[Bug 226138] Merge Review: metacity
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: metacity
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226138
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 03:41 EST ---
* a remark
the gettext_package, metacity_version and metacity_filename don't
seem to be usefull to me, %{name}, %{version} and %{name}-%{version}
would seem more natural to me
* -I$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_includedir} seems wrong to me. Why is it there?
CPPFLAGS=$CPPFLAGS -I$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_includedir}
* Why run autoreconf?
* on the make line, CPPFLAGS=$CPPFLAGS LIBS=$LIBS seems unuseful
to me, while %{?_smp_mflags} is missing (it worked in my tests)
* The pkgconfig Requires is unuseful in main 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 228298] Review Request: python-louie - Dispatches signals between Python objects in a wide variety of contexts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-louie - Dispatches signals between Python objects in a wide variety of contexts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228298 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 04:17 EST --- well, i will ask throuth the ML if in these condition the license text can be added by the maintainer. Of course it *can*, but I would just prefer to avoid it because : - The sources clearly state that they are BSD licensed, with an external pointer - The BSD license doesn't *require* you to ship a copy of the license So I'd just like to not bother and ship yet-another-copy-of-the-BSD license, since it is not needed to comply with the packaging guidelines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235113] Review Request: slf4j - Simple Logging Facade 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: slf4j - Simple Logging Facade for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235113
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 05:58 EST ---
slf4j-1.0-0.rc5.1jpp.src.rpm
Legend:
OK: passes criteria
NO: fails criteria (errors included between -- markers)
NA: non applicable
??: unable to verify
MUST:
OK - package is named appropriately
?? * match upstream tarball or project name
?? * try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
--- I am not sure about those 2 points as the latest available version is 1.3.0
(see http://www.slf4j.org/dist/)
NO * specfile should be %{name}.spec
--- it is named: slf4j.spec but it should be slf4j-1.0-0.rc5.1jpp.spec
OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
something)
OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be
not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name
OK - is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
?? * OSI-approved
OK - not a kernel module
OK - not shareware
?? * is it covered by patents?
OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
OK - no binary firmware
OK - license field matches the actual license.
OK - license is open source-compatible.
OK - use acronyms for licences where common
?? * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches
do)
- if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on
how to generate the the source drop; ie.
# svn export blah/tag blah
# tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah
OK - skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
NO * correct buildroot should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
-- it is /slf4j-1.0-rc5/lib/
NA * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc
-- included but not marked with %doc:
OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
NO * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
-- The rpm contains unwanted directories and files:
/.svn/, /test/, /TODO.txt, /src/.svn etc with .svn directories
NO * rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output
- justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
-- Cannot install source packages.
No packages were given for installation.
OK - changelog should be in one of these formats:
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
OK * Packager tag should not be used
OK * Vendor tag should not be used
OK * use License and not Copyright
OK * Summary tag should not end in a period
NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
NO * specfile is legible
- this is largely subjective; use your judgement
-- Those fields must be changed
Name: %{name}
Version:%{version}
Release:%{release}.1%{?dist}
?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
?? * BuildRequires are proper
- builds in mock will flush out problems here
- the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires:
bash
bzip2
coreutils
cpio
diffutils
fedora-release (and/or redhat-release)
gcc
gcc-c++
gzip
make
patch
perl
redhat-rpm-config
rpm-build
sed
tar
unzip
which
OK - summary should be a short and concise description of the package
OK - description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
OK - make sure lines are = 80 characters
OK - specfile written in American English
OK - make a -doc sub-package if necessary
- see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
NA - packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
OK - don't use rpath
NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files
NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
?? * use macros appropriately and consistently
- ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
OK * don't use %makeinstall
NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang)
- if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
[Bug 235117] Review Request: servletapi4 - Java servlet and JSP implementation 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: servletapi4 - Java servlet and JSP implementation
classes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235117
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 06:22 EST ---
servletapi4-4.0.4-4jpp.src.rpm
Legend:
OK: passes criteria
NO: fails criteria (errors included between -- markers)
NA: non applicable
??: unable to verify
MUST:
OK - package is named appropriately
OK - match upstream tarball or project name
OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
NO * specfile should be %{name}.spec
--- it is named: servletapi4.spec but it should be servletapi4-4.0.4-4jpp.spec
OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
something)
OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be
not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name
OK - is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
?? * OSI-approved
OK - not a kernel module
OK - not shareware
?? * is it covered by patents?
OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
OK - no binary firmware
OK - license field matches the actual license.
OK - license is open source-compatible.
OK - use acronyms for licences where common
?? * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches
do)
- if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on
how to generate the the source drop; ie.
# svn export blah/tag blah
# tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah
OK - skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
NO * correct buildroot should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
-- it is /jakarta-servletapi-4-src/
NA * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc
-- included but not marked with %doc:
OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
NO * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
-- The rpm does not contain /lib (not sure this is normal)
NO * rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output
- justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
-- Cannot install source packages.
No packages were given for installation.
