[Bug 235790] New: Review Request: perl-CGI-Prototype - Create a CGI application by subclassing
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=235790 Summary: Review Request: perl-CGI-Prototype - Create a CGI application by subclassing Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/CGI-Prototype/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-CGI-Prototype-0.9053-1.fc6.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-CGI-Prototype.spec Description: The core of every CGI application seems to be roughly the same: * Analyze the incoming parameters, cookies, and URLs to determine the state of the application (let's call this dispatch). * Based on the current state, analyze the incoming parameters to respond to any form submitted (respond). * From there, decide what response page should be generated, and produce it (render). CGI::Prototype creates a Class::Prototyped engine for doing all this, with the right amount of callback hooks to customize the process. Because I'm biased toward Template Toolkit for rendering HTML, I've also integrated that as my rendering engine of choice. And, being a fan of clean MVC designs, the classes become the controllers, and the templates become the views, with clean separation of responsibilities, and CGI::Prototype a sort of archetypal controller. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235780] Review Request: perl-Class-Prototyped - Fast prototype-based OO programming in Perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Class-Prototyped - Fast prototype-based OO programming in Perl Alias: Class-Prototyped https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235780 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||235790 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 235790] Review Request: perl-CGI-Prototype - Create a CGI application by subclassing
Please 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-CGI-Prototype - Create a CGI application by subclassing Alias: perl-CGI-Prototype https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235790 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||perl-CGI-Prototype -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 02:28 EST --- Discussion about the setuid issue: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-security-list/2007-April/msg4.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235802] New: Review Request: remind - Sophisticated calendar and alarm program
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=235802 Summary: Review Request: remind - Sophisticated calendar and alarm program 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.bludgeon.org/~rayvd/rpms/remind/remind.spec SRPM URL: http://www.bludgeon.org/~rayvd/rpms/remind/remind-03.00.24-1.src.rpm Description: This is the remind program which is a very powerful scheduling program (different purpose than cron). I've created this package with the intent of making it part of EPEL. It is my first package however, so if it can or should be included in Fedora Extras or elsewhere, that would be fine as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230560] Review Request: wqy-bitmap-fonts - a fine-tuned CJK bitmap font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wqy-bitmap-fonts - a fine-tuned CJK bitmap font https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230560 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 02:55 EST --- I have not tried yet, but is the font better suited to Chinese than Japanese and Korean? Perhaps it would be better to replace CJK with Chinese? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235804] Review Request: ocamlSDL - OCaml bindings for SDL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocamlSDL - OCaml bindings for SDL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235804 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||163776, 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 235805] New: Review Request: camlimages - OCaml image processing library
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=235805 Summary: Review Request: camlimages - OCaml image processing library 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://dev.nigelj.com/SRPMS/camlimages.spec SRPM URL: http://dev.nigelj.com/SRPMS/camlimages-2.2.0-1.src.rpm Description: CamlImages is an image processing library for Objective CAML, which provides: basic functions for image processing and loading/saving various image file formats (hence providing a translation facility from format to format) an interface with the Caml graphics library allows to display images in the Graphics module screen and to mix them with Caml drawings In addition, the library can handle huge images that cannot be (or can hardly be) stored into the main memory (the library then automatically creates swap files and escapes them to reduce the memory usage). rpmlint: camlimages-2.2.0-1.i386.rpm: W: camlimages ocaml-naming-policy-not-applied /usr/lib/ocaml/camlimages/dllci_jpeg.so (I don't know if an exception can be made here, I can't find much on the problem) camlimages-devel-2.2.0-1.i386.rpm: W: camlimages-devel no-documentation W: camlimages-devel ocaml-naming-policy-not-applied /usr/lib/ocaml/camlimages/Makefile.config (1: docs are in the main package, which is strictly depended on, 2: Ditto about exception) camlimages-2.2.0-1.src.rpm: Clean Like with ocamlSDL (235804) I believe the files are in the right place etc etc, but I have one note: One package which depends on this (which I'm putting in for Package Review later today), depends on this for building, but not for use, I'm worried that the libraries are somehow been configured statically, not sure if it's a problem with this package or the other 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 235805] Review Request: camlimages - OCaml image processing 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: camlimages - OCaml image processing library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235805 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||163776, 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 225622] Merge Review: boost
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: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 05:13 EST --- Thanks Patrice. #11 looks good for me. As far as devel-static vs. static-devel vs. static, I don't see any other packages using static-devel. Do you? If not, why not? Is this something that should be asked on fedora-devel? #12 detail why you're doing the inlining and optimization changes. In addition, as long as you're doing this, you might as well do %optflags changes too. best, benjamin -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199905] Review Request: gotmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gotmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199905 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 05:38 EST --- Thanks for your feedback Wolfgang - much appreciated. I've rebuilt my development box and downloaded a more recent rpmlint. I now see the errors you've identified. I cannot, however, work out what the problem is: 1. All commands I can see use -p to preserve permissions. 2. umask is set to 022 3. Permissions of the spec file are 0644. I cannot see where the spec file is getting the 0600 permissions from. Do you have any other ideas? I have fixed the other issues: 1. Timestamps should now be preserved. 2. AUTHORS file has been merged into the man file. 3. I even added myself to it. :) Given the other changes I will increment the version and upload new packages shortly but I wanted to fix the permissions issue first. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 233850] Review Request: freepops - POP3 interface to webmails
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: freepops - POP3 interface to webmails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233850
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 05:49 EST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Z. First..
* Unneeded comment
- Please remove all unneeded comments These comments
done!
