[Bug 177747] Review Request: Glade3 - A User Interface Designer for GTK+ and GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Glade3 - A User Interface Designer for GTK+ and GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177747 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199405] Review Request: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization 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: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D
visualization library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199405
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 02:14 EST ---
(In reply to comment #43)
Hi Axel, I'm working through a review right now and I've run into a problem
where it fails to build in mock for a fedora-6-x86_64-core buildroot. The
reported error is:
RPM build errors:
File must begin with /: %{python_sitearch}/vtk
which seems very odd since the command
(In reply to comment #45)
OK, I've now received the exact same error in mock with a fedora-6-i386-core
and a fedora-6-x86_64-core build root.
Removing all macros which includes white space like:
-
%if %{with java}
%if %{with qt4}
-
seems okay.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226399] Merge Review: scim-tables
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-tables https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226399 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237373] Review Request: mcpp - Alternative C/C++ preprocessor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mcpp - Alternative C/C++ preprocessor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237373 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 236642] Review Request: Revisor - Revisor GUI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Revisor - Revisor GUI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236642 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 04:41 EST --- We're sorry for the inconvenience, backups were trashed. Files are up now; SPEC: http://revisor.fedoraunity.org/releases/revisor-2.0/revisor-2.0.1.spec SRPM: http://revisor.fedoraunity.org/releases/revisor-2.0/revisor-2.0.1-3.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226399] Merge Review: scim-tables
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-tables https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226399 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review?, |fedora-review+ |needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 05:07 EST --- oops sorry for taking time. Here comes a quick review. Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPMs. + source files match upstream. 58d7f7dd231d73ef179e072b3124ebac scim-tables-0.5.7.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text COPYING is included in package. + %doc is small so no need of -doc subpackage. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no static libraries. + no .pc files are present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Provides: table-imengine-setup.so table.so APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226337] Merge Review: pyparted
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: pyparted https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226337 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 05:13 EST --- I'd say something is still wrong. Here is a snap from the build log in mock: Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.37848 + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd pyparted-1.8.6 + LANG=C + export LANG + unset DISPLAY + /usr/bin/make gcc -O2 -Wall -g -I/usr/include/python2.5 -I. -fPIC -c -o partedmodule.o partedmodule.c gcc -O2 -Wall -g -I/usr/include/python2.5 -I. -fPIC -c -o pyconstraint.o pyconstraint.c gcc -O2 -Wall -g -I/usr/include/python2.5 -I. -fPIC -c -o pydevice.o pydevice.c gcc -O2 -Wall -g -I/usr/include/python2.5 -I. -fPIC -c -o pydisk.o pydisk.c gcc -O2 -Wall -g -I/usr/include/python2.5 -I. -fPIC -c -o pyexception.o pyexception.c gcc -O2 -Wall -g -I/usr/include/python2.5 -I. -fPIC -c -o pyfilesystem.o pyfilesystem.c gcc -O2 -Wall -g -I/usr/include/python2.5 -I. -fPIC -c -o pygeometry.o pygeometry.c make: pkg-config: Command not found gcc -O2 -Wall -g -I/usr/include/python2.5 -I. -fPIC -o partedmodule.so -shared partedmodule.o pyconstraint.o pydevice.o pydisk.o pyexception.o pyf ilesystem.o pygeometry.o + exit 0 It looks like standard compiler flags are not used. Could you please check ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234926] Review Request: ngircd - Next Generation IRC Daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ngircd - Next Generation IRC Daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234926 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 05:43 EST --- If no one else is interested in reviewing, I'll try to take a look tomorrow. (I notice libident is still waiting approval, so you'd have to fix that up 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 199405] Review Request: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization 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: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199405 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 06:06 EST --- Please replace the %define in the definition of python_sitearch with a %global. I spent quite a few hours to debug this and it looks like a bug in rpm, see bug #237448. The reason why I was not seeing it it that python_sitearch was already defined for me. The consequence will be to get the FPC to change conditionalized %defines to %globals until rpm is fixed and until all supported releases contain this fix (so it may be that it will have to wait until F9+). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237373] Review Request: mcpp - Alternative C/C++ preprocessor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mcpp - Alternative C/C++ preprocessor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237373 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 236162] Review Request: kadischi - Fedora based LiveCD/LiveDVD creation utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kadischi - Fedora based LiveCD/LiveDVD creation utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236162 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 07:06 EST --- Ownership change was requested: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237402 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 236162] Review Request: kadischi - Fedora based LiveCD/LiveDVD creation utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kadischi - Fedora based LiveCD/LiveDVD creation utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236162 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis|| Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 07:16 EST --- (In reply to comment #0) I am a new packager and require a sponser. Thanks. I'm sponsoring you Jasper. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 236158] Review Request: wise2 - Bioinformatics tools for comparison of biopolymers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wise2 - Bioinformatics tools for comparison of biopolymers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236158 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 236162] Review Request: kadischi - Fedora based LiveCD/LiveDVD creation utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kadischi - Fedora based LiveCD/LiveDVD creation utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236162 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 07:22 EST --- from now on there's no need to use %ghost for *.pyc *.pyo 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 236158] Review Request: wise2 - Bioinformatics tools for comparison of biopolymers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wise2 - Bioinformatics tools for comparison of biopolymers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236158 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 07:24 EST --- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 0584240f77885e37528e99e64535ab60 wise2.2.0.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Provides: config(wise2) = 2.2.0-2.fc7 + Requires: config(wise2) = 2.2.0-2.fc7 libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libm.so.6 libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) rtld(GNU_HASH) APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237311] Review Request: ArgoUML - UML Modelling Tool - FOSS Java App
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ArgoUML - UML Modelling Tool - FOSS Java App https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237311 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 07:24 EST --- Thanks wolfy. I will close this ticket and post to the wishlist. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 236158] Review Request: wise2 - Bioinformatics tools for comparison of biopolymers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wise2 - Bioinformatics tools for comparison of biopolymers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236158 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 07:33 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: wise2 Short Description: Bioinformatics tools for comparison of biopolymers 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 235203] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235203 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 07:45 EST --- Added the sdp patch. I doesn't seem to work. (I do see the PC suite, but once I try to click on it, the phone disconnects.) I'll investigate further. * Mon Apr 23 2007 Gilboa Davara gilboad[AT]gmail.com 1-0-0.21.beta2 - Patch list clean-up. - Add Nokia obex detection patch. - Fix 64bit compile due to bad default in configure. (with_bluetooth_dir) - Missing BR: libtempter-devel. - Missing BT: libidn-devel. - Added: kbluepin wrapper - configure kbluepin as the old-style pin helper. Spec URL: http://gilboadavara.thecodergeek.com/kdebluetooth.spec SRPM URL: http://gilboadavara.thecodergeek.com/kdebluetooth-1.0-0.21.beta2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235203] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235203 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 07:48 EST --- Forgot to add. Tested on both rawhide x86_64 and i386. Old-style pinhelper requires a patched bluez-utils RPM. (Pending bluez-utils maintainer approval) - Gilboa -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226155] Merge Review: mod_perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: mod_perl Alias: mod_perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226155 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium Bug 226155 depends on bug 228429, which changed state. Bug 228429 Summary: mod_perl errantly provides perl(warnings) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228429 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 225857] Merge Review: grep
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: grep https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225857 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 08:33 EST --- Thank you 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 225718] Merge Review: eel2
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: eel2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225718 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 08:41 EST --- Fixed in -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 225881] Merge Review: hardlink
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: hardlink https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225881 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 08:52 EST --- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 236162] Review Request: kadischi - Fedora based LiveCD/LiveDVD creation utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kadischi - Fedora based LiveCD/LiveDVD creation utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236162 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 08:54 EST --- The package doesn't seem to want to build with %ghost removed for *.pyc and *.pyo files, take a look: error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/share/kadischi/kadischi.pyc /usr/share/kadischi/kadischi.pyo /usr/share/kadischi/lib/functions.pyc /usr/share/kadischi/lib/functions.pyo /usr/share/kadischi/lib/shvar.pyc /usr/share/kadischi/lib/shvar.pyo /usr/share/kadischi/movefiles.pyc /usr/share/kadischi/movefiles.pyo /usr/share/kadischi/post_install_scripts/03fstab.pyc /usr/share/kadischi/post_install_scripts/03fstab.pyo /usr/share/kadischi/post_install_scripts/05fsclean.pyc /usr/share/kadischi/post_install_scripts/05fsclean.pyo /usr/share/kadischi/post_install_scripts/06sysconfig.pyc /usr/share/kadischi/post_install_scripts/06sysconfig.pyo RPM build errors: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/share/kadischi/kadischi.pyc /usr/share/kadischi/kadischi.pyo /usr/share/kadischi/lib/functions.pyc /usr/share/kadischi/lib/functions.pyo /usr/share/kadischi/lib/shvar.pyc /usr/share/kadischi/lib/shvar.pyo /usr/share/kadischi/movefiles.pyc /usr/share/kadischi/movefiles.pyo /usr/share/kadischi/post_install_scripts/03fstab.pyc /usr/share/kadischi/post_install_scripts/03fstab.pyo /usr/share/kadischi/post_install_scripts/05fsclean.pyc /usr/share/kadischi/post_install_scripts/05fsclean.pyo /usr/share/kadischi/post_install_scripts/06sysconfig.pyc /usr/share/kadischi/post_install_scripts/06sysconfig.pyo [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 226539] Merge Review: which