OK - changelog should be in one of these formats:
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
OK * Packager tag should not be used
OK * Vendor tag should not be used
OK * use License and not Copyright
OK * Summary tag should not end in a period
NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
NO * specfile is legible
- this is largely subjective; use your judgement
-- Those fields must be changed
Name: %{name}
Version:%{version}
Release:%{release}.1%{?dist}
?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
?? * BuildRequires are proper
- builds in mock will flush out problems here
- the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires:
bash
bzip2
coreutils
cpio
diffutils
fedora-release (and/or redhat-release)
gcc
gcc-c++
gzip
make
patch
perl
redhat-rpm-config
rpm-build
sed
tar
unzip
which
OK - summary should be a short and concise description of the package
OK - description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
OK - make sure lines are = 80 characters
OK - specfile written in American English
OK - make a -doc sub-package if necessary
- see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
NA - packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
OK - don't use rpath
NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files
NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
?? * use macros appropriately and consistently
- ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
OK * don't use %makeinstall
NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang)
- if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
end of %install
?? * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
OK * package
[Bug 225266] Merge Review: aspell-en
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: aspell-en https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225266 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 06:58 EST --- Thanks Parag for your excellent work. There should be used Conflicts flag instead of Obsoletes (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts). The fixed version is aspell-en-6.0-6.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225266] Merge Review: aspell-en
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: aspell-en https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225266 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 08:09 EST --- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). - rpmlint is NOT silent for SRPM and RPM. E: aspell-en obsolete-not-provided aspell-en-gb The obsoleted package must also be provided to allow clean upgrade paths and not to break dependencies. E: aspell-en obsolete-not-provided aspell-en-ca The obsoleted package must also be provided to allow clean upgrade paths and not to break dependencies. The above are OK and already set to show warning instead Error in rpmlint CVS. Also following messages are ignorable E: aspell-en no-binary E: aspell-en only-non-binary-in-usr-lib E: aspell-en configure-without-libdir-spec + SPEC file contains explanation about above warnings. + source files match upstream. 16449e0a266e1ecc526b2f3cd39d4bc2 aspell6-en-6.0-0.tar.bz2 + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required. + %doc does not affect runtime. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Dose owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Requires: aspell = 12:0.60 + Provides: aspell-en = 50:6.0-7.fc7 + Not a GUI APP. 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 225266] Merge Review: aspell-en
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: aspell-en https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225266 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 08:10 EST --- Forgot to mention new SPEC contains Obsoletes and not Conflicts -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 186452] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186452 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 08:11 EST --- * Thu Mar 29 2007 Gilboa Davara gilboad[AT]gmail.com 1.0-0.19.beta2 - Spec file clean-up. http://gilboadavara.thecodergeek.com/kdebluetooth-1.0-0.19.beta2..src.rpm http://gilboadavara.thecodergeek.com/kdebluetooth.spec I'm currently installing F7T3. Once I'm done, I'll rebuild the bluez package with the proposed pin-helper patch. If all goes well, I'll submit the patch to the bluez maintainer. - Gilboa -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 186452] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186452 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|201449 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 08:20 EST --- The package in comment 38 seems to have discarded all changes made in the package in comment 29 - I don't have time or interest at the moment to go through all of them again so assigning to nobody@ for someone else to take over. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216353] Review Request: vdr-text2skin - OSD skin plugin for VDR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vdr-text2skin - OSD skin plugin for VDR https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216353 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 216355] Review Request: vdr-skins - Collection of OSD skins for VDR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vdr-skins - Collection of OSD skins for VDR https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216355 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 216355] Review Request: vdr-skins - Collection of OSD skins for VDR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vdr-skins - Collection of OSD skins for VDR https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216355 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216353] Review Request: vdr-text2skin - OSD skin plugin for VDR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vdr-text2skin - OSD skin plugin for VDR https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216353 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 186452] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186452 [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 186452] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186452 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 08:40 EST --- 1. My mistake. I got mixed up by the different versions of kdebluetooth. 2. Mistake or not, posting rude comments have no business here. 3. Taking over the 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 235189] New: Review Request: nautilus-python - Python bindings for Nautilus
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=235189 Summary: Review Request: nautilus-python - Python bindings for Nautilus Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: ftp://open-gnss.org/pub/fedora/nautilus-python/nautilus-python.spec SRPM URL: ftp://open-gnss.org/pub/fedora/nautilus-python/nautilus-python-0.4.3-1.src.rpm Description: Python bindings for Nautilus. - Builds in mock on rawhide i386 and fc6 x86_64. - Output from rpmlint: [EMAIL PROTECTED] i386]$ rpmlint nautilus-python-* W: nautilus-python-devel no-documentation -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235191] New: Review Request: postr - Flickr uploader
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=235191 Summary: Review Request: postr - Flickr uploader Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: ftp://open-gnss.org/pub/fedora/postr/postr.spec SRPM URL: ftp://open-gnss.org/pub/fedora/postr/postr-0.5-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: Postr is a tool for uploading pictures to Flickr. Its both a standalone application and a plugin for Nautilus. - Builds in mock on rawhide i386 and fc6 x86_64 - Rpmlint output: [EMAIL PROTECTED] noarch]$ rpmlint postr-0.5-1.fc7.noarch.rpm E: postr only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Python modules are installed in /usr/lib/nautilus, but they are not executable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235191] Review Request: postr - Flickr uploader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: postr - Flickr uploader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235191 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 08:47 EST --- Notice that there is still no icon for this package, but the author has requested one[1], so hopefully an icon will be available shortly. If anyone can recommend a temporary icon, I would be grateful. [1] http://www.burtonini.com/blog/computers/postr -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235191] Review Request: postr - Flickr uploader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: postr - Flickr uploader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235191 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||235189 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 08:49 EST --- Postr depends on nautilus-python. A package has been submitted, but is awaiting review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235189 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235189] Review Request: nautilus-python - Python bindings for Nautilus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nautilus-python - Python bindings for Nautilus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235189 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||235191 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 186452] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186452 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 08:54 EST --- If you're referring to comment 39, calm down, it was not meant to be rude at all, just stating the fact and letting go of the review so others who may have more time to look into this know it's time for them to chime in. Anyway, looks like it resulted in the desired outcome and there's a new reviewer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235191] Review Request: postr - Flickr uploader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: postr - Flickr uploader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235191 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords||Reopened Resolution|NOTABUG | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226533] Merge Review: vsftpd