A. Description section
* Source0
- Please specify the URL where we can get tarball at Source0
done
* Redundant BuildRequires
done
* Pre/post stage requires for service installation
- Service installation requires some %Requires(post) and so on.
Done by adding
Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig
Requires(preun): /sbin/chkconfig
Requires(preun): /sbin/service
B. Build stage
* Parallel make
By adding %{?_smp_mflags} after
make it not works.
I'm not sure if parallel make isn't supported or it's just a my mistake
* Fedora specific compilation flags
- are not passed.
fixed
C. Install stage
* Timestamps
- Keep timestamps on the files which are not created or modified
done
D. File entry
* Directory ownership
fixed
Spec URL: http://francesco-laurita.info/files/fedora/freepops.spec
SRPM URL: http://francesco-laurita.info/files/fedora/freepops-0.2.2-1.src.rpm
Cya!!!
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234860] Review Request: perl-Mail-IMAPClient - An IMAP Client API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Mail-IMAPClient - An IMAP Client API Alias: perl-Mail-IMAPClient https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234860 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 06:09 EST --- Can you submit a new package that handles rpmlint warnings for 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 226396] Merge Review: scim-pinyin
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: scim-pinyin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226396 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225773] Merge Review: f-spot
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: f-spot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225773 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225759] Merge Review: fontconfig
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: fontconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225759 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225762] Merge Review: fonts-hebrew
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: fonts-hebrew https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225762 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 06:17 EST --- looks this package is orphaned ??? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225761] Merge Review: fonts-chinese
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: fonts-chinese https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225761 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 06:17 EST --- No response from maintainer yet ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225893] Merge Review: hwdata
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: hwdata https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225893 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 06:19 EST --- No response from maintainer -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226389] Merge Review: sane-frontends
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: sane-frontends https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226389 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 06:20 EST --- No Response from maintainer -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane
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: xsane https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 06:22 EST --- No response from maintainer -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225765] Merge Review: fonts-japanese
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: fonts-japanese https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225765 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 06:24 EST --- Do we got any conclusions here to solve conffile-without-noreplace-flag problem? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 176582] Review Request: freedt -- Reimplementation of Dan Bernstein's daemontools under the GNU GPL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: freedt -- Reimplementation of Dan Bernstein's daemontools under the GNU GPL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176582 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235815] New: Review Request: freetennis - Tennis simulation game
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=235815 Summary: Review Request: freetennis - Tennis simulation game 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://dev.nigelj.com/SRPMS/freetennis.spec SRPM URL: http://dev.nigelj.com/SRPMS/freetennis-0.4.8-1.src.rpm Description: Free Tennis is a free software tennis simulation game. The game can be played against an A.I. or human-vs-human via LAN or internet. rpmlint is clean on all rpms (incl src). Potential problems that I'm aware of that may/may not need fixing: 1. As noted in both blockers to this, the game has a buildrequires on -devel packages, but after build does not require library files, I am not sure if I have done something in error, (i.e. the libraries are been statically built), or this is how ocaml treat libraries etc, I've noted that the Debian freetennis package does not require ocamlSDL or camlimages 2. I'm a bit worried if I went a bit OTT on the directory ownership. 3. README and LICENSE are duplicated in both the main package and -data, this is because -data may be used in another package, and it may be possible to provide a seperate datafile, using the same directory format. 4. I think the summaries need a touch up before importing into Fedora, but I have time because this can be even uploaded (due to the blocking Reviews). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235804] Review Request: ocamlSDL - OCaml bindings for SDL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocamlSDL - OCaml bindings for SDL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235804 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||235815 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 235805] Review Request: camlimages - OCaml image processing 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: camlimages - OCaml image processing library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235805 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||235815 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 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] 2007-04-10 07:26 EST ---
I'm not sure if it's necessary to add this requirements. First in post and
postun there is test for fc-cache availability before executing it if [ -x
%{_bindir}/fc-cache ], second in core and extras very few packages has this
req.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225893] Merge Review: hwdata
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: hwdata https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225893 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 07:29 EST --- I've built hwdata-0.200-1 with updated pci.ids and use macros 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 225622] Merge Review: boost
