[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] 2007-04-05 01:44 EST --- Before I go for review, Let me give here what build.log gave me * Installing MailBox * * First, I will check the sanity of all required modules... sometimes * they do not load, for instance if you have installed a new release * of Perl without upgrading the libraries. Scalar::Util version 1.18 is ok (required is 1.13) File::Remove version 0.33 is ok (required is 0.2) IO::Scalar version 2.110 is ok (required is 0) Object::Realize::Later version 0.16 is ok (required is 0.14) File::Spec version 3.12 is ok (required is 0.7) Time::Zone version 2.22 is ok (required is 0) User::Identity version 0.91 is ok (required is 0.9) Digest::HMAC_MD5 version 1.01 is ok (required is 0) Mail::Address version 1.74 is ok (required is 0) Errno version 1.0901 is ok (required is 0) Test::Harness version 2.56 is outdated; requires 2.62 URI version 1.35 is ok (required is 1.23) MIME::Types version 1.17 is ok (required is 1.004) Date::Parse version 2.27 is ok (required is 0) Test::More version 0.62 is ok (required is 0.47) MIME::Base64 version 3.07 is ok (required is 0) Sys::Hostname version 1.11 is ok (required is 0) * Now, let me ask you whether you want some optional modules to be * installed as well. You can always install these modules later, by * hand, without a need to re-install MailBox. * Optional Mail::Box::Parser::C is not installed Use: Speeds-up reading mail folders, though most time is consumed by Perl's administration of the processed data. WARN This module contains XS code, so you need a C compiler. Do you want to install Mail::Box::Parser::C? yes/no/all [n] Found optional Encode version 2.12 (at least 1.86 required) Found optional Mail::Transport::Dbx version 0.07 (at least 0.04 required) Found optional Mail::SpamAssassin version 3.002000 (at least 2.00 required) Found optional Mail::IMAPClient version 2.2.9 (at least 2.2.8 required) Found optional Mail::Internet version 1.74 (at least 1.0 required) Found optional MIME::Entity version 5.420 (at least 3.0 required) Found optional HTML::TreeBuilder version 3.21 (at least 3.13 required) Found optional Time::HiRes version 1.86 (at least 1.51 required) Found optional HTML::FormatText version 2.04 (at least 2.01 required) Do you want to run the (large set of) tests? yes/no [yes] Writing Makefile Checking if your kit is complete... Looks good Warning: prerequisite Test::Harness 2.62 not found. We have 2.56. Writing Makefile for Mail::Box Done yes: standard output: Broken pipe yes: write error Now I have 2 questions:- 1)Saw all optional dependencies got installed successfully except Mail::Box::Parser::C Is that OK or its missing BR? 2)Warning: prerequisite Test::Harness 2.62 not found. We have 2.56. Did some search for Test::Harness and found its part of perl package but not able to get more information on its versions 2.62/2.56. Also I found because of this make test is disables. Want to know reason to disable them? %check # We can't do this, perl(Test::Harness) is too old. :/ # make test -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234861] Review Request: perl-Mail-Transport-Dbx - Parse Outlook Express mailboxe
Please 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-Transport-Dbx - Parse Outlook Express mailboxe https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234861 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 02:16 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) Parag, I don't understand what you don't understand: Your log shows this: t/0_pod.skipped all skipped: Test::Pod not installed t/0_pod_coverageskipped all skipped: Test::Pod::Coverage not installed This means, the tests have not been fully excercised, because some optional modules were missing when building. Note: These modules are optional. So after we create SPEC for any new perl package, we need to run make test to its maximum to check for whether we are missing any optional modules for this package or not and if we are missing anything then add those required packages as BR to SPEC. So far, it has been our policy to test to the maximum, when possible (In practice, inside of the buildsys, i.e. everything but network access or some cases of database access) I.e. to let the testsuite excercise these checks, you'd have to BR: these tests' infrastructure. Ok. So this is main thing I should remember for reviewing now any perl-* packages. Really wonder about perl packages that make will not require or asks those BRs but make tests asks about that. I don't fully understand what you are trying to say, the principle of most perl modules' testsuites (and most testsuites in general), is to run non-interactive, non-supervised and only warn about those cases when something is missing. I.e. if you want larger test coverage but some minimal tests, you'll have to configure a testsuite and your system in advance to running it. In case of a perl module, these BR: ... means to taylor the system for the testsuite in advance to running a testsuite. What my basic question is towards perl-* packages/its packaging is that in most of normal packages that uses gcc compilation uses ./configure and from there also we can know if we are missing to add any packages as BRs. But I am not able to find same for perl packages. Instead I saw make test is the only one way to satisfy package's all requires Build time dependencies. Now I got that. thanks for your reply. Tom, Either you can submit a new package to review again or you can add those BRs at a time of package importing in CVS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234861] Review Request: perl-Mail-Transport-Dbx - Parse Outlook Express mailboxe
Please 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-Transport-Dbx - Parse Outlook Express mailboxe https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234861 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 02:06 EST --- Parag, I don't understand what you don't understand: Your log shows this: t/0_pod.skipped all skipped: Test::Pod not installed t/0_pod_coverageskipped all skipped: Test::Pod::Coverage not installed This means, the tests have not been fully excercised, because some optional modules were missing when building. Note: These modules are optional. So far, it has been our policy to test to the maximum, when possible (In practice, inside of the buildsys, i.e. everything but network access or some cases of database access) I.e. to let the testsuite excercise these checks, you'd have to BR: these tests' infrastructure. Really wonder about perl packages that make will not require or asks those BRs but make tests asks about that. I don't fully understand what you are trying to say, the principle of most perl modules' testsuites (and most testsuites in general), is to run non-interactive, non-supervised and only warn about those cases when something is missing. I.e. if you want larger test coverage but some minimal tests, you'll have to configure a testsuite and your system in advance to running it. In case of a perl module, these BR: ... means to taylor the system for the testsuite in advance to running a testsuite. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225066] Review Request: gedit-plugins - Collections of plugins for gedit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gedit-plugins - Collections of plugins for gedit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225066 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 03:15 EST --- I think most of the issues you mentioned have been addressed. Do you have any other comment? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234861] Review Request: perl-Mail-Transport-Dbx - Parse Outlook Express mailboxe