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: vsftpd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226533 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235191] Review Request: postr - Flickr uploader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: postr - Flickr uploader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235191 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|Reopened| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 186452] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186452 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 09:20 EST --- OK. Here's the problem. Package went through way-too-many-hands I got completely mixed up by the history of it. I cannot review the package... simply because I'm trying to get it submitted and reviewed. (Read: I followed the un-orphaning procedure and assigned the bug to myself - forgetting that the package is yet-to-be-submitted). In short, unless someone has any objections, I'll close this bug, open a new one (with clean[er] history) and post a review-request. - Gilboa -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 186452] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186452 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 09:26 EST --- (In reply to comment #42) In short, unless someone has any objections, I'll close this bug, open a new one (with clean[er] history) and post a review-request. Please clone the current bug, to keep at least the Cc list. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 186452] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186452 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 09:29 EST --- We'll do. Again, my apologies for the noise. (I'll just mark the old bug as a duplicate of the new bug) - Gilboa -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231911] Review Request: jomolhari-fonts - Jomolhari a Bhutanese style font for Tibetan and Dzongkha
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jomolhari-fonts - Jomolhari a Bhutanese style font for Tibetan and Dzongkha https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231911 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 09:32 EST --- Jens IMHO package name only refer to name not to the case sensitivity of name, just look at Packaging/NamingGuidelines - Case Sensitivity. As I would also prefer lowercase name so leave it as is. Can I keep the old Summary, it will be consistent with the TMU package where the font name is included in Summary? Chris and Jens, which URL are you suggesting to use: http://www.btinternet.com/~c.fynn/tibetan/fonts/jomolhari.html or http://www.thdl.org/tools/fonts/tibfonts.php?l=uva200607171100 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226489] Merge Review: tftp
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: tftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226489 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235203] New: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2)
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=235203 Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2) Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://gilboadavara.thecodergeek.com/kdebluetooth.spec SRPM URL: http://gilboadavara.thecodergeek.com/kdebluetooth-1.0-0.20.beta2.src.rpm Description: The KDE Bluetooth Framework is a set of tools built on top of Linux' Bluetooth (Bluez) stack. The goal is to provide easy access to the most common Bluetooth profiles and to make data exchange with Bluetooth enabled devices as straightforward as possible. --- The original [1] review was orphaned by the submitter (Rex Dieter) and the reviewer (Ville Skyttä) and when I tried to pick it up, I somehow managed to butch everything up. (Oh well) As a result, I decided to open a new, clean review request. - Gilboa [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186452 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 186452] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186452 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NOTABUG |DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 10:19 EST --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 235203 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235203] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235203 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 10:20 EST --- *** Bug 186452 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225907] Merge Review: iptraf
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: iptraf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225907 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 10:26 EST --- W: iptraf hidden-file-or-dir It's side effect of making images in Documentation. I can't remove it without *.gif pictures. It must stay here. I added logrotate file. Also other problems were fixed in iptraf-3.0.0-6. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235203] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235203 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 10:27 EST --- Open issues: - pin-helper no longer supported. Use the debian old-pin-helper patch to re-enable pin-helper support in bluez. If all works well, push it upstream. - SELinux. According to the original submitter, kdepin is FUBAR in enforce mode. - FC6/pin-helper support? - Gilboa -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234750] Review Request: avr-binutils - Cross Compiling GNU binutils targeted at avr
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: avr-binutils - Cross Compiling GNU binutils targeted
at avr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234750
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 10:30 EST ---
* MUSTFIX:
Useless man-pages
/usr/share/man/man1/avr-dlltool.1.gz
/usr/share/man/man1/avr-nlmconv.1.gz
/usr/share/man/man1/avr-windres.1.gz
These are Win tools, not being useful nor built for embedded avr-targets.
binutils installing them is a bug in binutils-2.17.*
* RECOMMENDATIONS:
- You are exporting CFLAGS:
export CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS
./configure ...
This doesn't do any harm in this particular case (binutils is an ordinary,
native-only package), but will be harmful when a package applies
cross-compilation (e.g. when building GCC).
I recommend to pass CFLAGS on the configure command-line instead, i.e.
CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS ./configure ...
This hard-codes CFLAGS into generated files and avoids conflicts between
different CFLAGS between Makefiles and environment.
- I'd recommend to build this package inside of an avr-binutils-... directory
instead of binutils-... (apply %setup magic)
- I'd recommend to build binutils VPATH style instead of in-source-tree
style. Though this is not required by building binutils, it much less
error-prone than in-source-tree-builts (and required when building GCC)
In my specs I do all these steps this way:
%prep
%setup -q -c -T -n %{name}-%{version}
%setup -q -D -T -n %{name}-%{version} -a0
%build
mkdir -p build
cd build
CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS ../binutils-%{version}/configure
cd ..
Finally: As you already know, I dislike a toolchains using an architecture (avr)
as their target, because this doesn't make much sense and actually is wrong if
wanting to be pedantic. But I don't want to insist on this, in this particular
case, because the avr always had been special and probably doesn't have a long
enough history (Other targets with a longer history have learnt their leasons:
i386-elf, m68k-elf, m68k-coff, arm-eabi)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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
Severity|normal |medium
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED
Flag|needinfo? |
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 10:34 EST ---
(In reply to comment #22)
(In reply to comment #18)
(In reply to comment #15)
* 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
But it is not what is done in fedora! the soname is changed in the
bzip2-1.0.4-saneso.patch patch, and I question that change.
I'm sorry, I have not understand your previous comment so my reply was
confused.
So I'm not sure what are you asking about.
The version which is in fedora now is right - if there will be any change then
there would be necessary to rebuild all dependencies. I'm not sure why was this
change done (it was about 6 years ago), but it is ok.
This problem should not be a subject of review.
Otherwise
* there is no need of -p when installing generated binaries, like
libbz2.a, bzip2-shared... And the static lib should be 0644. I personally
like to have the -mxxx option even when it isn't stricly needed, so
what I would have done is:
install -m644 libbz2.a $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}
install -m755 libbz2.so.%{version} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}
install -m755 bzip2-shared $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/bzip2
install -m755 bzip2recover bzgrep bzdiff bzmore $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/
The only mandatory item here is to have -m644 on the libbz2.a install
call.