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: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 07:30 EST --- (In reply to comment #14) Thanks Patrice. #11 looks good for me. As far as devel-static vs. static-devel vs. static, I don't see any other packages using static-devel. Do you? If not, why not? Is this something that should be asked on fedora-devel? The guideline regarding static libs going in a separate package is relatively new. I agree it is a good idea to have a separate package for the static libraries. I personally don't care whether it is named -static, -static-devel, -devel-static and the guidelines leave this detail to the packager. I choosed -static-devel to silent rpmlint. #12 detail why you're doing the inlining and optimization changes. In addition, as long as you're doing this, you might as well do %optflags changes too. I am not doing an inlining and optimization change, I am allowing the user building boost to remove completely the optimization and inlining flags. Is there an other way? Regarding the optflags, it would be bad to hardcode them in a patch, they change depending on the platform, release, and so on and so forth. I pass them through export GXX=%__cxx $RPM_OPT_FLAGS I couldn't find a way to pass them with cxxflags since, unless I'm wrong, cxxflags only allows to pass them one by one. And I also set optimizationno inliningno to avoid any optimization and inlining flags to be set, such that they don't overwrite what is set in the optflags (and this is allowed by the patch in comment #12). As a side note I had quite a hard time with bjam. It lacks a bit of documentation and examples. I couldn't understand how to pass the python linking flags that would allow to solve the underlinking issue, as explained in comment #5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2007-04-10 07:52 EST --- You seem to have reviewed the 0.9.0 package, while a 0.9.18-1 package has been available for weeks now... I'll fix the EOL encoding issues, but the empty js files will certainly stay... those are just examples after all. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225010] Review Request: glob2 - An innovative RTS game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: glob2 - An innovative RTS game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 07:54 EST --- As someone just sticking their nose in, (I pretty much made a spec file and was about to submit it for review (as a first review) and happened to stumble on this bug), I've noticed that the -data package does not seem to take ownership of dirs (use %dir dirname). Also, the Glob2 dev team released a .22 version (it appears that maps were accidently omitted, you may need to pack them in as a seperate tarball - I was advised this is okay in the case of genuine omissions). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232160] Review Request: ruby-gnome2 - A ruby binding of libgnome/libgnomeui-2.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-gnome2 - A ruby binding of libgnome/libgnomeui-2.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232160 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 07:57 EST --- Okay. * Requires/BuildRequires now fixed * Actually -5 successfully enables ruby support for kazehakase (which I currently maintain) -- This package (ruby-gnome2) is APPOVED by me. -- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235550] Review Request: mysql-gui-tools - Graphical Tools for mysql
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mysql-gui-tools - Graphical Tools for mysql https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235550 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 08:02 EST --- SRPM: http://ausil.us/packages/mysql-gui-tools-5.0r11-3.src.rpm SPEC: http://ausil.us/packages/mysql-gui-tools.spec 2. removed the unused BR's 4. its extra as mysql-administrator and mysql-query-browser both link to mysql. 5. when i can get the java bits working i will enable the extra sub packages -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2007-04-10 08:08 EST --- http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/python-nevow/python-nevow-0.9.18-2.src.rpm * Tue Apr 10 2007 Matthias Saou http://freshrpms.net/ 0.9.18-2 - Fix some end-of-line encodings and executable bits in the docs. * Fri Mar 23 2007 Matthias Saou http://freshrpms.net/ 0.9.18-1 - Update to 0.9.18. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232160] Review Request: ruby-gnome2 - A ruby binding of libgnome/libgnomeui-2.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-gnome2 - A ruby binding of libgnome/libgnomeui-2.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232160 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 08:10 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ruby-gnome2 Short Description: ruby bindings for the GNOME-2.x Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235825] New: Review Request: kftpgrabber - Graphical FTP client for KDE
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=235825 Summary: Review Request: kftpgrabber - Graphical FTP client for KDE 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://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/kftpgrabber/kftpgrabber-0.8.0-1.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/kftpgrabber/kftpgrabber.spec Description: KFTPgrabber is a graphical FTP client for the K Desktop Environment. It implements many features required for usable FTP interaction. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225622] Merge Review: boost
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: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 08:47 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) 1) why not use boost-jam for install? It provides no advantage when we are doing staged builds, and also doesn't work with prefix. In addition, it doesn't get the permissions correct. I'm not quite sure why the permissions are incorrect in rpmlint considering they are explicitly set by install to be the correct values. Any hacking by others in this area would be appreciated. I added a comment in my spec patch summarizing your point. 2) soname What upstream boost does with soname is dubious IMHO. In particular, boost libs should not change SONAMES based on gcc versions if gcc versions are compat. Ie, gcc-3.4, gcc-4.0, gcc-4.1 are compat. If using upstream boost versioning, they are not. In general, there is no ABI checking in upstream boost. Fedora does not have this luxury. Mostly, they leave this as a decision for vendors, one of whom is Fedora. The plan WRT Fedora is to provide some guidance for people using older boosts that are not ABI-compat with current boost. Thus the soname bump. I don't understand exactly what you are meaning. With the current patcheset, and without changing soname, the soname version used is the boost version. This seems to be right, if you are saying that Fedora does not have the luxury to check the boost ABI change, since it means that the soname has to be changed for every boost release. In that case the library name could be like libboost_python.so.1.33.1 the soname would be libboost_python.so.1.33.1 and there would be a so link in devel libboost_python.so pointing to libboost_python.so.1.33.1 You may also be saying the reverse, namely that you check the ABI compatibility and you don't break ABI for each release, that's why you need a soname version that don't use the boost version, but instead an integer you bump only when there has been an ABI change. Is is the case? (As a side note, even without boost-base.patch applied the gcc version isn't hardcoded in the soname. The soname is like: libboost_python-gcc-1_33_1.so.1.33.1 (or libboost_python-gcc-1_33_1.so.2 with sonameversion2 and my patch or, I guess, the previous patch).) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2007-04-10 09:12 EST --- Just back from easter holidays. I'll have had a rather busy catching up day today so I'll look at the review findings tomorrow. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234860] Review Request: perl-Mail-IMAPClient - An IMAP Client API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Mail-IMAPClient - An IMAP Client API Alias: perl-Mail-IMAPClient https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234860 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 09:29 EST --- Heh. It helps if I link to the right package: New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/perl-Mail-IMAPClient-2.2.9-3.fc7.src.rpm New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/perl-Mail-IMAPClient.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234573] Review Request: perl-bioperl - A package of Perl tools for computational molecular biology
