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 06:34 EST --- As I see gdal-1.4 will be soon available in Fedora Core 6 ande Fedora 7. Will you please make gpsdrive available soon afterwards because gdal is the mail dependency for it. Thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 06:37 EST --- and now for the spell checked version :) As I see gdal-1.4 will be soon available in Fedora Core 6 and Fedora 7. Will you please make gpsdrive available as soon as possible because gdal is the main dependency for gpsdrive. Thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 06:45 EST --- I tried building rpm and got dependencies missing on Fedora Core 6, so I installed missing dependencies: # yum install libungif-devel libjpeg-devel libtiff-devel unixODBC-devel mysql- devel sqlite-devel postgresql-devel proj-devel geos-devel netcdf-devel hdf5- devel ogdi-devel jasper-devel cfitsio-devel hdf-devel libdap-devel librx-devel perl-devel xerces-c-devel I tried again: $ rpmbuild gdal.spec error: Failed build dependencies: perl-devel >= 5.8 is needed by gdal-1.4.0-10.i386 I don't see perl-devel in fedora core 6 repositories. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229419] Review Request: glew - The OpenGL Extension Wrangler Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: glew - The OpenGL Extension Wrangler Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229419 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 06:47 EST --- According to Milan Ikits (glew's main developper) : "Note that each file includes the corresponding licenses: glew.h: SGI FSL + BSD glxew.h: GLX + BSD wglew.h: BSD glew.c: BSD auto/bin/*: GPL 2" Found this thread on glew's mailing list : https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=31176341&forum_id=43720 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 06:59 EST --- The newest is -13 (still not released). If you want to try, you can download them from: http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/plague-results/fedora-6-extras/gdal/1.4.0-13.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 229419] Review Request: glew - The OpenGL Extension Wrangler Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: glew - The OpenGL Extension Wrangler Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229419 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 07:37 EST --- So does this mean glew can or can't be included in fedora? The debian package is essentially unmodified from upstream and the debian maintainers seem to be clear that the package itself doesn't include any SGI licensed code: Parts of the public interface are *generated* from components distributed by Silicon Graphics, Inc. available under the conditions quoted below. None of these components are included in the source package and are available only thru CVS. Note that I am packaging this as it is a dependency of enblend. I have a patch that removes glew support from enblend without any great loss of functionality, so should I take this path instead? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226387] Merge Review: samba
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: samba https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226387 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225765] Merge Review: fonts-japanese
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: fonts-japanese https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225765 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 07:47 EST --- Fixed in 0.20061016-4.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226387] Merge Review: samba
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: samba https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226387 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC||[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 226387] Merge Review: samba
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: samba https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226387 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 07:51 EST --- Simo, Is it a good idea to start review now (using data from CVS), or maybe wait for some more changes finished? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 07:52 EST ---
(In reply to comment #72)
> I tried building rpm and got dependencies missing on Fedora Core 6, so I
> installed missing dependencies:
>
> # yum install libungif-devel libjpeg-devel libtiff-devel unixODBC-devel
mysql-
> devel sqlite-devel postgresql-devel proj-devel geos-devel netcdf-devel hdf5-
> devel ogdi-devel jasper-devel cfitsio-devel hdf-devel libdap-devel
librx-devel
> perl-devel xerces-c-devel
>
> I tried again:
> $ rpmbuild gdal.spec
> error: Failed build dependencies:
> perl-devel >= 5.8 is needed by gdal-1.4.0-10.i386
It builds in mock !
look in spec:
%if "%{?dist}" == ".fc7"
BuildRequires: perl-devel >= 5.8
%elseif
BuildRequires: perl
%endif
but ?dist var make sense in mock build enviroment only.
If you want just leave 'perl' instead of 'perl-devel' by hand than go
rpmbuild-it, or otherwise i suggest to build it in mock enviroment.
BTW, if have better idea to workaround FC6 let me know.