Thanks. Fixed in bzip2-1.0.4-10.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 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] 2007-04-04 10:36 EST --- Ruben, could you please look at bzip2-1.0.4-10.fc7 and approved this review request or if you see any reason why you wdon't want to aproved it here. 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 234488] Review Request: yum-presto - Yum plugin to download deltarpms rather than full rpms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: yum-presto - Yum plugin to download deltarpms rather than full rpms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234488 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 10:53 EST --- Thanks for pointing that out! I really should have tested this on my wife's x86_64 system. A note though: I haven't mirrored FC6 x86_64 updates or extras yet, so you won't get any deltarpms through it yet. New release: 0.3.5-1 Spec URL: http://www.lesbg.com/jdieter/presto/yum-presto.spec SRPM URL: http://www.lesbg.com/jdieter/presto/yum-presto-0.3.5-1.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 235203] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235203 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 11:16 EST --- Why have I been added to Cc? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234858] Review Request: perl-User-Identity - Maintains info about a physical person
Please 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-User-Identity - Maintains info about a physical person Alias: perl-User-Identity https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234858 [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 234858] Review Request: perl-User-Identity - Maintains info about a physical person
Please 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-User-Identity - Maintains info about a physical person Alias: perl-User-Identity https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234858 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 11:19 EST --- + source files match upstream: d5929be62a99b90f60b07062ab86a2ec User-Identity-0.91.tar.gz d5929be62a99b90f60b07062ab86a2ec ../User-Identity-0.91.tar.gz + package meets naming and versioning guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license field matches the actual license. + license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. + latest version is being packaged. + BuildRequires are proper. + compiler flags are appropriate. + %clean is present. + package installs properly + no debuginfo package -- noarch + rpmlint is silent. + final provides and requires are sane: ** perl-User-Identity-0.91-1.fc6.noarch.rpm == rpmlint == provides perl(Mail::Identity) = 0.91 perl(User::Identity) = 0.91 perl(User::Identity::Archive) = 0.91 perl(User::Identity::Archive::Plain) = 0.91 perl(User::Identity::Collection) = 0.91 perl(User::Identity::Collection::Emails) = 0.91 perl(User::Identity::Collection::Locations) = 0.91 perl(User::Identity::Collection::Systems) = 0.91 perl(User::Identity::Collection::Users) = 0.91 perl(User::Identity::Item) = 0.91 perl(User::Identity::Location) = 0.91 perl(User::Identity::System) = 0.91 perl-User-Identity = 0.91-1.fc6 == requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(List::Util) perl(Mail::Identity) perl(Scalar::Util) perl(User::Identity) perl(User::Identity::Location) perl(User::Identity::System) perl(base) perl(overload) perl(strict) perl(vars) perl(warnings) + %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=3, Tests=114, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.19 cusr + 0.06 csys = 0.25 CPU) + 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. + no scriptlets present. + 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. 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 234858] Review Request: perl-User-Identity - Maintains info about a physical person
Please 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-User-Identity - Maintains info about a physical person Alias: perl-User-Identity https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234858 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 225653] Merge Review: concurrent
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: concurrent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225653
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 11:26 EST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
- OSI-approved
- not a kernel module
- not shareware
- is it covered by patents?
- it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
- no binary firmware
X I don't know if we can just distribute this. The project claims to be in
the
public domain but sections of it are covered by a Technology License from
Sun
Microsystems Inc.
(http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/classes/EDU/oswego/cs/dl/util/sun-u.c.license.pdf)
This is OK as Public Domain, please see
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-March/msg00142.html
Right, I know public domain is acceptable, but is this project really public
domain if it has that clause in there?
* license field matches the actual license.
X the license field does not mention the Technology License
As noted in the message on the mailing list
* license is open source-compatible.
- use acronyms for licences where common
X I don't know if the Technology License is open source-compatible
Same as above.
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
X The source does not include a specific license file, but it does mention
the
terms of the license in the intro.html file included. This file has a broken
link to the Sun Technology license which should be patched.
No license file as it is Public Domain, and I fixed the link in intro.html
* rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output
rpmlint concurrent-1.3.4-5jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm
W: concurrent non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
W: concurrent strange-permission concurrent.tar.gz 0660
W: concurrent strange-permission concurrent-1.3.4.build.xml 0660
W: concurrent strange-permission concurrent.spec 0640
X please fix these permission issues
Fixed.
X package fails in mock.
I will continue the review once the package can be built properly and the
licensing issues are resolved.
Error in mock build:
cp: cannot stat `intro.html': No such file or directory
Fixed.
Updated spec and srpm at the same location. Thanks
Rest of review since the package now builds:
* BuildRequires are proper
- builds in mock will flush out problems here
OK, build fine in mock
- the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires:
bash
bzip2
coreutils
cpio
diffutils
fedora-release (and/or redhat-release)
gcc
gcc-c++
gzip
make
patch
perl
redhat-rpm-config
rpm-build
sed
tar
unzip
which
OK
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
OK
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
X Do we want to be advertising for that book?
* make sure description lines are = 80 characters
OK
* specfile written in American English
OK
* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
OK, contains a javadoc subpackage
* use macros appropriately and consistently
- ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
OK
* install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
OK
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
X missing a -p on the first cp in %prep
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
OK
* package contains code
- see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
- in general, there should be no offensive content
OK
* package should own all directories and files
OK
* there should be no %files duplicates
OK
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
OK
* %clean should be present
OK
* %doc files should not affect runtime
* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
rpm -qp --provides concurrent-1.3.4-5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
concurrent-1.3.4.jar.so()(64bit)
concurrent = 0:1.3.4-5jpp.1.fc7
rpm -qp --requires concurrent-1.3.4-5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
java-gcj-compat
java-gcj-compat
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
librt.so.1()(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
rpm -qp --provides concurrent-javadoc-1.3.4-5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
concurrent-javadoc = 0:1.3.4-5jpp.1.fc7
rpm -qp --requires concurrent-javadoc-1.3.4-5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
/bin/ln
/bin/rm
/bin/rm
X it should not need a requires on these
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
rpmlint concurrent-1.3.4-5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
W: concurrent non-standard-group
[Bug 235211] New: Review Request: stgit - git patch maintainer (ala Quilt)
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=235211 Summary: Review Request: stgit - git patch maintainer (ala Quilt) Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/williams/stgit/stgit.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/williams/stgit/stgit-0.12.1-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: StGIT is a Python application providing similar functionality to Quilt (i.e. pushing/popping patches to/from a stack) on top of GIT. These operations are performed using GIT commands and the patches are stored as GIT commit objects, allowing easy merging of the StGIT patches into other repositories using standard GIT functionality. StGIT is licensed under the GNU General Public License. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235211] Review Request: stgit - git patch maintainer (ala Quilt)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stgit - git patch maintainer (ala Quilt) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235211 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 11:36 EST --- fwiw, I've got a review request open for stgit already at bz 227946 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225922] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-codec
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: jakarta-commons-codec https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225922 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225934] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-modeler
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: jakarta-commons-modeler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225934 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235211] Review Request: stgit - git patch maintainer (ala Quilt)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stgit - git patch maintainer (ala Quilt) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235211 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 11:47 EST --- Argh, sorry, didn't mean to duplicate requests. I'll see about closing this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235117] Review Request: servletapi4 - Java servlet and JSP implementation 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: servletapi4 - Java servlet and JSP implementation
classes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235117
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 11:50 EST ---
NO * specfile should be %{name}.spec
--- it is named: servletapi4.spec but it should be servletapi4-4.0.4-4jpp.spec
This is OK, %name refers just to the package name. No version/release should be
included in the specfile name.
?? * OSI-approved
It's an Apache license, so it's OK.
?? * is it covered by patents?
Distributed under Apache license, no explicit references to patents, so to the
best of our knowledge it's OK.
?? * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the
patches
do)
To verify source/patches, follow instructions to obtain source and package it,
then run md5sum against the resulting tarfile, and compare to the tarfile
included in the srpm, they should match.
FWIW, md5sum on the tarfile in the srpm is:
91a4aeec8409a427c6a3b6d50924c15d jakarta-servletapi-4-src.tar.gz
NO * correct buildroot should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
-- it is /jakarta-servletapi-4-src/
This is OK, buildroot in specfile is (see line 54):
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
NA * if %{?dist} is used
dist is being used (see line 41):
Release:%{release}%{?dist}
NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc
-- included but not marked with %doc:
It's marked with %doc, see line 111:
%doc LICENSE README.txt
NO * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
-- The rpm does not contain /lib (not sure this is normal)
It's OK.
NO * rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output
-- Cannot install source packages.
srpm doesn't need to be installed, just run rpmlint on it directly:
$ rpmlint servletapi4-4.0.4-1.fc7.src.rpm
W: servletapi4 non-standard-group Internet/WWW/Dynamic Content
W: servletapi4 unversioned-explicit-obsoletes servlet4
W: servletapi4 unversioned-explicit-obsoletes servlet23
W: servletapi4 unversioned-explicit-provides servlet
W: servletapi4 unversioned-explicit-provides servlet4
W: servletapi4 unversioned-explicit-provides servlet23
These warnings are OK (other packages were approved with similar warnings).
NO * specfile is legible
-- Those fields must be changed
Name: %{name}
Version:%{version}
Release:%{release}.1%{?dist}
Using the macros allows for name/version/release to be referred to later in the
specfile.
?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
?? * BuildRequires are proper
You'll have to setup mock and try to build the package there, to verify that it
builds.
?? * use macros appropriately and consistently
Usage is consistent to other packages that have been approved.
?? * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
It's used e.g. in line 98:
cp -pr build/docs/api/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadocdir}/%{name}
?? * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
defattrs present (see lines 110, 115):
%defattr(-,root,root)
?? * %clean should be present
Present (see lines 78/79):
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
?? * package should build on i386
?? * package should build in mock
See comment above about setting up mock.
FWIW, here's the provides, requires, and rpmlint for the binary rpm:
$ rpm -qp servletapi4-4.0.4-1.fc7.noarch.rpm --provides
servlet
servlet23
servlet4
servletapi4 = 0:4.0.4-1.fc7
$ rpm -qp servletapi4-4.0.4-1.fc7.noarch.rpm --requires
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
/usr/sbin/update-alternatives
/usr/sbin/update-alternatives
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
$ rpmlint servletapi4-4.0.4-1.fc7.noarch.rpm
W: servletapi4 non-standard-group Internet/WWW/Dynamic Content
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235211] Review Request: stgit - git patch maintainer (ala Quilt)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stgit - git patch maintainer (ala Quilt) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235211 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NOTABUG |DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 11:52 EST --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 227946 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227946] Review Request: stgit - StGIT provides similar functionality to Quilt on top of GIT
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stgit - StGIT provides similar functionality to Quilt on top of GIT https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227946 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 11:52 EST --- *** Bug 235211 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227946] Review Request: stgit - StGIT provides similar functionality to Quilt on top of GIT
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stgit - StGIT provides similar functionality to Quilt on top of GIT https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227946 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 235113] Review Request: slf4j - Simple Logging Facade 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: slf4j - Simple Logging Facade for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235113
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 12:17 EST ---
?? * match upstream tarball or project name
?? * try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
--- I am not sure about those 2 points as the latest available version is 1.3.0
It's OK, we're repackaging from the jpackage project (see
http://mirrors.dotsrc.org/jpackage/1.7/generic/free/repodata/repoview/slf4j-0-1.0-0.rc5.1jpp.html
). Agreed it's not the latest version/release, but it's the release needed to
satisfy dependencies.
NO * specfile should be %{name}.spec
--- it is named: slf4j.spec but it should be slf4j-1.0-0.rc5.1jpp.spec
This is OK, %name refers just to the package name. No version/release should be
included in the specfile name.
?? * OSI-approved
It's an X11 license, so it's OK (GPL compatible). See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
?? * is it covered by patents?
Distributed under X11 license, no explicit references to patents, so to the
best of our knowledge it's OK.
?? * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches
do)
To verify source/patches, follow instructions to obtain source and package it,
then run md5sum against the resulting tarfile, and compare to the tarfile
included in the srpm, they should match.
FWIW, md5sum on the tarfile in the srpm is in the specfile:
# md5sum: f34e95130cc3ae28095f31961427197d slf4j-1.0-rc5.tar.gz
NO * correct buildroot should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
-- it is /slf4j-1.0-rc5/lib/
This is OK, buildroot in specfile is (see line 51):
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
NA * if %{?dist} is used
dist is being used (see line 41):
Release:%{release}.1%{?dist}
NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc
-- included but not marked with %doc:
It's marked with %doc, see line 132:
%doc LICENSE.txt
NO * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
-- The rpm contains unwanted directories and files:
/.svn/, /test/, /TODO.txt, /src/.svn etc with .svn directories
Those are either included upstream (TODO.txt, /test) or are a result of grabbing
the source from svn. They do not violate the FHS, so should be OK.
NO * rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output
-- Cannot install source packages.
srpm doesn't need to be installed, just run rpmlint on it directly:
$ rpmlint slf4j-1.0-0.rc5.1.fc7.src.rpm
W: slf4j non-standard-group System/Logging
W: slf4j invalid-license X11 License
Warnings are OK (see license info above)
NO * specfile is legible
-- Those fields must be changed
Name: %{name}
Version:%{version}
Release:%{release}.1%{?dist}
Using the macros allows for name/version/release to be referred to later in the
specfile. And the definitions are grouped at the top of the specfile for
clarity.
?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
?? * BuildRequires are proper
You'll have to setup mock and try to build the package there, to verify that it
builds.
?? * use macros appropriately and consistently
Usage is consistent to other packages that have been approved.
?? * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
It's used e.g. in line 127:
cp -pr docs/api/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/
?? * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
defattrs present (see lines 131, 136):
%defattr(0644,root,root,0755)
?? * %clean should be present
Present (see lines 77/78):
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
?? * package should build on i386
?? * package should build in mock
See comment above about setting up mock.