Please 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-bioperl - A package of Perl tools for computational molecular biology Alias: perl-bioperl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234573 Bug 234573 depends on bug 233848, which changed state. Bug 233848 Summary: Review Request: perl-SVG-Graph - Visualize your data in Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) format https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233848 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 233848] Review Request: perl-SVG-Graph - Visualize your data in Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) format
Please 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-SVG-Graph - Visualize your data in Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) format Alias: perl-SVG-Graph https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233848 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 09:51 EST --- Builds fine in devel and FC-6. Closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199905] Review Request: gotmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gotmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199905 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #137980|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 10:06 EST --- (From update of attachment 137980) Spec file obsoleted. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199905] Review Request: gotmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gotmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199905 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 10:07 EST --- The problem has been fixed. The spec file and src rpm located at: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=96810package_id=103482release_id=500052 Now build and rpmlint without error. Thanks to all for their help. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226267] Merge Review: perl-LDAP
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-LDAP Alias: perl-LDAP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226267 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 10:17 EST --- oops - turns out when I actually looked at it that the problem with the provides was that there is a versioned Provides: perl(Net::LDAP::Filter) = 15, and and unversioned Provides: perl(Net::LDAP::Filter). So, the filter had to be changed to only filter out the 'unversioned' 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 199905] Review Request: gotmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gotmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199905 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 10:46 EST --- This time it is plain wrong. You try to set gotmail as user, which is certain to fail everywhere since that user does not exist: rpmlint of gotmail: W: gotmail incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.9.0-0 1:0.9.0-0 - this comes from the Epoch=1; the full version (e-v-r) should be included in the %changelog entries E: gotmail non-standard-uid /usr/share/doc/gotmail-0.9.0/COPYING gotmail E: gotmail non-standard-gid /usr/share/doc/gotmail-0.9.0/COPYING gotmail E: gotmail non-standard-uid /usr/share/man/man1/gotmail.1.gz gotmail E: gotmail non-standard-gid /usr/share/man/man1/gotmail.1.gz gotmail E: gotmail non-standard-uid /usr/share/doc/gotmail-0.9.0/ChangeLog gotmail E: gotmail non-standard-gid /usr/share/doc/gotmail-0.9.0/ChangeLog gotmail E: gotmail non-standard-uid /usr/bin/gotmail gotmail E: gotmail non-standard-gid /usr/bin/gotmail gotmail E: gotmail non-standard-uid /usr/share/doc/gotmail-0.9.0/README gotmail E: gotmail non-standard-gid /usr/share/doc/gotmail-0.9.0/README gotmail E: gotmail non-standard-uid /usr/share/doc/gotmail-0.9.0/sample.gotmailrc gotmail E: gotmail non-standard-gid /usr/share/doc/gotmail-0.9.0/sample.gotmailrc gotmail E: gotmail non-standard-uid /usr/share/doc/gotmail-0.9.0 gotmail E: gotmail non-standard-gid /usr/share/doc/gotmail-0.9.0 gotmail E: gotmail non-standard-uid /usr/share/doc/gotmail-0.9.0/gotmail4evolution gotmail E: gotmail non-standard-gid /usr/share/doc/gotmail-0.9.0/gotmail4evolution gotmail Pretty please, stop trying to work around packaging bugs and read a bit about preserving the modes. The umask=022 is not needed, the (-,root,root,-) was fine... All you have to do is - work as an regular user (not root) - ensure umask is 022 - chmod all files which have to be included to 0644 (minus the executable which should be 0755, of course) - create a tarball where all the included stuff is chmod-ed as above - rpmbuild -bs (or -bt) using the correctly created spec (or tarball) By the way, if you remove the exec bit from gotmail4evolution you'll avoid later warnings from rpmlint (this script -- which is a %doc -- because it has the executable bit set, will pull bash as a dependency; generally it is considered bad habit to have %doc bring in deps; in this particular case I would accept this, because bash is present already on any fedora system but as I said this is a very bad habit that you should avoid) [*] Also, please increase the release each time you modify something and (in the future) start counting the release from 1. [*] this problem seems to be fixed in the package listed at comment #43 but I am not sure at this point that you actually intendted it or it was just an unwanted side effect of the other modifications. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235115] Review Request: tl-netty2 - Event based network application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tl-netty2 - Event based network application framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235115 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235121] Review Request: backport-util-concurrent - Backport of java.util.concurrent API, introduced in Java 5.0
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: backport-util-concurrent - Backport of java.util.concurrent API, introduced in Java 5.0 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235121 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199905] Review Request: gotmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gotmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199905 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 11:12 EST --- Okay - my apologies - that's entirely my fault. I inherited the packing system and I should just have dumped it and started again rather than learn someone else's method. I've: 1. Reverted back to (-,root,root,-) 2. Removed the umask 3. Incremented the spec file to 1 (I will start counting from 1 next time also) 4. Ensured the Makefile will chmod the files 5. Removed the x from the gotmail4evolution script 6. Fixed the epoch tupple error The rpm now builds and installs without error - at least for me. The new files have been uploaded and you can see the -1 rpms and the spec 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 221906] Review Request: gmediaserver - UPnP compatible media server for the GNU 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: gmediaserver - UPnP compatible media server for the GNU system Alias: gmediaserver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221906 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 11:42 EST --- So for now, let's go with the persistent user/group. I really do not understand it. Should I use fedora-usermgmt with uid? If yes, which number can I use as uid/gid? I am testing fedora-useradd, but I do not uderstand how it 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 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] 2007-04-10 11:47 EST ---
MUST:
* package is named appropriately
- match upstream tarball or project name
- try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
- specfile should be %{name}.spec
- non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
something)
- for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
- if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be
not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name
OK
* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
- OSI-approved
- not a kernel module
- not shareware
- is it covered by patents?