>
> I don't see perl-devel in fedora core 6 repositories.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232071] Review Request: openlierox - Addictive realtime multiplayer 2D shoot-em-up
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openlierox - Addictive realtime multiplayer 2D shoot-em-up https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232071 Bug 232071 depends on bug 232070, which changed state. Bug 232070 Summary: Review Request: hawknl - Game oriented network library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232070 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232070] Review Request: hawknl - Game oriented network library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hawknl - Game oriented network library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232070 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 08:00 EST --- Thanks for the review! Imported and build, closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227676] Review Request: scorchwentbonkers - Realtime remake of Scorched Earth
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: scorchwentbonkers - Realtime remake of Scorched Earth Alias: scorchwentbonkers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227676 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 08:00 EST --- Thanks for the review! Imported and build, closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231746] Review Request: ettercap - Network traffic sniffer/analyser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ettercap - Network traffic sniffer/analyser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231746 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 08:11 EST --- Spec URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/extras/ettercap/ettercap.spec SRPM URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/extras/ettercap/ettercap-0.7.3-9.src.rpm - Removed libtool BR. - Removed .la files. - Moved plugins to subpackage. - Re-added Provides to GTK package. Seems all that remains is the symlink/alternatives issue. Would alternatives outright replace the symlinks? I'm somewhat muddled, though the pre/post scripts for it in 46 make sense. WRT 50: I suppose that makes a solution to the timestamp issue moot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 08:14 EST --- (In reply to comment #71) > and now for the spell checked version :) > > As I see gdal-1.4 will be soon available in Fedora Core 6 and Fedora 7. > Will you please make gpsdrive available as soon as possible because gdal is the main dependency for gpsdrive. Well, i personaly not. Already maintain ogdi/gdal/ and soon grass. already got a list of infinite problemes with these, and the correct and right thing is to help olso upstream, so i think another gpsdrive (wich looks pretty biggy) would be an overload, and i dont know how that tool work in fact. Valent, why you dont try to go through submission proccess ? if you really want that tool in -extra, maybe you can help us with that ! The tool indeed looks great, so just a maintainer for -extras is needed :-) BTW, as start, read please the gdal -fedora comment form docs inside the package and keep in mind is a bit stripped version of upstream gdal, due to license problems. > > Thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226131] Merge Review: man
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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226131 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 08:21 EST --- ACCEPT -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226481] Merge Review: tcpdump
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: tcpdump https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226481 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 08:22 EST --- Thanks, should be fixed in tcpdump-3.9.5-3.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197137] Review Request: Conga - Remote management interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Conga - Remote management interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197137 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 08:30 EST --- Is there an updated srpm? Last time I tried this didn't build before, and there seems to just be a comment from Stanko about how to fix it, but no updates source package to try. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-03-15 08:36 EST --- http://people.redhat.com/bpeck/conmux/conmux.spec http://people.redhat.com/bpeck/conmux/conmux-0.0-5.493svn.src.rpm Fixed obsoletes/provides updated init script and service conmuxd condrestart, gee wonder what spec file I was looking at. ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 08:50 EST ---
(In reply to comment #74)
> look in spec:
>
> %if "%{?dist}" == ".fc7"
> BuildRequires: perl-devel >= 5.8
> %elseif
> BuildRequires: perl
> %endif
>
> but ?dist var make sense in mock build enviroment only.
>
> If you want just leave 'perl' instead of 'perl-devel' by hand than go
> rpmbuild-it, or otherwise i suggest to build it in mock enviroment.
>
> BTW, if have better idea to workaround FC6 let me know.
Try this:
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
This should work for both FC-6 and devel.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226387] Merge Review: samba
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: samba https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226387 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 08:59 EST --- We are close, I should have something v. close to final this afternoon (EST Time) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232417] New: Review Request: firmware-addon-dell - A firmware-tools plugin to handle BIOS/Firmware for Dell systems
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=232417 Summary: Review Request: firmware-addon-dell - A firmware-tools plugin to handle BIOS/Firmware for Dell systems 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://linux.dell.com/libsmbios/download/firmware-addon-dell/firmware-addon-dell-1.2.1/firmware-addon-dell.spec SRPM URL: http://linux.dell.com/libsmbios/download/firmware-addon-dell/firmware-addon-dell-1.2.1/firmware-addon-dell-1.2.1-1.src.rpm Description: The firmware-addon-dell package provides plugins to firmware-tools which enable BIOS updates for Dell system, plus pulls in standard inventory modules applicable to most Dell systems. Note: rpmlint gives one bogus error: $ rpmlint firmware-addon-dell-1.2.1-1.noarch.rpm E: firmware-addon-dell explicit-lib-dependency libsmbios-bin This is not an error because it is not an explicit lib dependency. The libsmbios-bin package has no libraries, just executables, which this plugin calls. The automatic dep generator does not find this 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 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 09:19 EST ---
Sweet !!(In reply to comment #76)
> (In reply to comment #74)
> > look in spec:
> >
> > %if "%{?dist}" == ".fc7"
> > BuildRequires: perl-devel >= 5.8
> > %elseif
> > BuildRequires: perl
> > %endif
> >
> > but ?dist var make sense in mock build enviroment only.
> >
> > If you want just leave 'perl' instead of 'perl-devel' by hand than go
> > rpmbuild-it, or otherwise i suggest to build it in mock enviroment.
> >
> > BTW, if have better idea to workaround FC6 let me know.
>
> Try this:
>
> BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
sweet !!
Thx a ton Paul !
I go update, anyway there is another reason to include
pkgconfig file olso !
> This should work for both FC-6 and devel.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225849] Merge Review: gnuplot
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: gnuplot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225849
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|MODIFIED
Flag|needinfo? |fedora-review?
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 09:20 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> * BuildRoot isn't the right one
fixed
> * Wouldn't it be a good idea to add directories holding truetype
> fonts located in %{_datatdir}/fonts to the gnuplot-4.0.0-refers_to.patch
> patch?
The fonts directories are changed too often to have them here.
> * A suggestion: depend on the font packages. It has pros and cons.
I'm not sure I like to discuss this with gnuplot upstream.
> * unuseful requires:
> Requires: libpng
fixed
> * I don't like the License tag. It appears not to be free software as it
> is now, although it is. Maybe it would be better to have something like
> License: Gnuplot
> And in a comment say something along
> # changes must be distributed as patches
fixed
> * RPM_OPT_FLAGS is unuseful on make command line, and %{?_smp_mflags}
> is missing. I tested that replacing with
> make %{?_smp_mflags}
> seems right.
fixed
> Is
> PATH=$RPM_BUILD_DIR/gnuplot-%{version}:$PATH
> really needed?
fixed
> * The %post scriptlet should be run everytime not only at install time
fixed
>
> * A suggestion: in %{files} use wildcard to handle different compression or
> no compression:
>
> %{_mandir}/man1/gnuplot.1*
> %{_infodir}/gnuplot.info*
I think the present version is right and it will help to reveal changes in new
versions.