FWIW, here's the provides, requires, and rpmlint for the binary rpm:
$ rpm -qp slf4j-1.0-0.rc5.1.noarch.rpm --provides
slf4j = 0:1.0-0.rc5.1
$ rpm -qp slf4j-1.0-0.rc5.1.noarch.rpm --requires
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
$ rpmlint slf4j-1.0-0.rc5.1.noarch.rpm
W: slf4j non-standard-group System/Logging
W: slf4j invalid-license X11 License
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
[Bug 234488] Review Request: yum-presto - Yum plugin to download deltarpms rather than full rpms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: yum-presto - Yum plugin to download deltarpms rather than full rpms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234488 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 12:40 EST --- Yeah, that looks good now here on x86_64... Are you looking for mirror space/BW for the x86_64 rpms? Or just haven't had time to generate them yet? Feel free to drop me an email about mirror space, I might be able to scare some up depending on what you need. Please continue the process from: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#head-a601c13b0950a89568deafa65f505b4b58ee869b Feel free to email me if you have any questions or problems, or find me on irc: nirik on #fedora-devel on irc.freenode.net. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234436] Review Request: glchess - GlChess, a 3d Chess game using OpenGL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: glchess - GlChess, a 3d Chess game using OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234436
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 12:54 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=151678)
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=151678action=view)
mock build log of glchess-1.0.4-1 on FC-devel i386
Well, for 1.0.4-1:
* BuildRequires
- mockbuild failed. At least desktop-file-utils is missing
for BuildRequires.
* Executable permissions/shebang
# make rpmlint happy
chmod +x $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python_sitelib}/%{name}/scene/opengl/png.py \
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python_sitelib}/%{name}/gtkui/__init__.py
- IMO the resolution should be opposite.
* GConf files
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/gconf/schemas/glchess.schemas
- Well, while I cannot find any wiki packages, however I am
sure that GConf schemas files under /etc/gconf/schemas is
generally _not_ regarded as config file and should not
marked as %config (even if rpmlint complains about it).
* Some python related dependency
- Well, would you check the following import sentence?
* import Image (from opengl/texture.py: Perhaps python-imaging
It seems that Packages link from http://glchess.sourceforge.net/
requires 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 235234] New: Review Request: aoetools - ATA over Ethernet Tools
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=235234 Summary: Review Request: aoetools - ATA over Ethernet Tools Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://beer.tclug.org/fedora-extras/aoetools/aoetools.spec SRPM URL: http://beer.tclug.org/fedora-extras/aoetools/aoetools-14-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: The aoetools are programs that assist in using ATA over Ethernet on systems with version 2.6 Linux kernels. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235236] New: Review Request: vblade - Virtual EtherDrive (R) blade daemon
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=235236 Summary: Review Request: vblade - Virtual EtherDrive (R) blade daemon Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://beer.tclug.org/fedora-extras/vblade/vblade.spec SRPM URL: http://beer.tclug.org/fedora-extras/vblade/vblade-14-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: The vblade is the virtual EtherDrive (R) blade, a program that makes a seekable file available over an ethernet local area network (LAN) via the ATA over Ethernet (AoE) protocol. The seekable file is typically a block device like /dev/md0 but even regular files will work. When vblade exports the block storage over AoE it becomes a storage target. Another host on the same LAN can access the storage if it has a compatible aoe kernel driver. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234488] Review Request: yum-presto - Yum plugin to download deltarpms rather than full rpms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: yum-presto - Yum plugin to download deltarpms rather than full rpms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234488 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 13:55 EST --- NOTE: (Just in case if it wasn't obvious or clear) When/if imported into Extras, the default config(s) must not point to repos/servers outside of the (usual) fedoraproject infrastructure. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235249] New: Review Request: vdrift-data-minimal - VDrift minimal data set
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=235249 Summary: Review Request: vdrift-data-minimal - VDrift minimal data set Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/extras/vdrift/vdrift-data-minimal.spec SRPM URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/extras/vdrfit/vdrift-data-minimal-20070323-1.src.rpm Description: VDrift minimal data set. See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234490 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234490] Review Request: VDrift - VDrift is a cross-platform, open source driving/drift racing simulation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: VDrift - VDrift is a cross-platform, open source driving/drift racing simulation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234490 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 14:03 EST --- Spec URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/extras/vdrift/vdrift.spec SRPM URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/extras/vdrift/vdrift-20070323-2.src.rpm Split out vdrift-data-minimal. Review BZ here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235249 Adding [EMAIL PROTECTED], still needs work on path correction/scons. Working on full data set RPM. Will submit for review once my bandwidth improves on 4/13/07. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234488] Review Request: yum-presto - Yum plugin to download deltarpms rather than full rpms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: yum-presto - Yum plugin to download deltarpms rather than full rpms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234488 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 14:04 EST --- Thank you for pointing that out. I hadn't thought about it, but I guess it should have been obvious to me. When/if we get presto into extras, I don't think we'll point it at any repositories. Rather, it will be up to the repository owners (or the user) to add the deltaurl line to their .repo files. Thanks for the heads up. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234488] Review Request: yum-presto - Yum plugin to download deltarpms rather than full rpms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: yum-presto - Yum plugin to download deltarpms rather than full rpms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234488 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 14:08 EST --- Totally agreed. Jonathan: Can you make sure the version you check in has a commented presto.conf? ie, so it doesn't enable anything by default and the user must enable it, or wait until it's enabled in their repo files? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234488] Review Request: yum-presto - Yum plugin to download deltarpms rather than full rpms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: yum-presto - Yum plugin to download deltarpms rather than full rpms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234488 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 14:24 EST --- It shouldn't be hard to comment the conf file. The plugin will be enabled, but there won't be any presto repositories in the conf file (as there are now). If there aren't any presto repositories in the conf file and none in the user's .repo files, then it's just as if the plugin is disabled. I had never originally planned on having the conf file contain repository information at all. It just turned out to be an easy feature to add and one that was invaluable during testing. I'm hoping that, as interest in yum-presto grows, Fedora Infrastructure will start hosting deltarpms and modify their .repo files accordingly (the deltaurl option will be ignored by yum if yum-presto isn't installed). So, to reiterate, the conf file will not point to *any* repositories. If there's anything else you would like me to do with this, let me know. Jonathan -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225653] Merge Review: concurrent
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: concurrent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225653 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 15:18 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) ... This is OK as Public Domain, please see https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-March/msg00142.html Right, I know public domain is acceptable, but is this project really public domain if it has that clause in there? I've listed the Sun License and a link to the pdf in the original mail, and it was described as Public Domain, feel free to further discuss that in that discussion thread if you see fit. ... X Do we want to be advertising for that book? Good catch, got rid of it. ... * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps X missing a -p on the first cp in %prep Fixed. rpm -qp --requires concurrent-javadoc-1.3.4-5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm /bin/ln /bin/rm /bin/rm X it should not need a requires on these Fixed. New spec file and srpm uploaded at the same location. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2