Please 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-Transport-Dbx - Parse Outlook Express mailboxe https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234861 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 03:21 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #4) What my basic question is towards perl-* packages/its packaging is that in most of normal packages that uses gcc compilation uses ./configure These are configuration-time options (If found then activate/build-in a feature) and from there also we can know if we are missing to add any packages as BRs. But I am not able to find same for perl packages. Instead I saw make test is the only one way to satisfy package's all requires Build time dependencies. ... and these are run-time options (run-time of the test-suites) The former rarely exist for perl-packages (Nevertheless, they occasionally they exist), while the latter also occasionally exist for ordinary packages (but most packages don't ship a testsuite) The problems actually are: * rpm doesn't destinguish between both situations. * Most packages do not properly destinguish between both cases. In practice, packagers have to resort to a compromise that works, which in most cases will be activate a testsuite only if it doesn't pull in additional configuration-time deps. In most cases, such as most perl-packages, activating the testsuite will not have negative impacts on package deps, but that's an item to be carefully watched for. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226904] Review Request: qmpdclient - MPD client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qmpdclient - MPD client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226904 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] ||t.org --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 03:35 EST --- Are these warnings a problem? [EMAIL PROTECTED] i386]$ rpmlint -v qmpdclient-* I: qmpdclient checking I: qmpdclient-debuginfo checking W: qmpdclient-debuginfo hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/qmpdclient-1.0.7/.res W: qmpdclient-debuginfo hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/qmpdclient-1.0.7/.res W: qmpdclient-debuginfo hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/qmpdclient-1.0.7/.ui W: qmpdclient-debuginfo hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/qmpdclient-1.0.7/.ui W: qmpdclient-debuginfo hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/qmpdclient-1.0.7/.moc W: qmpdclient-debuginfo hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/qmpdclient-1.0.7/.moc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225849] Merge Review: gnuplot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gnuplot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225849 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 03:38 EST --- Patrice what preciesly are the problems you need to change before you proved 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 220393] Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_DEV |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||ca) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 04:06 EST --- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227309] Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227309 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 03:59 EST --- ( I certainly remember I am reviewing this bug. When new package is ready, please upload and I will check 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 203520] Review Request: evolution-brutus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: evolution-brutus Alias: evolution-brutus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203520 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 03:55 EST --- Brian, would you expect that I check the rpms submitted by Jules comment 74? Or will you check Brian's rpms and modify them somewhat? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 209468] Review Request: Sjitter - Another network performance tool...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Sjitter - Another network performance tool... Alias: sjitter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209468 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |201449 nThis|| Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]|fedora-review- |il.com) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 04:08 EST --- Closing as 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 225983] Merge Review: less
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: less https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225983 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 04:08 EST --- Ed, could you please look at less-394-9.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 223592] Review Request: wuja - Gnome desktop applet for integration with Google calendar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wuja - Gnome desktop applet for integration with Google calendar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223592 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||lyinc.com) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 04:04 EST --- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222964] Review Request: dayplanner - A simple time management program.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dayplanner - A simple time management program. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222964 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 04:05 EST --- Again ping? I will close this bug in a week unless any response is made on 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 223657] Review Request: PerceptualDiff - An image comparison utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: PerceptualDiff - An image comparison utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223657 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 03:56 EST --- Again ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226113] Merge Review: lynx
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: lynx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||m) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 04:25 EST --- Robin, could you please look at less 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 203520] Review Request: evolution-brutus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: evolution-brutus Alias: evolution-brutus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203520 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 05:08 EST --- It would be easier to maintain for all parties, I think, if we could modify my build process so that the resulting e-b spec file is good enough for approval instead of maintaining Brian's spec outside of my source tree. But it is about making it as easy as possible for Brian to maintain e-b in Fedora, not about making it easy for me. So I'll just go with whatever Brian says ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226904] Review Request: qmpdclient - MPD client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qmpdclient - MPD client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226904 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 05:20 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) Are these warnings a problem? I don't think so. They all are connected with debuginfo subpackage and I have no influence on 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 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] 2007-04-05 05:59 EST --- rpmlint recognise only SIL Open Font License as valid license tag, OFL is reported as unknown. Can I leave the short form? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226224] Merge Review: pam_ccreds
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: pam_ccreds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226224
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 07:04 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
W: pam_ccreds no-url-tag
Fixed.