>
>
> * The doc in psdoc isn't generated rightly. I suggested cd to the directory
> and
> make ps_symbols.ps ps_fontfile_doc.pdf
>
> Then distribute only
> ps_fontfile_doc.pdf ps_guide.ps ps_symbols.ps ps_file.doc
fixed
> It implies a BuildRequires on latex for pdflatex
>
>
Add comment #2
version 4.2.0 will be put to fc8 now it is too late to upgrade.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232355] Review Request: firmware-tools - Scripts and tools to manage firmware and BIOS updates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: firmware-tools - Scripts and tools to manage firmware and BIOS updates https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232355 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 09:43 EST --- /usr/share/firmware should probably be owned by the package because its configured as storage dir in the default conf file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232355] Review Request: firmware-tools - Scripts and tools to manage firmware and BIOS updates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: firmware-tools - Scripts and tools to manage firmware and BIOS updates https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232355 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 09:56 EST --- Thanks for the catch. Fixed in 1.2.2. http://linux.dell.com/libsmbios/download/firmware-tools/firmware-tools-1.2.2/firmware-tools.spec http://linux.dell.com/libsmbios/download/firmware-tools/firmware-tools-1.2.2/firmware-tools-1.2.2-1.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 227059] Review Request: httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp - Automated web site testing 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: httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp - Automated web site testing toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227059 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 09:59 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) > Those warnings are there because this package has both a doc and a javadoc > subpackage, and the api goes into the javadoc package, hence the symlink is > used > to reference to that. Okay. I was also able to build on mock. 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 227109] Review Request: pmd-3.6-1jpp - Scans Java source code and looks for potential problems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pmd-3.6-1jpp - Scans Java source code and looks for potential problems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227109 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 10:00 EST --- Fixed a BR. New spec and srpm: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/pmd/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227646] Review Request: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support
System)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 10:03 EST ---
updated.
Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/grass.spec
SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/grass-6.2.1-11.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #32)
> Created an attachment (id=150081)
-->
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=150081&action=view)
[edit]
> rpmlint log for grass-6.2.1-10
>
> Well, for 6.2.1-10:
>
> * Requies:
> A. for -devel:
> * lesstiff-devel - perhaps typo..
lesstif-devel is the correct. (according to one of include file)
> * rpmlint (attached)
> - Still complains about "undefined-non-weak-symbol", perhaps
exported LDFLAGS='-lm' for now globaly.
I would like to investigate it more deep and fix it upstream.
> However, the better idea is to add gdal.pc in gdal-devel,
> which has:
> -
> prefix=/usr
> exec_prefix=/usr
> libdir=/usr/lib
> includedir=/usr/include
>
> Name: GDAL
> Description: GIS file format library
> Version: 1.4.0
> Libs: -L${libdir}
> Cflags: -I%{includedir}/gdal
> -
> , which is installed under %{_libdir}/pkgconfig, and fix
> grass.pc so that
> -
> # Package Information for pkg-config
> prefix=/usr
> exec_prefix=/usr
> libdir=/usr/lib
> includedir=/usr/include
>
> Name: GRASS
> Description: GRASS GIS
> Version: 6.2.1
> Libs: -L%{libdir} -lgrass_I -lgrass_vask -lgrass_gmath -lgrass_gis
> -lgrass_datetime -lgrass_gproj -lgrass_vect -lgrass_dbmibase -lgrass
> _dbmiclient
> Cflags: -I${includedir}/grass
> Requires: xt x11 xproto glproto gdal
> -
> (on i386, ppc!! on x86_64, $libdir differ)
I followed second idea, added olso to gdal .pc file. I would like post olso
upstream. (Still work to update gdal, so it may take a while to propagate
into -extras)
Thank you for the fix !
> * For keeping timestamps:
> - For this the following seems to work (check how the timestamp
> change by adding following).
> sed -i 's|^cp |cp -p |' tools/build_html_index.sh <- ADD
> sed -i 's|-cp |-cp -p |' Makefile <- ADD
> %build
> export INSTALL="%{__install} -c -p" <- ADD
Added.
Thanks again for the hint !