Please 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-RPM2 Alias: perl-RPM2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||m) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 15:35 EST --- Hrm - checking out the module works for me now (cvs co perl-RPM2), but importing it fails: [EMAIL PROTECTED] fedora-extras]$ common/cvs-import.sh /tmp/perl-RPM2-0.67-1.src.rpm Checking out module: 'perl-RPM2' connect to address 10.8.34.151 port 544: Connection refused cvs [checkout aborted]: end of file from server (consult above messages if any) ERROR: perl-RPM2 module does not exist in cvs. [EMAIL PROTECTED] fedora-extras]$ echo $CVSROOT :ext:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs/extras [EMAIL PROTECTED] fedora-extras]$ echo $CVS_RSH ssh Any ideas? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235293] New: Review Request: adminutil - Utility library for Fedora Directory Server administration
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=235293 Summary: Review Request: adminutil - Utility library for Fedora Directory Server administration Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://directory.fedoraproject.org/sources/adminutil.spec SRPM URL: http://directory.fedoraproject.org/sources/adminutil-1.1.0-1.src.rpm Description: adminutil is used to administer Fedora Directory Server, usually in conjunction with the admin server. It is broken into two libraries - libadminutil contains the basic functionality, and libadmsslutil contains SSL versions and wrappers around the basic functions. The PSET functions allow applications to store their preferences and configuration parameters in LDAP, without having to know anything about LDAP. The configuration is cached in a local file, allowing applications to function even if the LDAP server is down. The other code is typically used by CGI programs used for directory server management, containing GET/POST processing code as well as resource handling (ICU ures API). Source tarball: http://directory.fedoraproject.org/sources/adminutil-1.1.0.tar.bz2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 17:10 EST --- Hi Ivana, I went throught all the comments above, and I don't see any further blockers, so bzip2-1.0.4-10.fc7 is approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198816] Review Request: gfs-utils - global file system userland utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gfs-utils - global file system userland utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198816 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |201449 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 17:15 EST --- Sorry, I'll have to close this 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 209511] Review Request: gnbd - global network block device
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnbd - global network block device https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209511 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |201449 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 17:18 EST --- Sorry, I'll have to close this 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 234857] Review Request: perl-Geography-Countries - 2-letter, 3-letter, and numerical codes for countries
Please 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-Geography-Countries - 2-letter, 3-letter, and numerical codes for countries Alias: Geography-Countries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234857 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 17:59 EST --- Built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234858] Review Request: perl-User-Identity - Maintains info about a physical person
Please 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-User-Identity - Maintains info about a physical person Alias: perl-User-Identity https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234858 Bug 234858 depends on bug 234857, which changed state. Bug 234857 Summary: Review Request: perl-Geography-Countries - 2-letter, 3-letter, and numerical codes for countries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234857 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 234858] Review Request: perl-User-Identity - Maintains info about a physical person
Please 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-User-Identity - Maintains info about a physical person Alias: perl-User-Identity https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234858 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 18:02 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-User-Identity Short Description: Maintains info about a physical person Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-5 FC-6 InitialCC: fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234788] Review Request: perl-Email-MIME-Attachment-Stripper - Strip the attachments from a mail message
Please 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-Email-MIME-Attachment-Stripper - Strip the attachments from a mail message https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234788 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 18:12 EST --- Built. Thanks for the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225939] Merge Review: java-1.4.2-gcj-compat
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: java-1.4.2-gcj-compat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225939 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 18:20 EST --- java-1.4.2-gcj-compat has been removed for Fedora 7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225802] Merge Review: gjdoc
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: gjdoc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225802 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 18:21 EST --- gjdoc has been removed for Fedora 7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225944] Merge Review: jessie
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: jessie https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225944 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 18:22 EST --- jessie has been removed for Fedora 7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225944] Merge Review: jessie
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: jessie https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225944 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NOTABUG |WONTFIX -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-04-04 18:23 EST --- (In reply to comment #23) The version which is in fedora now is right - if there will be any change then there would be necessary to rebuild all dependencies. I'm not sure why was this change done (it was about 6 years ago), but it is ok. This problem should not be a subject of review. Indeed it should. The reverse is right. Letting pass that item without discussing it wouldn't be right. This is not a hard blocker, indeed. It is much too late to change it, indeed, if it has to be changed it should be changed right after fedora 7 is released. Also it could be decided not to change it, but use the upstream soname versionning if there is a new soname. Still this issue is not clear to me. Do you have an idea about what would be best (use libbz2.so.1 as soname or libbz2.so.1.0)? It seems right to me not to change the soname, but this issue should be settled down now such that it is easy to do the right thing when the soname is changed upstream, and a comment should be added in the spec to explain everything and give guidance for the future. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225927] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-discovery
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: jakarta-commons-discovery
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225927
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 18:23 EST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Please fix items marked by X:
MUST:
* package is named appropriately
- match upstream tarball or project name
- try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
- specfile should be %{name}.spec
- non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
something)
- for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
- if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be
not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name
* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
- OSI-approved
- not a kernel module
- not shareware
- is it covered by patents?
- it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
- no binary firmware
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
- use acronyms for licences where common
* specfile name matches %{name}
* verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches
do)
- if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on
how to generate the the source drop; ie.
# svn export blah/tag blah
# tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
* correct buildroot
- should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
X license text included in package and marked with %doc
Fixed
- should the README.txt, RELEASE-NOTES.txt be marked as %doc as well?