E: pam_ccreds binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/sbin/ccreds_validate
['/lib/security']
E: pam_ccreds binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/sbin/cc_dump
['/lib/security']
E: pam_ccreds binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/sbin/cc_test
['/lib/security']
- replace rpath if possible
No, the rpath is correct because the binaries have to link to the pam_ccreds.so
module directly.
E: pam_ccreds setuid-binary /usr/sbin/ccreds_validate root 04755
E: pam_ccreds non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/ccreds_validate 04755
- I think they are needed for functionality of pam_ccred
Yes.
W: pam_ccreds buildprereq-use automake db4-devel openssl-devel pam-devel
- Use plain BuildRequires instead.
Fixed.
Missing dist tag.
Added.
Missing post, pre part with ldconfig for shared library.
There is only pam module, no regular shared library - no need for ldconfig.
Requires should include version, which is needed for install/build
%{name} = %{version}-%{release}
It should build fine with versions which are not years old I don't think
explicit versions are required.
(pam_ccreds-4-2.fc7)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225849] Merge Review: gnuplot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gnuplot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225849 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 07:58 EST --- I think that the font directories are important for the integration in fedora. The docs are not a blocker, but I gave all the informations needed to implement it. Do you want a patch for that? Otherwise at the moment I don't have any time to devote to merge reviews (it is also for other reviews I am involved in), so somebody else should take the review, or you'll have to wait (notice that I never formally took the review, because I knew that I could be taken by 'real life' tasks). A side note is that the comments I made in the gd merge review are in fact useful for the new gnuplot png driver, and also to avoid bogus dependencies in gnuplot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225786] Merge Review: gd
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: gd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225786 [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 225293] Merge Review: authconfig
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: authconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225293 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 06:27 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) authconfig W: authconfig no-url-tag - add tag Fixed although the project doesn't have any real web pages. W: authconfig symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/authconfig-tui /usr/share/authconfig/authconfig-tui.py W: authconfig symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/authconfig /usr/share/authconfig/authconfig.py - possible problems with absolute symlinks The symlink points to completely unrelated subtree - should stay absolute. W: authconfig read-error /etc/pam.d/system-auth-ac [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/tmp/authconfig-5.3.13-2.fc7.i386.rpm.10386//etc/pam.d/system-auth-ac' Bug in rpmlint. authconfig-gtk W: authconfig-gtk no-url-tag W: authconfig-gtk no-documentation W: authconfig-gtk symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/system-config-authentication /usr/share/authconfig/authconfig-gtk.py W: authconfig-gtk no-dependency-on usermode It depends on it indirectly through authconfig base package. W: authconfig-gtk symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/authconfig-gtk /usr/share/authconfig/authconfig-gtk.py W: authconfig-gtk no-dependency-on usermode Wrong buildroot path. Fixed. %defattr(-,root,root) replace with %defattr(-,root,root,-) Fixed. (authconfig-5.3.13-3.fc7) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226669] Merge Review: zip
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: zip
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226669
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |medium
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 07:44 EST ---
* What's the reasons not updating to 2.32?
* I'm not sure but probably zcrypt29.zip can br droped.
As it states in crypt.c (from 2.31 and 2.32):
The main encryption/decryption source code for Info-Zip software was
originally written in Europe. To the best of our knowledge, it can
be freely distributed in both source and object forms from any country,
including the USA under License Exception TSU of the U.S. Export
Administration Regulations (section 740.13(e)) of 6 June 2002.
Prior to January 2000, re-export from the US was a violation of US law.