> -
>
> * For license:
> - Well, I just asked you and from your comment it seems no problem
Well, its fine.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232423] New: Review Request: -
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232423 Summary: Review Request: - Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/perl-Class-Std/perl-Class-Std.spec SRPM URL: http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/perl-Class-Std/perl-Class-Std-0.0.8-1.src.rpm Description: This module provides tools that help to implement the "inside out object" class structure in a convenient and standard way. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232423] Review Request: perl-Class-Std - Support for creating standard "inside-out" classes
Please 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-Class-Std - Support for creating standard "inside-out" classes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232423 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: -|standard "inside-out" ||classes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227646] Review Request: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|222039, 222042, 230223 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|227646 | nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779
nThis||
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 10:08 EST ---
> gee, wonder what spec file I was looking at. ;-)
I have absolutely no idea. :D
Here's the results of a full pass over the spec and resulting packages:
* source files match upstream: n/a, its an svn checkout
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently
- only consistency issue I see is 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' in one place, but
'rm -rf "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"' in another, which is inconsequential, but you get
extra style points if they're made to match. :)
* dist tag is present
* build root is acceptable
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* license field matches the actual license: GPL
* license is open source-compatible: GPL License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged: no release version yet, acceptable use of
svn checkout
* BuildRequires are proper
* compiler flags are appropriate: n/a, its perl noarch stuff
* %clean is present
* package builds in mock (F7/x86_64)
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete: n/a, its noarch
* rpmlint is silent:
- only a W: for conmux-client containing no docs. You *could* add the main
README to the conmux-client sub-package if desired (could be useful in the case
where a system only has the client), but its not a requirement.
* final provides and requires are sane:
conmux provides:
config(conmux) = 0.0-5.493svn.fc6
conmux = 0.0-5.493svn.fc6
conmux requires:
config(conmux) = 0.0-5.493svn.fc6
conmux-client = 0.0-5.493svn.fc6
logrotate
perl
perl(Conmux)
perl(Getopt::Long)
perl(IO::Multiplex)
perl(IO::Socket)
perl(IPC::Open3)
perl(Net::Domain)
perl(Symbol)
perl(URI::Escape)
perl(base)
perl(lib)
perl(strict)
conmux-client provides:
---
config(conmux-client) = 0.0-5.493svn.fc6
conmux-common = 0.0-5.493svn.fc6
perl(Conmux)
perl(Conmux::Registry)
conmux-client = 0.0-5.493svn.fc6
conmux-client requires:
---
/usr/bin/perl
config(conmux-client) = 0.0-5.493svn.fc6
perl(Conmux)
perl(Getopt::Long)
perl(IO::Socket)
perl(POSIX)
perl(URI::Escape)
Looks sane enough to me.
* %check is present and all tests pass: n/a
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths
* owns the directories it creates
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't
* no duplicates in %files
* file permissions are appropriate
* scriptlets are appropriate
* code, not content
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers
* no pkgconfig files
* no libtool .la droppings
* not a GUI app
Only the two minor (non-blocking) issues I raised above, so this package is
APPROVED, and I'll sponsor you. Next up, you need to create an account in the
Fedora Account System and jump through a few hoops to get to the point where you
can check the package in to be built. Basically, continue from here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors#head-a89c07b5b8abe7748b6b39f0f89768d595234907
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|227646 | nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225633] Merge Review: bzip2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: bzip2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED
Flag|needinfo? |
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 10:10 EST ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Seems almost right to me, still 2 issues and some suggestions:
>
> * remove 'static library' from the -devel package description
> since there is no static library
The static library was put back becouse of rpm package need it so - the
description should remain too.
> * the original soname don't follow the usual convention of a soname
> number with an integer, but I am not certain that it is right to
> modify it in fedora. It should better be changed upstream. What is
> the reasoning behind this change?
It is the upstream resolution so fedora should accept it
> * remove the / between $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and macros, like %{_mandir},
> %{_libdir}... since they allready have a leading /
fixed
> * for %patch6, maybe it could be
> %patch6 -p1 -b .bzip2recover
changed
> A remark:
>
> * I completely agree with the new organization of the spec with build in
> %build and install in %install, I would have asked for that the next round
> anyway ;-)
the last version is bzip2-1.0.4-8.fc7.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189949] Review Request: mystun - STUN (Simple Traversal of UDP through NATs) server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mystun - STUN (Simple Traversal of UDP through NATs) server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189949 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 10:11 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) > Starting it manually gives: > # /usr/sbin/mystun-server -i eth0 > I have the very same errors with "-i eth0,eth1" as arg... That is the problem. The program does not want eth0,eth1 but either 1,2 or (makes more sense (IMHO) 192.168.1.l,192.168.1.2 as parameters for -i. The config file /etc/sysconfig/mystun contains example entries and is consulted by the initscript. Could you try that way please? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231746] Review Request: ettercap - Network traffic sniffer/analyser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ettercap - Network traffic sniffer/analyser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231746
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 10:21 EST ---
You have forgotten to include the /doc folder in %doc (or at least explain why
it is not to be included; to me the files over there seem useful for people who
want to expand the existing capabilities of the program). While at the docs, I
think that including README is a good idea, as it talks about the license and
also gives some explanations on the internals of the program.