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output
- W: jakarta-commons-discovery non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
-
this is OK
* changelog are OK
* Packager tag should not be used
* Vendor tag should not be used
* Distribution tag should not be used
* use License and not Copyright
* Summary tag should not end in a period
* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
* specfile is legible
- this is largely subjective; use your judgement
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
- builds in mock will flush out problems here
- the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires:
bash
bzip2
coreutils
cpio
diffutils
fedora-release (and/or redhat-release)
gcc
gcc-c++
gzip
make
patch
perl
redhat-rpm-config
rpm-build
sed
tar
unzip
which
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
* make sure lines are = 80 characters
* specfile written in American English
* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
- see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
* don't use rpath
* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
* should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
* use macros appropriately and consistently
- ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
* don't use %makeinstall
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
- if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
end of %install
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package should probably not be relocatable
* package contains code
- see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
- in general, there should be no offensive content
* package should own all directories and files
* there should be no %files duplicates
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
* %clean should be present
* %doc files should not affect runtime
* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
will do this when this can be built in mock
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
will do this when this can be built in mock
SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
* package should build on i386
* package should build in mock
It doesn't build in mock currently:
javadoc:
[mkdir] Created dir: /builddir/build/BUILD/commons-discovery-0.4-src/dist
[Bug 225845] Merge Review: gnu-crypto
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: gnu-crypto https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225845 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 18:24 EST --- gnu-crypto has been removed for Fedora 7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226149] Merge Review: mockobjects
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: mockobjects https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226149 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226149] Merge Review: mockobjects
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: mockobjects https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226149 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 18:30 EST --- mockobjects has been removed for Fedora 7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227086] Review Request: mockobjects-0.09-16jpp - Java MockObjects package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mockobjects-0.09-16jpp - Java MockObjects package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227086 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 18:31 EST --- mockobjects has been removed for Fedora 7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225653] Merge Review: concurrent
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: concurrent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225653 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 18:35 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #4) ... This is OK as Public Domain, please see https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-March/msg00142.html Right, I know public domain is acceptable, but is this project really public domain if it has that clause in there? I've listed the Sun License and a link to the pdf in the original mail, and it was described as Public Domain, feel free to further discuss that in that discussion thread if you see fit. Ok, its seems to be ok https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-April/msg00014.html Everything looks good 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 234789] Review Request: perl-Return-Value - Polymorphic Return Values
Please 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-Return-Value - Polymorphic Return Values Alias: perl-Return-Value https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234789 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 18:38 EST --- Built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234791] Review Request: perl-Email-Send - Module for sending email
Please 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-Email-Send - Module for sending email Alias: perl-Email-Send https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234791 Bug 234791 depends on bug 234789, which changed state. Bug 234789 Summary: Review Request: perl-Return-Value - Polymorphic Return Values https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234789 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225931] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-lang
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: jakarta-commons-lang https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225931 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 18:52 EST --- 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 234860] Review Request: perl-Mail-IMAPClient - An IMAP Client API
Please 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-Mail-IMAPClient - An IMAP Client API Alias: perl-Mail-IMAPClient https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234860 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 18:53 EST --- New Spec URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/perl-Mail-IMAPClient.spec New SRPM URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/perl-Mail-IMAPClient-2.2.9-2.src.rpm Added missing docs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234862] Review Request: perl-Mail-Box - Manage a mailbox, a folder with messages
Please 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-Mail-Box - Manage a mailbox, a folder with messages Alias: perl-Mail-Box https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234862 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 18:56 EST --- New Spec URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/perl-Mail-Box.spec New SRPM URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/perl-Mail-Box-2.070-2.src.rpm Added examples/ to %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 234667] Review Request: dwarves - DWARF Tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dwarves - DWARF Tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234667 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 19:22 EST --- New Release: SRPM: http://oops.ghostprotocols.net:81/acme/dwarves/rpm/SRPMS/dwarves-0-18.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 232160] Review Request: ruby-gnome2 - A ruby binding of libgnome/libgnomeui-2.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-gnome2 - A ruby binding of libgnome/libgnomeui-2.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232160 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 19:38 EST --- is there a problem with the site you posted the srpm? because i can't download 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 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2
Please 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-RPM2 Alias: perl-RPM2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |m) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 20:04 EST --- (In reply to comment #35) connect to address 10.8.34.151 port 544: Connection refused cvs [checkout aborted]: end of file from server (consult above messages if any) That doesn't look right. Sorry but could you try again and if you still have problems please ask on #fedora-admin or cvsadmin-members at fedoraproject org. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225653] Merge Review: concurrent
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: concurrent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225653 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 20:10 EST --- Package built in brew. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231911] Review Request: jomolhari-fonts - Jomolhari a Bhutanese style font for Tibetan and Dzongkha
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jomolhari-fonts - Jomolhari a Bhutanese style font for Tibetan and Dzongkha https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231911 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 20:11 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) Jens IMHO package name only refer to name not to the case sensitivity of name, just look at Packaging/NamingGuidelines - Case Sensitivity. As I would also prefer lowercase name so leave it as is. Ok, fine, works for me. :) Can I keep the old Summary, it will be consistent with the TMU package where the font name is included in Summary? Well it is up to you really. Personally I don't see so much point in repeating the package name in the summary, but it is ok if you prefer to keep 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 225931] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-lang
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: jakarta-commons-lang https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225931 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 20:27 EST --- Package built in brew. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225610] Merge Review: bcel
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: bcel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225610 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 21:06 EST --- Updated spec file and srpm at: https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/284/bcel.spec https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/283/bcel-5.1-10jpp.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 231911] Review Request: jomolhari-fonts - Jomolhari a Bhutanese style font for Tibetan and Dzongkha
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jomolhari-fonts - Jomolhari a Bhutanese style font for Tibetan and Dzongkha https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231911 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 22:00 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) Chris and Jens, which URL are you suggesting to use: http://www.btinternet.com/~c.fynn/tibetan/fonts/jomolhari.html or http://www.thdl.org/tools/fonts/tibfonts.php?l=uva200607171100 Chris, any comments? Probably doesn't matter too much, though Chris webpage seems more up to date. Has the license in 0.003c changed to OFL? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228301] Review Request: python-nevow - Web application construction kit written in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-nevow - Web application construction kit written in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228301 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [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 228301] Review Request: python-nevow - Web application construction kit written in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-nevow - Web application construction kit written in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228301 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231911] Review Request: jomolhari-fonts - Jomolhari a Bhutanese style font for Tibetan and Dzongkha
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jomolhari-fonts - Jomolhari a Bhutanese style font for Tibetan and Dzongkha https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231911 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-04 22:44 EST --- Either URL is OK - the THDL site currently takes a while to get updated as they are reorganizing everything. 0.003c was changed to OFL as this seems to work better for fonts. - Chris -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