Enc/dec in 2.3{2,1} are newer then in zrypt29.zip
* Drop BUGS, as in 2.32 we can read:
This file is likely out of date
17 May 2006
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226232] Merge Review: passwd
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: passwd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226232 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 05:10 EST --- Dist tag added. Buildroot changed to the standard value (passwd-0.74-3.fc7). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 207805] Review Request: skey - An S/Key implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: skey - An S/Key implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207805 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 07:18 EST --- Probably related, how about adding at least OPIE support? There are packages available for Debian, PLD and SuSE but I didn't found one for Fedora/RedHat systems. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226130] Merge Review: man-pages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: man-pages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226130 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 08:48 EST --- This directory should be owned by filesystem - it is not part of aman-pages package. So I filled separate bug against this problem (235356). Is there any other problem which you want to fix in man-pages-2.43-10.fc7? If there is no problem and you agree that the package fulfill the review requirements, please could you approved it. 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 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] 2007-04-05 09:28 EST --- 1)Saw all optional dependencies got installed successfully except Mail::Box::Parser::C Is that OK or its missing BR? A) Mail::Box::Parser::C depends on Mail::Box, not the other way around. I packaged it up too, but it can't be a BR of perl-Mail-Box. 2)Warning: prerequisite Test::Harness 2.62 not found. We have 2.56. Did some search for Test::Harness and found its part of perl package but not able to get more information on its versions 2.62/2.56. Also I found because of this make test is disables. Want to know reason to disable them? A) Test::Harness is part of core perl. Its too old for this package's tests. make test explodes because of it, but the perl bits work fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226320] Merge Review: psacct
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: psacct
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226320
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |medium
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED
Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|m) |
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 09:47 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
SRC
W: psacct no-url-tag
- there is no upstream
W: psacct strange-permission psacct.init 0775
- this could not be changed
W: psacct prereq-use /sbin/chkconfig /sbin/install-info
- fixed
W: psacct conffile-without-noreplace-flag /var/account/pacct
E: psacct non-readable /var/account/pacct 0600
- this is not a problem
W: psacct dangerous-command-in-%post mv
- this is not a problem
Replace buildroot.
- fixed
Replace macro %{makeinstall}, if you can.
- fixed
Defattr has 4 parametres.
- fixed
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT{/sbin,%{_bindir},%{_mandir},%{_sbindir}}
Isn't $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/sbin the same as $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_sbindir} ?
- no %{_sbindir} should be /usr/sbin directory
The fixed version is psacct-6.3.2-44.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 235370] New: Review Request: php-pear-MDB2-Driver-pgsql - PostgreSQL driver for MDB2
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=235370 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-MDB2-Driver-pgsql - PostgreSQL driver for MDB2 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://www.davehollis.com/packages/php-pear-MDB2-Driver-pgsql.spec SRPM URL: http://www.davehollis.com/packages/php-pear-MDB2-Driver-pgsql-1.4.0-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: This package provides a PostgreSQL driver for the MDB2 database abstraction library. This is my first submitted package so I am seeking a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235370] Review Request: php-pear-MDB2-Driver-pgsql - PostgreSQL driver for MDB2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-MDB2-Driver-pgsql - PostgreSQL driver for MDB2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235370 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235376] New: Review Request: ocsinventory-ipdiscover - Open Computer and Software Inventory Next Generation client
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=235376 Summary: Review Request: ocsinventory-ipdiscover - Open Computer and Software Inventory Next Generation client 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://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/ocsinventory-ipdiscover.spec SRPM URL: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/ocsinventory-ipdiscover-1.01-1.fc7.src.rpm Mock Log: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/ocsinventory-ipdiscover-build.log Description: Open Computer and Software Inventory Next Generation is an application designed to help a network or system administrator keep track of computer configuration and software installed on the network. It also allows deploying softwares, commands or files on Windows and Linux client computers. ocsinventory-ipdiscover provide the ipiscover command used by client agent for Linux. - ocsinventory-client is already available in the Extras. This is a split, need to : ocsinventory-client become noarch (perl only) ocsinventory-ipdiscover is needed by new agent (Unix Unified Agent) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235376] Review Request: ocsinventory-ipdiscover - Open Computer and Software Inventory Next Generation client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocsinventory-ipdiscover - Open Computer and Software Inventory Next Generation client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235376 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 10:37 EST --- Patrice, as you've done the review of ocsinventory-client, can you have a look to 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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 10:48 EST --- Ok, I figured out what was breaking. The odd error message threw me off...I added a -t to the cvs command in the cvs_import.sh script: - Starting server: /usr/kerberos/bin/krsh -l rnorwood cvs.fedora.redhat.com cvs server It's using krsh probably because I use krsh for my RH CVS checkout - my ~/.bashrc was setting CVS_RSH to it because of some changed I'd made recently. Works now, 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 235380] New: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here