- it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
- no binary firmware
OK
* license field matches the actual license.
OK
* license is open source-compatible.
- use acronyms for licences where common
OK
* specfile name matches %{name}
OK
* verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
- if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on
how to generate the the source drop; ie.
# svn export blah/tag blah
# tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah
X md5sums do not match
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
OK
* correct buildroot
- should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
OK
* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
OK
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
OK
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
OK
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
OK
* rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output
rpmlint axis-1.2.1-2jpp.7.src.rpm
W: axis non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
OK, the group warning can be ignored
* changelog should be in a proper formats:
OK
* Packager tag should not be used
OK
* Vendor tag should not be used
OK
* Distribution tag should not be used
OK
* use License and not Copyright
OK
* Summary tag should not end in a period
OK
* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
OK
* specfile is legible
OK
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
- builds in mock will flush out problems here
OK
- the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires:
bash
bzip2
coreutils
cpio
diffutils
fedora-release (and/or redhat-release)
gcc
gcc-c++
gzip
make
patch
perl
redhat-rpm-config
rpm-build
sed
tar
unzip
which
OK
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
OK
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
OK
* make sure description lines are = 80 characters
OK
* specfile written in American English
OK
* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
OK, it contains javadoc and a manual sub-package
* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
* don't use rpath
* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
* should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
* use macros appropriately and consistently
- ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
OK
* don't use %makeinstall
OK
* install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
OK
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
- if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
end of %install
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
OK
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
OK
* package should probably not be relocatable
* package contains code
- see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
- in general, there should be no offensive content
OK
* package should own all directories and files
OK
* there should be no %files duplicates
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
OK
* %clean should be present
OK
* %doc files should not affect runtime
* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
rpmlint axis-1.2.1-2jpp.7.fc7.x86_64.rpm
W: axis non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
OK, group warnings can be ignored
rpmlint axis-javadoc-1.2.1-2jpp.7.fc7.x86_64.rpm
W: axis-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
W: axis-javadoc symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/javadoc/axis
/usr/share/javadoc/axis-1.2.1
X please fix the symlink issue
rpmlint axis-manual-1.2.1-2jpp.7.fc7.x86_64.rpm
W: axis-manual non-standard-group
[Bug 208250] Review Request: piklab - Development environment for applications based on PIC and dsPIC microcontrollers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: piklab - Development environment for applications based on PIC and dsPIC microcontrollers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208250 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 12:14 EST --- Chitlesh, if you want to take over the maintainship and when Alain agrees, take a procedure according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225850] Merge Review: gnutls
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: gnutls https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225850 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Bug 225850 depends on bug 223694, which changed state. Bug 223694 Summary: gnutls: non-failsafe install-info use in scriptlets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223694 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||RAWHIDE 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 233850] Review Request: freepops - POP3 interface to webmails
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: freepops - POP3 interface to webmails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233850
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 12:35 EST ---
Well, for -2:
* Documention update
- Update documents which uses /var/lib/freepops/. This fedora
rpms use /usr/share/freepops.
One example is doc/freepops-updater-dialog.1 .
* Directory/file ownership
- Well, as I noted above, while
---
%files
%dir foo/
---
means the directory foo/ only, whey you write
---
foo/
---
it means the directory foo/ and all files/directories under
foo/.
So.
---
%{_libdir}/freepops/
---
contains %{_libdir}/freepops/updater_fltk.so and this
file is installed into main and -updater rpms.
Also, %{_sysconfdir}/freepops/config.lua is listed twice.
* Souce0
- Well, what I meant by specify Source0 URL is that
you should write
---
URL:http://www.freepops.org
Source0:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/freepops/freepops-%{name}.tar.gz
---
* Local copy of libraries
- Check Duplication of system libraries of
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines .
Here what is the problem is that this package (freepops) has a tarball
of other libraries in it and use them, which must be avoided.
You have to
- first submit a review request of the libraries this package uses
(luafilesystem, luacurl, luaexpat...) seperately
- add patches to freepops so that freepops uses the _external_ libraries
you submitted seperately.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199905] Review Request: gotmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gotmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199905 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 13:18 EST --- Excellent, James, all problems but one seem to be fixed now. There is one issue which must be fixed before having the package accepted: Source gotmail-0.9.0.tar.bz2 is different from upstream Given the fact that you are the upstream maintainer, the large number of changes which have occured during these last days and the fact that all files are hosted on SF servers, it might be that not all the servers have synced with the new version (see? that's why it's a good idea to not touch the tarball and to increment the release when you do...). Just to be sure, please verify that the tar.bz2 included in the src.rpm and the standalone one are identical. The other issue that might be discussed is that, given the script's ability to forward the messages to SA and procmail, it might be a good idea to Require: these two. Because these two are soft requires, I for one am happy with it such as it is now, leaving the option to install or not the other two packages to the user. So: from my point of view and assuming the script works as advertised (I assume it does since the perl script has not been modified in 3 months, but as I said I don't have a hotmail account and I have no intent to create one), the package is ready for approval. You now have to convince 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 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] 2007-04-10 13:34 EST ---
MUST:
* package is named appropriately
- match upstream tarball or project name
- try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
- specfile should be %{name}.spec
- non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
something)
- for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
- if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be
not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name
OK
* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
- OSI-approved
- not a kernel module
- not shareware
- is it covered by patents?
- it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
- no binary firmware
OK
* license field matches the actual license.
OK
* license is open source-compatible.