I've found the explanation of the modified timestamps for man pages: the
original tar.gz includes the man pages both as a final version and as automake
generated files; %configure overwrites the existing pages because it generates
them again:
Writing output files...
configure: creating ./config.status
config.status: creating Makefile
config.status: creating Makefile.mingw
config.status: creating man/Makefile
config.status: creating man/ettercap.8
config.status: creating man/ettercap_curses.8
config.status: creating man/ettercap_plugins.8
config.status: creating man/etterlog.8
config.status: creating man/etterfilter.8
config.status: creating man/etter.conf.5
The solution for solving the symlink/alternative issue is up to you, use
whatever looks cleaner. You can go straight ahead and use Till's suggestion
(don't forget to require alternatives in this case), or emulate alternatives
using %post ("if link exists, exit; otherwise create it) and %postun (if link
exists and points to self, remove). I guess alternatives is less error prone...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232417] Review Request: firmware-addon-dell - A firmware-tools plugin to handle BIOS/Firmware for Dell 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: firmware-addon-dell - A firmware-tools plugin to handle BIOS/Firmware for Dell systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232417 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 10:31 EST --- heyyas and thanks for fixing the unowned dir issue on the firmware tools package that fast. that motivated me to also look at the dell plugin so here it goes: /usr/share/firmware/dell should probably be owned by this package -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232355] Review Request: firmware-tools - Scripts and tools to manage firmware and BIOS updates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: firmware-tools - Scripts and tools to manage firmware and BIOS updates https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232355 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 10:34 EST --- again a small issue (this is not a package review though) that is pretty easy to fix in the %files section: warning: File listed twice: /etc/firmware/firmware.conf warning: File listed twice: /etc/firmware/firmware.d -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229676] Review Request: gle - Graphics Layout Engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gle - Graphics Layout Engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229676 Bug 229676 depends on bug 232392, which changed state. Bug 232392 Summary: qt4: qmake does not set CC, CXX, etc, mkspecs/common awol? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232392 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Resolution||ERRATA Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189949] Review Request: mystun - STUN (Simple Traversal of UDP through NATs) server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mystun - STUN (Simple Traversal of UDP through NATs) server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189949 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 10:43 EST --- The very first time I tried to start the server after editing etc/sysconfig/mystun. I've performed the manual tests because using the init.d script was not successfull: [root]# cat /etc/sysconfig/mystun ### mystun NAT traversal server ### ### For correct operation, the mystun-server has to bind to two different ### ip addressed. Please configure your server accordingly and specify ### these two addresses here. ### # First Interface int1="192.168.1.1" # Second Interface int2="192.168.50.31" # extra options extra_opts="" [root]# service mystun start Starting mystun server: using intefaces:0 and 1 pid file contains old pid, replacing pid [ OK ] [root]# service mystun status mystun dead but subsys locked [root]# /usr/sbin/mystun-server -i 192.168.50.31,192.168.1.1 using intefaces:0 and 1 strange family 0 skipping... strange family 29797 skipping... strange family 0 skipping... strange family 0 skipping... strange family 29797 skipping... strange family 0 skipping... Located interfaces [127.0.0.1] ip->127.0.0.1 Before daemonize pid is [28817] parent [28757] Sending FROM: 127.0.0.1:3478 NOTICE:udp init succeded 3 Sending FROM: 127.0.0.1:3479 NOTICE:udp init succeded 4 init_ss: BUG: unknown address family 0 ERROR: udp_init: could not init sockaddr_union ERROR:udp init failed Unable to udp_init alternate_address Initialazing failed ... code -1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226296] Merge Review: pilot-link
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: pilot-link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226296 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2007-03-15 10:51 EST --- ref >* source files match upstream: n/a, its an svn checkout As far as I have understood (please correct me if I am wrong) here "n/a" is not correct: the reviewer is supposed to do a svn checkout of the same tag (instructions for that should be included as comment in the spec) and compare with the file included in the src.rpm. If not the tar.gz, at least a diff -r should coincide... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-03-15 10:53 EST --- Jarod, since you have decided to sponsor Bill, the FE-NEEDSPONSOR flag should be removed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232417] Review Request: firmware-addon-dell - A firmware-tools plugin to handle BIOS/Firmware for Dell 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: firmware-addon-dell - A firmware-tools plugin to handle BIOS/Firmware for Dell systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232417 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 10:57 EST --- There is no dell-specific /usr/share/firmware subdirectory. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232434] New: Review Request: FileZilla 3 - fast FTP and SFTP client with a lot of features
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=232434 Summary: Review Request: FileZilla 3 - fast FTP and SFTP client with a lot of features Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Description: FileZilla is a fast and reliable FTP client with lots of useful features and an intuitive interface. Among others, the features of FileZilla include the following: * Easy to use * Multilingual (English, German, French, Japanese, just to name a few) * Strong encryption support using SFTP over SSH and FTP over SSL/TLS * Supports transfer resuming and files larger than 4 GiB * Site Manager * Queue support * Proxy support * Speed limits * MODE Z transfer compressing * ... and more! The new version, FileZilla 3 (still beta), is available for Linux also. URL: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=21558&package_id=206762 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232417] Review Request: firmware-addon-dell - A firmware-tools plugin to handle BIOS/Firmware for Dell 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: firmware-addon-dell - A firmware-tools plugin to handle BIOS/Firmware for Dell systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232417 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 11:00 EST --- you are right but theres /usr/share/firmware/bios which is specified in storage_subdir=bios the question is just if its general it probably should be owned by firmware-tools but whats a fact is that it most probably should be owned by a package. sorry for the bogus report above. happens... ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232355] Review Request: firmware-tools - Scripts and tools to manage firmware and BIOS updates
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: firmware-tools - Scripts and tools to manage firmware and BIOS updates https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232355 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 11:05 EST --- doh. Fixed in 1.2.3. It is a one line fix (remove entry from %files). I wont post a fix for this by itself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232417] Review Request: firmware-addon-dell - A firmware-tools plugin to handle BIOS/Firmware for Dell 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: firmware-addon-dell - A firmware-tools plugin to handle BIOS/Firmware for Dell systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232417 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 11:08 EST --- problem is that firmware-addon-ibm may also want to put stuff in /usr/share/firmware/bios/ (example only, I can hope, 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 232434] Review Request: FileZilla 3 - fast FTP and SFTP client with a lot of features
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: FileZilla 3 - fast FTP and SFTP client with a lot of features https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232434 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 11:11 EST --- Will you plan to package it ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232434] Review Request: FileZilla 3 - fast FTP and SFTP client with a lot of features