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=235380 Summary: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here 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://david.woodhou.se/petitboot/libtwin.spec SRPM URL: http://david.woodhou.se/petitboot/libtwin-0.0.2-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: With embedded systems gaining high resolution displays and powerful cpus, the desire for sophisticated graphical user interfaces can be realized in even the smallest of systems. While the cpupower available for a given power budget has increased dramatically, these tiny systems remain severely memory constrained. This unique environment presents interesting challenges in graphical system design and implementation. To explore this particular space, a new window system, Twin, has been developed. Using ideas from modern window systems in larger environments, Twin offers overlapping translucent windows, anti-aliased graphics and scalable fonts in a total memory budget of 100KB. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235381] New: Review Request: libtwin - Tiny Window System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235381 Summary: Review Request: libtwin - Tiny Window System 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://david.woodhou.se/petitboot/libtwin.spec SRPM URL: http://david.woodhou.se/petitboot/libtwin-0.0.2-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: With embedded systems gaining high resolution displays and powerful cpus, the desire for sophisticated graphical user interfaces can be realized in even the smallest of systems. While the cpupower available for a given power budget has increased dramatically, these tiny systems remain severely memory constrained. This unique environment presents interesting challenges in graphical system design and implementation. To explore this particular space, a new window system, Twin, has been developed. Using ideas from modern window systems in larger environments, Twin offers overlapping translucent windows, anti-aliased graphics and scalable fonts in a total memory budget of 100KB. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235376] Review Request: ocsinventory-ipdiscover - Open Computer and Software Inventory Next Generation client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocsinventory-ipdiscover - Open Computer and Software Inventory Next Generation client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235376 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 10:53 EST --- I don't have much time to devote to reviewing these days, but given the nature of the package I'll try to do the review by the end of the week. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235380] Review Request: main package name here - short summary here
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235380 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: main |Review Request: main |package name here - short |package name here - short |summary here |summary here Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 10:53 EST --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 235381 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235381] Review Request: libtwin - Tiny Window System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libtwin - Tiny Window System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235381 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 10:53 EST --- *** Bug 235380 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 229250] Review Request: koji - Build system 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: koji - Build system tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229250 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 10:59 EST --- Whoops, forgot about this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 11:26 EST --- Ok, ran builds for FC-5 and FC-6. We'll see how they go. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225984] Merge Review: lftp
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: lftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225984 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 11:37 EST --- From https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-cvs-commits/2007-April/msg00189.html : +%post +/sbin/chkconfig --add lftp +/sbin/ldconfig + +%postun +if [ $1 = 0 ]; then +/sbin/chkconfig --del lftp +/sbin/ldconfig +fi +exit 0 + Why the call the to /sbin/chkconfig ? There are no servers in the lftp packagew? Cut-paste error? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225284] Merge Review: aspell-sr
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: aspell-sr https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225284 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 11:54 EST --- There is the same problem in RHEL5: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Server/en/os/SRPMS/aspell-sr-0.02-1.2.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225783] Merge Review: gdb
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: gdb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225783 [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 225254] Merge Review: apr-util
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: apr-util
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225254
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 12:11 EST ---
Thanks for the review! Please see 1.2.8-7 in CVS/Raw Hide soon.
1. Build root is not one of the recommended options
The buildroot used does meet the mandatory requirements.
2. It is recommended to use %{?dist} in Release:
This is not mandatory.
3. There is an outstanding bug for apr-util, but it may not apply to
Fedora.
Not relevant to review process.
4. Conflicts: should not be used. Perhaps Requires: subversion =
0.20.1-2 instead?
Removed, as suggested.
5 rpmlint output
W: apr-util invalid-license Apache Software License 2.0
No standard for License tags exists yet.
E: apr-util use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR
This is not prohibited by packaging guidelines, see f-m@ flamewar.
W: apr-util-devel no-documentation
All expected.
6. Build Requires
doxygen is in BuildRequires but it does not seem to be used in the
Removed.
7. .la files exist and must be removed
The .la file is part of the defined build interface for this package.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 12:13 EST --- ok, looks like they both built successfully. Finally done with 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 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] 2007-04-05 12:14 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #3) (In reply to comment #2) .. 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?) The README file just explain how the manifest file is used during building, this is something that shouldn't be included in the %doc section. I don't see a RELEASE-NOTES.txt Oops, I see that now. I have updated the srpm in 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 235409] New: Review Request:petitboot - graphical kexec-based bootloader
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=235409 Summary: Review Request:petitboot - graphical kexec-based bootloader 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://david.woodhou.se/petitboot/petitboot.spec SRPM URL: http://david.woodhou.se/petitboot/petitboot-0.0.1-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: Petitboot is a graphical bootloader for the PlayStation 3. It's based on the existing kboot project, plus the twin windowing system for the GUI. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225253] Merge Review: apr
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: apr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225253
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 12:16 EST ---
Thanks for the review! Please see apr-1.2.8-6 in CVS/Raw Hide.