- use acronyms for licences where common
OK
* specfile name matches %{name}
OK
* verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
- if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on
how to generate the the source drop; ie.
# svn export blah/tag blah
# tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah
OK
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
OK
* correct buildroot
- should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
OK
* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
OK
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
OK
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
OK
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
OK
* rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output
rpmlint bcel-5.1-10jpp.1.src.rpm
W: bcel non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
OK, the group warning can be ignored
* changelog should be in proper format:
OK
* Packager tag should not be used
OK
* Vendor tag should not be used
OK
* Distribution tag should not be used
OK
* use License and not Copyright
OK
* Summary tag should not end in a period
OK
* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
OK
* specfile is legible
OK
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
OK
* BuildRequires are proper
- builds in mock will flush out problems here
OK
- the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires:
bash
bzip2
coreutils
cpio
diffutils
fedora-release (and/or redhat-release)
gcc
gcc-c++
gzip
make
patch
perl
redhat-rpm-config
rpm-build
sed
tar
unzip
which
OK
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
OK
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
OK
* make sure description lines are = 80 characters
OK
* specfile written in American English
OK
* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
OK, contains a manual and javadoc subpackages
* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
* don't use rpath
* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
* should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
* use macros appropriately and consistently
- ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
OK
* don't use %makeinstall
OK
* install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
OK
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
- if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
end of %install
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
X one cp missing -p in %build (line 186)
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
OK
* package should probably not be relocatable
* package contains code
- see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
- in general, there should be no offensive content
OK
* package should own all directories and files
OK
* there should be no %files duplicates
OK
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
OK
* %clean should be present
OK
* %doc files should not affect runtime
* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
rpmlint bcel-5.1-10jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
W: bcel non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
OK, group warnings can be ignored
rpmlint bcel-demo-5.1-10jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
W: bcel-demo non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
W: bcel-demo no-documentation
X should there be any documentation for this?
rpmlint bcel-javadoc-5.1-10jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
W: bcel-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
OK
rpmlint
[Bug 235895] New: Review Request: perl-Text-Aspell - spell check interface for perl
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=235895 Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-Aspell - spell check interface for perl 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.cs.usu.edu/~jerry/Projects/RPMS/perl-Text-Aspell/perl-Text-Aspell.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cs.usu.edu/~jerry/Projects/RPMS/perl-Text-Aspell/perl-Text-Aspell-0.07-1.src.rpm Description: This module provides a Perl interface to the GNU Aspell library. This module is to meet the need of looking up many words, one at a time, in a single session, such as spell-checking a document in memory. I need this package to enable the spell-checking facility in moodle. Rpmlint produces no output on either the binary or the source RPM. There is no distinct license file, but the man page describes the licensing terms. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-04-10 14:02 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps X one cp missing -p in %build (line 186) Fixed rpmlint bcel-demo-5.1-10jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: bcel-demo non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: bcel-demo no-documentation X should there be any documentation for this? There's a README in examples/Mini, so I marked that with %doc New spec file and srpm at the same location. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225795] Merge Review: ghostscript
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: ghostscript https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225795 [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 225795] Merge Review: ghostscript
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: ghostscript https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225795 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 14:12 EST --- BTW version 8.56 already released but we still got pretty old v8.15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232160] Review Request: ruby-gnome2 - A ruby binding of libgnome/libgnomeui-2.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-gnome2 - A ruby binding of libgnome/libgnomeui-2.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232160 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232792] Review Request: mapserver - Environment for building spatially-enabled internet applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mapserver - Environment for building spatially-enabled internet applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232792 [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 221906] Review Request: gmediaserver - UPnP compatible media server for the GNU 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: gmediaserver - UPnP compatible media server for the GNU system Alias: gmediaserver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221906 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 14:26 EST --- I mean you can add the user/group dynamically, then never remove it. That will assure that it uses the same uid/gid. None of these solutions are ideal, but the current state of affairs doesn't offer much better until Fesco and/or FPC makes some decisions on this matter. Using fedora-usermgmt will not necessarily buy you anything in this case unless you are also using the static id registry. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225922] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-codec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-codec https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225922 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 15:04 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) ... X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - md5sum do not match with upstream tar ball OK, this should be fixed now ... * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) X specfile is legible - Are these still needed: Requires(post): /bin/rm /bin/ln, Requires(postun): /bin/rm? Removed ... X summary should be a short and concise description of the package Summary is just the name of the package Fixed New srpm here: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/337/jakarta-commons-codec-1.3-8jpp.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 235550] Review Request: mysql-gui-tools - Graphical Tools for mysql
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mysql-gui-tools - Graphical Tools for mysql https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235550 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 15:16 EST --- ok. I don't see any further blockers here... this package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this review request once the package has been imported and built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225950] Merge Review: jpackage-utils
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: jpackage-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225950 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235763] Review Request: windowlab - Small and Simple Amiga-like Window Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: windowlab - Small and Simple Amiga-like Window Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235763
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 15:40 EST ---
I cannot sponsor you so just a few notes:
* windowlab-1.34-pathfixes.patch looks useless - you'd better to redefine $XROOT
variable in Makefile from /usr/X11R6 to /usr - it resolves some other issues.