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: FileZilla 3 - fast FTP and SFTP client with a lot of features https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232434 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 11:13 EST --- Sorry, but i have no idea of packaging. I am still a newbie to linux, and I'm a student, so I don't have much time... :-( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 11:13 EST --- (In reply to comment #21) > ref > >* source files match upstream: n/a, its an svn checkout > As far as I have understood (please correct me if I am wrong) here "n/a" is > not > correct: the reviewer is supposed to do a svn checkout of the same tag > (instructions for that should be included as comment in the spec) and compare > with the file included in the src.rpm. If not the tar.gz, at least a diff -r > should coincide... I believe you're correct. I was thinking n/a, since there's no upstream tarball to grab, but yeah, diff'ing svn checkouts should be done in place of tarball checksumming. $ diff -r conmux conmux-r493 Only in conmux-r493/drivers: .svn Only in conmux-r493/examples: .svn Only in conmux-r493/helpers: .svn Only in conmux-r493: .svn Bill's tarball has the .svn dirs removed, which is fine, and everything else appears to match. Went ahead and dropped the FE-NEEDSPONSOR flag 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 232434] Review Request: FileZilla 3 - fast FTP and SFTP client with a lot of features
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: FileZilla 3 - fast FTP and SFTP client with a lot of features https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232434 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 11:27 EST --- well BR are quite hight: BuildRequires: gnutls-devel >= 1.5.4 BuildRequires: wxGTK-devel >= 2.8.0 This mean it will build on fc7 unless package for fc6 are updated... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229600] Review Request: specto - An desktop application that will watch configurable events
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: specto - An desktop application that will watch configurable events https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231746] Review Request: ettercap - Network traffic sniffer/analyser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ettercap - Network traffic sniffer/analyser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231746 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 11:33 EST --- I fixed the doc and README. I implemented Till's alternatives solution. I'll post the resulting SRPM/SPEC, but first, may I assume that the alternatives solution effectively deprecates Till's patch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=149800 ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232434] Review Request: FileZilla 3 - fast FTP and SFTP client with a lot of features
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: FileZilla 3 - fast FTP and SFTP client with a lot of features https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232434 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 11:34 EST --- It won't build on my machine running fc7 devel because gnutls-devel is still in version 1.4.1. wxGTK-devel is 2.8.0, so this should work -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231746] Review Request: ettercap - Network traffic sniffer/analyser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ettercap - Network traffic sniffer/analyser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231746 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 11:40 EST --- No, it does not deprecate the patch. The patch changes some strings that are displayed (from GUI to UI) and gives nice error messages if ncurses / gtk are not available when the user selects one of the -C/-G command line options. Therefore please keep the 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 231746] Review Request: ettercap - Network traffic sniffer/analyser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ettercap - Network traffic sniffer/analyser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231746 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 11:43 EST --- Makes sense, I forgot about those aspects. Kept. Spec URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/extras/ettercap/ettercap.spec SRPM URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/extras/ettercap/ettercap-0.7.3-10.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 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|MODIFIED|ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 11:47 EST --- ACCEPT -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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|MODIFIED|ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 11:47 EST --- ACCEPT -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226121] Merge Review: man-pages-cs
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-cs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226121 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 11:47 EST --- ACCEPT -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232434] Review Request: FileZilla 3 - fast FTP and SFTP client with a lot of features
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: FileZilla 3 - fast FTP and SFTP client with a lot of features https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232434 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||232445 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232071] Review Request: openlierox - Addictive realtime multiplayer 2D shoot-em-up
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openlierox - Addictive realtime multiplayer 2D shoot-em-up https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232071 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 11:58 EST --- Thanks, both fixed, new version here: Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/openlierox.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/openlierox-0.57-0.2.beta1.fc7.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 229676] Review Request: gle - Graphics Layout Engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gle - Graphics Layout Engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229676 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 12:11 EST --- One comment: * Please change the license from BSD to GPL. Other things are okay. - This package (gle) is APPROVED by me. - -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227049] Review Request: dom4j-1.6.1-2jpp - DOM4J
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dom4j-1.6.1-2jpp - DOM4J https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227049 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 12:46 EST --- I am trying to build on my rawhide box. All dependencies are now ready except jaxen-bootstrap. I am rebuilding it and its missing dependencies locally to verify that it builds. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229377] Review Request: latexmk - a make-like utility for LaTeX documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: latexmk - a make-like utility for LaTeX documents https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229377 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 12:51 EST --- Some initial comments: - md5sum of latexmk-308n.zip in source rpm does not match upstream - The config file sets evince as pdf previewer, but there's no dependency on evince. Maybe use xdg-open as the previewer for all pdf, ps and dvi by default (and add a dependency on xdg-utils)? - README.fedora is a too generic filename (think unpacking several source rpms), rename eg. to latexmk-README.fedora in SourceX (README.fedora is ok when installed to /usr/share/doc/latexmk-*)? - rpmlint output on the source rpm, both easily fixable: W: latexmk setup-not-quiet W: latexmk mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 12) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229377] Review Request: latexmk - a make-like utility for LaTeX documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: latexmk - a make-like utility for LaTeX documents https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229377 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229377] Review Request: latexmk - a make-like utility for LaTeX documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: latexmk - a make-like utility for LaTeX documents https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229377 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 12:56 EST --- Also, maybe some of the scripts in extra_scripts would be worth packaging in %doc? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227049] Review Request: dom4j-1.6.1-2jpp - DOM4J
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dom4j-1.6.1-2jpp - DOM4J https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227049 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 12:56 EST --- The icu4j issue is blocking me building this. Otherwise, we're good to go. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231746] Review Request: ettercap - Network traffic sniffer/analyser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ettercap - Network traffic sniffer/analyser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231746
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 13:00 EST ---
One small error at the first glance: you've split each one of the "alternatives
install" instructions on two lines, but forgot to end the first line with a
continuation marker.