1. Build root should be one of the recommended build roots:
The buildroot used meets the mandatory requirements.
2. The %{?dist} tag should be used in Release:
This is not mandatory.
3. BuildPrereq should not be used, use BuildRequires instead
Fixed.
4. Conflicts: is used and should not be. Perhaps change Conflicts: to
The Conflicts was correct but really no longer necessary; dropped as suggested.
5. There are outstanding bugs for apr please address them.
This is not relevant to the packaging review process.
6. In %configure it should not be necessary to set CC and CXX. If the
are required to be set, use %{__cc} and %{__cxx} instead of gcc and
g++
This is a left-over from some old build/libtool issue; dropped.
7. Source0: should be the upstream source location. Possibly,
Fixed.
8. .a files should be in a separate %{name}-static package or removed.
Removed.
9. rpmlint output
Fixed.
10. missed a .la file in apr-devel. This should be removed
This is part of the build interface and cannot be removed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226052] Merge Review: libunwind
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: libunwind https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|[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 226113] Merge Review: lynx
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: lynx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review?, |fedora-review+ |needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |m) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 12:35 EST --- Oh, sorry Ivana - everything looks fine now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235376] Review Request: ocsinventory-ipdiscover - Open Computer and Software Inventory Next Generation client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ocsinventory-ipdiscover - Open Computer and Software
Inventory Next Generation client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235376
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 12:53 EST ---
Please note that according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts one
should use downloads.sourceforge.net instead of an arbitrarily chosen mirror, so
a better source url would be:
Source0:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/ocsinventory/%{tarname}.tar.gz
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235417] New: Review Request: zzuf - Transparent application input fuzzer
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=235417 Summary: Review Request: zzuf - Transparent application input fuzzer 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 http://cachalot.mine.nu/6/SRPMS/zzuf.spec http://cachalot.mine.nu/6/SRPMS/zzuf-0.8.1-0.1.cmn6.src.rpm zzuf is a transparent application input fuzzer. It works by intercepting file operations and changing random bits in the program's input. zzuf's behaviour is deterministic, making it easy to reproduce bugs. rpmlint says WTFPL is an invalid license, but it's wrong. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234717] Review Request: python-spambayes - Bayesian anti-spam filter
Please 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-spambayes - Bayesian anti-spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234717
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 13:24 EST ---
Spec URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/python-spambayes.spec
SRPM URL:
http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/python-spambayes-1.0.4-2.src.rpm
%changelog
* Thu Apr 05 2007 Christopher Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.0.4-2
- %%exclude pyo and pyc files from %%{_bindir}
- Add scriptlet to remove shebangs
Okay, added some stuff to remove the rpmlint warnings. Still need to test this
out to make sure everything still works.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234717] Review Request: python-spambayes - Bayesian anti-spam filter
Please 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-spambayes - Bayesian anti-spam filter Alias: spambayes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234717 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||spambayes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235381] Review Request: libtwin - Tiny Window System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libtwin - Tiny Window System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235381 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 235381] Review Request: libtwin - Tiny Window System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libtwin - Tiny Window System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235381 [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 226270] Merge Review: perl-Net-DNS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl-Net-DNS Alias: perl-Net-DNS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226270 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 14:10 EST --- o Fixed the buildroot -- This string is in the README: All rights reserved. This program is free software; you may redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. Which is sufficient for perl packages - the text of the license doesn't have to be included unless it is included in the source tarball. --- o I can't reproduce the build failure you show maybe the root.log that Paul requests in comment #3 will help. o Fixed the BuildRequires - removed 'perl', and changed the others to the perl(Module::Name) format. --- 0.59-2.fc7 should fix these issues - if the mock build failure is geniune, we can look at the root.log and maybe figure out what's 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 235381] Review Request: libtwin - Tiny Window System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libtwin - Tiny Window System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235381 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 14:22 EST --- Spec URL: http://david.woodhou.se/petitboot/libtwin.spec SRPM URL: http://david.woodhou.se/petitboot/libtwin-0.0.2-2.fc7.src.rpm * Thu Apr 5 2007 David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.0.2-2 - Fix non-HAVE_ALTIVEC build -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235381] Review Request: libtwin - Tiny Window System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libtwin - Tiny Window System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235381 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 14:32 EST --- Good must items: - rpmlint runs clean - meets naming guidelines - spec file matches base name - meets packaging guidelines - license field matches actual license - license %doc - plain english, legible - source matches upstream - builds - dependencies in BuildRequires - runs ldconfig - no duplicate files - proper file permissions - proper macro use - contains appropriate %clean - all the devel package things are handled correctly - contains no .la files 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 234717] Review Request: python-spambayes - Bayesian anti-spam filter
Please 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-spambayes - Bayesian anti-spam filter
Alias: spambayes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234717
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
||t.org
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 14:38 EST ---
During byte compiling I get errors like this:
-
File /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/spambayes/Corpus.py, line 81
SyntaxError: ('from __future__ imports must occur at the beginning of the file',
('/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/spambayes
/Corpus.py', 81, None, None))
-
It might not be a problem, but I fixed it by removing the line that tries to
import __future__ since it is no longer needed. I added this line to the %prep
section:
-
# Fixes warnings during byte compiling.
sed -i s/from __future__ import generators// spambayes/*.py
-
I've tested it and it builds in mock on rawhide i386. I've also tested building
it on fc6 x86_64. No problems so far.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235409] Review Request:petitboot - graphical kexec-based bootloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request:petitboot - graphical kexec-based bootloader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235409 [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 225924] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-daemon
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-daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225924 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 225930] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-httpclient
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-httpclient https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225930 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 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 Status|NEW |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 232719] maven2-2.0.4-10jpp.3 - Java project management and project comprehension tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: maven2-2.0.4-10jpp.3 - Java project management and project comprehension tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232719 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 233004] Review Request: xmlrpc3 - Java XML-RPC implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xmlrpc3 - Java XML-RPC implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233004 Bug 233004 depends on bug 232719, which changed state. Bug 232719 Summary: maven2-2.0.4-10jpp.3 - Java project management and project comprehension tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232719 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 235409] Review Request:petitboot - graphical kexec-based bootloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request:petitboot - graphical kexec-based bootloader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235409 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 15:03 EST --- Good must items: - rpmlint runs clean - meets naming guidelines - spec file matches base name - meets packaging guidelines - license field matches actual license - plain english, legible - source matches upstream - builds - dependencies in BuildRequires - no duplicate files - proper file permissions - proper macro use - contains appropriate %clean - no devel package - contains no .la files The license in the spec file is correct, however there are very few files that actually have a license header in them and a copy of the GPL is not included. I've emailed upstream myself about this so it can be fixed in future versions. 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 226101] Merge Review: lm_sensors
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: lm_sensors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226101 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 15:50 EST --- Some intial comments, taken from a bug I've filed against lm_sensors long ago: 2 small packaging issues: 1) lm_sensors-devel ships a static lib, afaik shipping static libs is concidered deprecated and should no longer be done unless there is a specific reason (like initrd needing it) 2) /usr/share/man/man3/libsensors.3.gz must be in lm_sensors-devel not in lm_sensors -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226101] Merge Review: lm_sensors
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: lm_sensors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226101 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 15:50 EST --- *** Bug 197864 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 223592] Review Request: wuja - Gnome desktop applet for integration with Google calendar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wuja - Gnome desktop applet for integration with Google calendar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223592 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |lyinc.com) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 15:51 EST --- Will upgrade to Fedora 7 soon and attempt to get the rpm building properly without the elementtree dependency. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235409] Review Request:petitboot - graphical kexec-based bootloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request:petitboot - graphical kexec-based bootloader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235409 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 15:54 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: petitboot Short Description: Graphical Bootloader Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: InitialCC: [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 235381] Review Request: libtwin - Tiny Window System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libtwin - Tiny Window System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235381 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 15:55 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: libtwin Short Description: Tiny Window System Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: InitialCC: [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 235409] Review Request:petitboot - graphical kexec-based bootloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request:petitboot - graphical kexec-based bootloader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235409 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 16:06 EST --- done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225607] Merge Review: axis
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: axis https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225607 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 16:43 EST --- links point to an empty file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 16:43 EST --- links point to an empty file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225607] Merge Review: axis
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: axis https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225607 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 17:00 EST --- sorry... don't know what went wrong with the upload, fixed now, please try again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 17:01 EST --- sorry... don't know what went wrong with the upload, fixed now, please try again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235456] New: Review Request: php-pear-HTML-QuickForm-advmultiselect - Element for HTML_QuickForm that emulate a multi-select