* change %files section to something like:
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/X11/windowlab/
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/X11/windowlab/windowlab.menurc
%{_bindir}/windowlab
%{_mandir}/man1/windowlab.1x.gz
%{_datadir}/xsessions/windowlab.desktop
%doc CHANGELOG README TODO LICENCE
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235550] Review Request: mysql-gui-tools - Graphical Tools for mysql
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mysql-gui-tools - Graphical Tools for mysql https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235550 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 15:44 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mysql-gui-tools Short Description: GUI tools to manage mysql Databases Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-5 FC-6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235804] Review Request: ocamlSDL - OCaml bindings for SDL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocamlSDL - OCaml bindings for SDL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235804 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 15:45 EST --- Little note - looks like excessive BuildRequires: I didn't check it but looks like if you BR SDL_ttf-devel, SDL_mixer-devel and SDL_image-devel then BR SDL-devel is implies. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229180] Review Request: texlive-texmf - Architecture independent parts of the TeX formatting 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: texlive-texmf - Architecture independent parts of the TeX formatting system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229180 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: TeXLive 2007|Review Request: texlive- |- the TeX formatting system,|texmf - Architecture |noarch part |independent parts of the TeX ||formatting system AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis|| Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 15:49 EST --- I can get started on these. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230738] Review Request - jwm - Very light window manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request - jwm - Very light window manager Alias: jwm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230738 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 15:50 EST --- Robert, could you, please, update according to the above suggestions? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229182] Review Request: texlive-texmf-errata - Errata for texlive-texmf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: texlive-texmf-errata - Errata for texlive-texmf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229182 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: TeXLive 2007|Review Request: texlive- |- errata for the noarch part|texmf-errata - Errata for |of the TeX formatting system|texlive-texmf AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis|| Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 15:50 EST --- I can get started on these, and please submit review for texlive (binaries, if you haven't already, I didn't check... yet). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229182] Review Request: texlive-texmf-errata - Errata for texlive-texmf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: texlive-texmf-errata - Errata for texlive-texmf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229182 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||229180 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229180] Review Request: texlive-texmf - Architecture independent parts of the TeX formatting 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: texlive-texmf - Architecture independent parts of the TeX formatting system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229180 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||229182 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 235550] Review Request: mysql-gui-tools - Graphical Tools for mysql
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mysql-gui-tools - Graphical Tools for mysql https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235550 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 16:12 EST --- builds requested thanks for the review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221906] Review Request: gmediaserver - UPnP compatible media server for the GNU 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: gmediaserver - UPnP compatible media server for the GNU system Alias: gmediaserver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221906 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 16:13 EST --- Well...I hope that there is finish release: http://karlik.nonlogic.org/gmediaserv/gmediaserver.spec http://karlik.nonlogic.org/gmediaserv/gmediaserver-0.12.0-6.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 233946] Review Request: secondlife - The Second Life 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: secondlife - The Second Life client Alias: secondlife https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233946 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 16:14 EST --- Okay, someone pointed out the license on an included font is probably not acceptable for Fedora: http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-408 It has a no modification clause and a funky commercial distribution clause. How should we handle this? We might be able to convince upstream to change the license, otherwise we have to patch slviewer to just use DejaVu Sans Mono or something. Wonder how hard it would be to just get it to use xft... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235925] 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=235925 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://www.hardakers.net/dnssec-tools/dnssec-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://www.hardakers.net/dnssec-tools/dnssec-tools-1.1.1-1.src.rpm Description: The goal of the DNSSEC-Tools project is to create a set of tools, patches, applications, wrappers, extensions, and plugins that will help ease the deployment of DNSSEC-related technologies. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225746] Merge Review: fedora-release
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: fedora-release https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225746 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 16:24 EST --- Any update on this, would like to close this out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235925] Review Request: dnssec-tools - Is a tool set for use with signed DNS zones
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dnssec-tools - Is a tool set for use with signed DNS zones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235925 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: main |Review Request: dnssec-tools |package name here - short |- Is a tool set for use with |summary here |signed DNS zones -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235925] Review Request: dnssec-tools - Is a tool set for use with signed DNS zones
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dnssec-tools - Is a tool set for use with signed DNS zones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235925 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 16:34 EST --- This is a first-time-package and I need a sponsor as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235929] New: Review Request: postgresql-odbcng - PostgreSQL ODBCng driver
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=235929 Summary: Review Request: postgresql-odbcng - PostgreSQL ODBCng driver 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://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/postgresql-odbcng/postgresql-odbcng.spec SRPM URL: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/postgresql-odbcng/postgresql-odbcng-0.90.101-1.src.rpm Description: ODBCng is a written from scratch ODBC driver for PostgreSQL 8.x. ODBCng is a wire-level ODBC driver meaning that we do not require libpq or any PostgreSQL libraries be installed to function. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232873] Review Request: compat-guichan05 - compatibility libraries for guichan
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: compat-guichan05 - compatibility libraries for guichan https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232873 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 17:18 EST --- Imported and built on -devel. 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 221675] Review Request: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for wireless devices based on zd1211 chipset
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for wireless devices based on zd1211 chipset https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221675 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 17:23 EST --- If this firmware is truly under the GPL, we should be able to get source for it, not just a hex dump. If the upstream is not providing this, then they're in violation of the GPL. Have we tried to ask upstream for the source? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221675] Review Request: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for wireless devices based on zd1211 chipset