A more important error are the typos in the same lines, each one of the
{_bindir} should have been %{_bindir}; same error is present in the
"alternatives remove" lines
Also, there is no need to use both "Requires: alternatives" and "Requires(post):
%{_sbindir}/alternatives / Requires(preun): %{_sbindir}/alternatives" (second
Requires line in the main package)
Since you'll have to edit the spec anyway, I have a few additional suggestions
(feel free to ignore them, they are just that, suggestions)
- in the %doc line, replace doc with doc/ in order to make it clear it's a
directory
- rename the cryptic ettercap.ettercap to ettercap-tui
- dump the custom defined ettercapdir macro, it's used only once, in the %files
section, so there is no saving after 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 232465] New: Review Request: lv2 - An Audio Plugin Standard
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=232465
Summary: Review Request: lv2 - An Audio Plugin Standard
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: normal
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/devel/lv2.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/devel/lv2-1.0-0.1.beta1.src.rpm
Description:
There are a large number of open source and free software synthesis
packages in use or development at this time. This API ('LV2')
attempts to give programmers the ability to write simple 'plugin'
audio processors in C/C++ and link them dynamically ('plug') into
a range of these packages ('hosts'). It should be possible for any
host and any plugin to communicate completely through this interface.
LV2 is a successor to LADSPA, created to address the limitations of
LADSPA which many hosts have outgrown.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230262] Review Request: jss - Java Security Services (JSS)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jss - Java Security Services (JSS) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230262 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 13:34 EST --- The C compiler should be invoked with $RPM_OPT_FLAGS (obviously in addition to whatever other flags this package requires). I'm seeing lots of errors during the build, although I do get a valid RPM in the end. The errors all look something like this... cd org; make export make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/jss-4.2.4/mozilla/security/jss/org' syntax error at -e line 3, near "while" syntax error at -e line 7, near "}" Execution of -e aborted due to compilation errors. cd mozilla; make export make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/jss-4.2.4/mozilla/security/jss/org/mozilla' syntax error at -e line 3, near "while" syntax error at -e line 7, near "}" Execution of -e aborted due to compilation errors. How do I run the JSS self-tests? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225857] Merge Review: grep
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: grep https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225857 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 13:35 EST --- Ok, Štěpáne, can you please fix the issues in comment #1? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227113] Review Request: rhino-1.6-0.r2.2jpp - JavaScript 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: rhino-1.6-0.r2.2jpp - JavaScript for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE 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 227059] Review Request: httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp - Automated web site testing 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: httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp - Automated web site testing toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227059 Bug 227059 depends on bug 227113, which changed state. Bug 227113 Summary: Review Request: rhino-1.6-0.r2.2jpp - JavaScript for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227113 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 173388] Review Request: mod_evasive - Denial of Service evasion module for Apache
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mod_evasive - Denial of Service evasion module for Apache https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173388 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 13:45 EST --- Hi Konstantin Are you still planning on adding this package to Extras? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227085] Review Request: maven-wagon-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Maven Wagon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: maven-wagon-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Maven Wagon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227085 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225909] Merge Review: iputils
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: iputils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225909 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 13:55 EST --- Everything should be fixed but "License file is missing". - I will ask upstream, this package is bunch of utils from different sources so I'm not sure what license they use. In spec is BSD, but I let them confirm that I'm not sure what to do about rest of warnings from rpmlint you didn't mentioned like W: iputils symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/arping /sbin/arping Current version is iputils-20070202-1.fc7, because I upgraded to new upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231746] Review Request: ettercap - Network traffic sniffer/analyser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ettercap - Network traffic sniffer/analyser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231746 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 13:59 EST --- Addressed all of the above. I'll see if I can have 3/15 declared International Typo Day. :) Spec URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/extras/ettercap/ettercap.spec SRPM URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/extras/ettercap/ettercap-0.7.3-11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227646] Review Request: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support
System)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 13:59 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=150146)
--> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=150146&action=view)
grass.pc.in (with some fix)
For -11:
* pkgconfig file:
- Well,
Libs: -L%{libdir} -lgrass_I -lgrass_vask -lgrass_gmath -lgrass_gis
-lgrass_datetime -lgrass_gproj -lgrass_vect -lgrass_dbmibase -lgrass_dbmiclient
Actually this should be "-L${libdir}", not percent. This was my
typo, sorry...