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=235456 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-HTML-QuickForm-advmultiselect - Element for HTML_QuickForm that emulate a multi-select 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://www.espritdesims.info/fedora/php-pear-HTML-QuickForm-advmultiselect.spec SRPM URL: http://www.espritdesims.info/fedora/php-pear-HTML-QuickForm-advmultiselect-1.3.1-1.src.rpm Description: The HTML_QuickForm_advmultiselect package adds an element to the HTML_QuickForm package that is two select boxes next to each other emulating a multi-select. This is my first package submitted to Fedora Extras. I'm planning to build a package for Oreon (http://www.oreon-project.org/index.php?lang=en). This PEAR package is needed by Oreon, so please review it so that it can be included in Fedora Extras. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225984] Merge Review: lftp
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: lftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225984 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 18:31 EST --- Running Transaction ... Updating : lftp ### [ 3/10] error reading information on service lftp: No such file or directory Updating : yum-updatesd ### [ 4/10] Yeah , coming from the calls to chkconfig in scripts. BTW: i guess automake and autoconf should be removed as buildreq? More strange things: (rpath issue?): # ldd /usr/lib/lftp/3.5.10/proto-file.so |grep ncur libncurses.so.5 = /lib/libncurses.so.5 (0x00fad000) # /usr/lib/lftp/3.5.10/proto-http.so /usr/lib/lftp/3.5.10/proto-http.so: error while loading shared libraries: /usr/lib/libncurses.so.5: file too short All lftp libs should be linked against libncurses in /lib, however because of rpath libncurses in /usr/lib is used by some libs: proto-sftp.so, proto-ftp.so, proto-fish.so liblftp-network.so proto-http.so Please read: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-a1dfb5f46bf4098841e31a75d833e6e1b3e72544 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235471] New: Review Request: perl-PDF-API2 - Perl module for creation and modification of PDF files
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=235471 Summary: Review Request: perl-PDF-API2 - Perl module for creation and modification of PDF files 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://symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/fedora/perl-PDF-API2.spec SRPM URL: http://symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/fedora/perl-PDF-API2-0.59.002-1.src.rpm Description: A Perl Module Chain to faciliate the Creation and Modification of High-Quality Portable Document Format (aka. PDF) Files. In particular when you review this package, please pay attention to: 1) Licenses - multiple licenses 2) Patents - patent statements regarding PDF technology 3) Fonts - inclusion of fonts in package 4) Win32.pm - I removed these to not trigger additional dependencies Please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234031] Review Request: eclipse-pydev - an Eclipse plugin for working with 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: eclipse-pydev - an Eclipse plugin for working with Python. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234031 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 20:03 EST --- Andrew, I'll look into the legalities of these files right now. Tim, you may be right that JDT is required. What was the error you were getting without 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 229098] Review Request: openjpeg - JPEG 2000 codec library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openjpeg - JPEG 2000 codec library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229098 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 21:43 EST --- Well, any answers from upstream about 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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 22:14 EST --- Well, OK - Mock Build on FC-6 and FC-Devel (i386) OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License is MIT OK - License text is included in package. OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 4c744ea416b36dc9067b67e18c5707b5 Nevow-0.9.0.tar.gz OK - Package has correct buildroot. OK - BuildRequires isn't redundant. ?? - %prep stage SHOULD be quiet by setting -q option. OK - %build and %install stages is correct and work. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Changelog section is correct. -- - rpmlint output isn't silent: - * From .rpm file: W: python-nevow wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-nevow-0.9.0/examples/blogengine/styles/typo.css W: python-nevow wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-nevow-0.9.0/examples/blogengine/styles/form.css E: python-nevow zero-length /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/nevow/test/test_package/Foo/Baz/Quux.js E: python-nevow non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/nevow/test/test_object.js 0644 W: python-nevow wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-nevow-0.9.0/examples/postit/styles/typo.css W: python-nevow wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-nevow-0.9.0/examples/postit/postit.html E: python-nevow zero-length /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/nevow/test/test_package/Foo/Bar.js W: python-nevow wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-nevow-0.9.0/examples/postit/atom.xml W: python-nevow wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-nevow-0.9.0/examples/postit/styles/postit.css E: python-nevow zero-length /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/nevow/empty.js W: python-nevow wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-nevow-0.9.0/examples/blogengine/atom.xml W: python-nevow wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-nevow-0.9.0/examples/blogengine/styles/site.css W: python-nevow doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/python-nevow-0.9.0/examples/i18n/update-l10n /bin/sh * From .srpm file : E: python-nevow unknown-key GPG#e42d547b W: python-nevow setup-not-quiet SHOULD be fix -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229533] Review Request: perl-Template-GD - GD plugin(s) for the Template Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Template-GD - GD plugin(s) for the Template Toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229533 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-06 00:49 EST --- bugzilla package in fedora extras repository should reqires this package too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2007-04-06 01:33 EST --- I think SIL Open Font License is fine. :) The gentium-fonts package uses that too. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#Fonts Wondering if we ought to include a helloworld shellscript or something to fulfil the requirements of bundling some software according to the FSF page. The gentium-fonts package doesn't apparently. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-04-06 01:44 EST --- http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#Fonts Wondering if we ought to include a helloworld shellscript or something to fulfil the requirements of bundling some software according to the FSF page. http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsiitem_id=OFL-FAQ_web (question 1.4) Nevermind, seems I was worrying too much again. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