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for wireless devices based on zd1211 chipset https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221675 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 17:25 EST --- That would then imply that the qlogic driver in the kernel is in violation of the GPL, and we can't distribute that not sure we want to go down that road. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-04-10 17:27 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: jomolhari-fonts Short Description: Jomolhari a Bhutanese style font for Tibetan and Dzongkha Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-5 FC-6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231911] Review Request: jomolhari-fonts - Jomolhari a Bhutanese style font for Tibetan and Dzongkha
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jomolhari-fonts - Jomolhari a Bhutanese style font for Tibetan and Dzongkha https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231911 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199905] Review Request: gotmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gotmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199905 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 17:39 EST --- There is a delay with sync between mirrors on SF. But I can verify that they are identical as I have been uploading the new tar.bz2 files whenever the RPMs have changed. It may take a little time to distribute all the new files - this is one of the drawbacks of SF. As both procmail and SA are optional for Gotmail I'd prefer to leave them as is. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 208250] Review Request: piklab - Development environment for applications based on PIC and dsPIC microcontrollers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: piklab - Development environment for applications based on PIC and dsPIC microcontrollers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208250 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 17:40 EST --- Alain, could I take over ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221675] Review Request: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for wireless devices based on zd1211 chipset
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for wireless devices based on zd1211 chipset https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221675 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 17:45 EST --- That's exactly what i've said on irc to #zd1211 (about possible GPL violation) If a real open source GPL firmware can be obtened, this may be requested to Atheros http://www.atheros.com/news/ZyDAS.html For now The GPL licence of this package seems a problem. But can we use Redistributable, no modification permitted instead? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228894] Review Request: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228894 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE OtherBugsDependingO|163779 |188268 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 17:47 EST --- rpcbind was built for rawhide, closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221675] Review Request: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for wireless devices based on zd1211 chipset
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for wireless devices based on zd1211 chipset https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221675 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 17:49 EST --- *Atheros*? Ok, that will never happen. :) GPL is the license put on the code,in entirety. The question is whether the hex dump is the preferred form of modification. You certainly are allowed to modify the hex code and redistribute it, so the 'Redistrubtable, no modification permitted' does not apply. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201730] Review Request: MemProf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: MemProf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201730 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution||INSUFFICIENT_DATA Status|NEEDINFO|CLOSED OtherBugsDependingO|188267 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 17:49 EST --- i'm closing this for now. Re-request later. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235804] Review Request: ocamlSDL - OCaml bindings for SDL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocamlSDL - OCaml bindings for SDL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235804 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 17:53 EST --- Yeah, thats true, I *thought* it was removed, but obviously not, I think I've found some other missing BRs tough, so I'm going to check them out and hopefully put up a -2 srpm soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221675] Review Request: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for wireless devices based on zd1211 chipset
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for wireless devices based on zd1211 chipset https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221675 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 18:10 EST --- Well, I can send them a mail with hope to get some clarification from them... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221675] Review Request: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for wireless devices based on zd1211 chipset
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for wireless devices based on zd1211 chipset https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221675 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 18:23 EST --- My understanding is that the firmware was already approved for redistribution under the previous ownership (Zydas). Usually the contract agreement under previous ownership remain legally binding and enforceable unless the new ownership (Atheros in this case) specifically revoke the previous agreement in writing. Of course it would have been nice if the agreement specifically prohibit revocation of current agreement upon change of ownership. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225795] Merge Review: ghostscript
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: ghostscript https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225795 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 18:23 EST --- No, we are shipping ESP Ghostscript which is at 8.15.4. The GPL Ghostscript branch has several drivers missing compared to ESP Ghostscript. The upstream merge is not yet complete. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230560] Review Request: wqy-bitmap-fonts - a fine-tuned CJK bitmap font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wqy-bitmap-fonts - a fine-tuned CJK bitmap font https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230560 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 18:29 EST --- hi Jens Chinese/Japanese/Korean share a large number of ideographic glyphs (called Hanzi/Kanji/Hanja). There Hanzi were organized as CJK Unified Ideographics (U+4E00-9FA5), CJK Unified Ideographics Extension A and Extension B by Unicode Consortium and endorsed by all governments. The WenQuanYi bitmap font 0.8 include all CJK Unified Ideographics glyphs (20902 x 4 sizes), with much improved glyph shape compared to any existing open CJK font. Beside these unified CJK characters, we also provide Hangul(thousands) and Hiragana/Katakana(less than 100) glyphs in this font. Although we are not expert in these JK-specific glyphs, but they look as good as those I have seen in the commercial fonts, IMHO. So, I prefer to stay with CJK in the title. At the same time, with more people start using our font, I also hope more Japanese and Korean people to get involved in the glyph optimization. Our wiki is open to all people and the submitted glyph will be automatically compiled into nightly-build fonts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230560] Review Request: wqy-bitmap-fonts - a fine-tuned CJK bitmap font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wqy-bitmap-fonts - a fine-tuned CJK bitmap font https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230560 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 18:34 EST --- the link for the spec file: http://wenq.org/release/08src/wqy-bitmap-fonts.spec or http://wenq.org/eindex.cgi?id=wqy-bitmap-fonts.specraw=1action=browse (you need to remove pre and /pre) I will increase the release number next time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235804] Review Request: ocamlSDL - OCaml bindings for SDL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocamlSDL - OCaml bindings for SDL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235804 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 18:41 EST --- Spec URL: http://dev.nigelj.com/SRPMS/ocamlSDL.spec SRPM URL: http://dev.nigelj.com/SRPMS/ocamlSDL-0.7.2-2.src.rpm Removed SDL-devel, added ocaml -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235805] Review Request: camlimages - OCaml image processing 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: camlimages - OCaml image processing library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235805 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 18:44 EST --- Spec URL: http://dev.nigelj.com/SRPMS/camlimages.spec SRPM URL: http://dev.nigelj.com/SRPMS/camlimages-2.2.0-2.src.rpm Simple dependency update, now -2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