- Other issues are: prefix, exec_prefix, libdir, includedir for grass.pc is
not correct.
The attached grass.pc.in should work.
? By the way, there are some other /usr/lib/libgrass_??.so which don't appear
in grass.pc file. Would you know why? (perhaps because of some intention
of upstream).
- And for gdal.pc, the correct one is
Libs: -L${libdir} -lgdal
... my bad ...
* Optflags
? Not bad, and I didn't notice this, however, fedora optflags seems to be
passed twice.
make[2]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/grass-6.2.1/lib/datetime'
gcc -I/builddir/build/BUILD/grass-6.2.1/dist.i686-redhat-linux-gnu/include -O2
-g -pipe -Wall -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32
-march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -O2 -g -pipe -Wall
-fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386
-mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables-fPIC
-DPACKAGE=\""grasslibs"\" -DPACKAGE=\""grasslibs"\"
-I/builddir/build/BUILD/grass-6.2.1/dist.i686-redhat-linux-gnu/include \
-o OBJ.i686-redhat-linux-gnu/between.o -c between.c
+ Timestamps are actually fixed correctly.
+ rpmlint warnings can now all be ignored.
Well, again I will try to check all source files
(although there are 5000+ files...) I hope that this review
is now approaching to the goal.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205755] Review Request: elsa - manages group of processes and allows accounting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elsa - manages group of processes and allows accounting https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205755 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||232470 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226543] Merge Review: wordtrans
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: wordtrans https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226543 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 14:29 EST --- i have fixed 1,2,3,4. Please take a look at wordtrans-1.1-0.1.pre13.fc7 built in rawhide. 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 232071] Review Request: openlierox - Addictive realtime multiplayer 2D shoot-em-up
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openlierox - Addictive realtime multiplayer 2D shoot-em-up https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232071 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 14:39 EST --- Review for release 0.2.beta1.fc6: * RPM name is OK * Source OpenLieroX_0.57_beta1.src.tar.bz is the same as upstream * Builds fine in mock * rpmlint looks OK * File list looks OK * Works fine (35 checks have been run) 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 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 14:55 EST ---
Hi Matthias,
This package looks good. Here's a review. (I have one of these cards so I'm
looking forward to seeing a proper driver included in F7 (or so). Thanks for
packaging the firmware!)
OK - rpmlint output
$ rpmlint iwlwifi-firmware-2.14.1-3.src.rpm
W: iwlwifi-firmware invalid-license Redistributable, no modification permitted
E: iwlwifi-firmware hardcoded-library-path in
%{buildroot}/lib/firmware/iwlwifi-3945.ucode
E: iwlwifi-firmware hardcoded-library-path in /lib/firmware/*.ucode
All of these can be safely ignored for firmware packages
OK - follows naming guidelines (for firmware packages)
OK - specfile matches base package %{name}
OK - meets the Packaging Guidelines
OK - license is acceptable (for firmware packages)
OK - licence field is appropriate (for firmware packages)
OK - license file is included in %doc
OK - specfile is in American English
OK - specfile is legible
OK - source matches upstream (sha1: 29e90e7a6c5fe06eaad3780235a77ce0411d132f)
OK - package contains no duplicate files
OK - permissions on files set correctly
OK - specfile has proper %clean section
OK - consistent use of macros
OK - contains code or permissible content
OK - %doc files don't affect runtime
OK - doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages
ACCEPT
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225633] Merge Review: bzip2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: bzip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 15:04 EST --- I could be wrong, but it looks like rpm links to the dynamic bzip library: [EMAIL PROTECTED] rpm]$ ldd /bin/rpm | grep bz2 libbz2.so.1 => /usr/lib/libbz2.so.1 (0x0604a000) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230262] Review Request: jss - Java Security Services (JSS)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jss - Java Security Services (JSS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230262
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-15 15:09 EST ---
The errors are in the upstream source. They are related to dependency finding so
doesn't affect the building.
The JSS self-tests expect that NSS and NSPR have been built along with JSS so
you have to do small amount of hacking to get around it. You can run the tests
after the make is done in the %build step by adding this:
mkdir mozilla/tests_results
perl -pi -e "s:\\\$nss_lib_dir = \\\"\\\$dist_dir/lib\\\":\\\$nss_lib_dir =
\\\"%{_libdir}\\\":" mozilla/security/jss/org/mozilla/jss/tests/all.pl
perl mozilla/security/jss/org/mozilla/jss/tests/all.pl dist mozilla/dist/*.OBJ
Ugly but it works.
Added RPM_OPT_FLAGS so they are picked up. I did not add the above to the spec.
Spec URL: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/built/rpm_review/rcritten/jss.spec
SRPM URL:
http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/built/rpm_review/rcritten/jss-4.2.4-2.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