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: which https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226539 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Flag|needinfo? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 09:04 EST --- all above bugs are fixed in rawhide. thanks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 236162] Review Request: kadischi - Fedora based LiveCD/LiveDVD creation utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kadischi - Fedora based LiveCD/LiveDVD creation utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236162 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 09:06 EST --- Here is the new SRPM: http://autopsy.podzone.org/~autopsy/kadischi-3.5-2.20070423cvs.src.rpm Here is the new SPEC file: http://autopsy.podzone.org/~autopsy/kadischi.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 225881] Merge Review: hardlink
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: hardlink https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225881 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review-, |fedora-review+ |needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |nfo)| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 09:34 EST --- The theory says that Source0 should be a full (downloadable) URL. Given the fact that upstream is .. hugh.. you, I think that you could just add a comment with instructions on how to get (a specific version) from CVS. GOOD rpmlint checks: Source RPM: W: hardlink unversioned-explicit-obsoletes kernel-utils rpmlint of hardlink: W: hardlink obsolete-not-provided kernel-utils -- seems correct, the kernel-utils package has been replaced by a lot of other smaller packages which include all the utilities, one par package - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPL) OK, matches source - pec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files that it creates; does not create any directories, does not take ownership of other files or directories - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - no static, .la, .pc files SHOULD - builds fine in mock/devel/i386 and x86_64 - runs as advertised package is APPROVED but before importing please - fix timestamp preserving of man page (install -pm hardlink.1) - fix the %make step to take into account SMP flags (not that it would matter much for this small program, but the guidelines request it) - add to the package and include in the RPM as %doc the GPL license. It is mentioned in the C source, but it would be wise to also include it in full -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225881] Merge Review: hardlink
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: hardlink https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225881 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 09:35 EST --- Jindrich, please do not assign the bug to you. The bug should be assigned to the reviewer, not to the packager. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225881] Merge Review: hardlink
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: hardlink https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225881 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 10:20 EST --- 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 229490] Review Request: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229490 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 11:04 EST --- Maxime , Can you to 1.4 please so that we can continue with 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 226725] Review Request: netgen - LVS netlist comparison tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: netgen - LVS netlist comparison tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226725 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 11:11 EST --- Updated: Spec URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/netgen.spec SRPM http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/netgen-1.3.7-6.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 225627] Merge Review: bsf
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: bsf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225627 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 12:09 EST --- Updated spec file and srpm at: https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/374/bsf.spec https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/373/bsf-2.3.0-11jpp.2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 236158] Review Request: wise2 - Bioinformatics tools for comparison of biopolymers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wise2 - Bioinformatics tools for comparison of biopolymers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236158 [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 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 [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 229321] Review Request :postgresql-pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request :postgresql-pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229321 [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 216355] Review Request: vdr-skins - Collection of OSD skins for VDR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vdr-skins - Collection of OSD skins for VDR https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216355 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 216353] Review Request: vdr-text2skin - OSD skin plugin for VDR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vdr-text2skin - OSD skin plugin for VDR https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216353 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 226337] Merge Review: pyparted
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: pyparted https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226337 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 13:25 EST --- Should be fixed 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 225248] Merge Review: ant
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: ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225248 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 13:38 EST --- New spec file and srpm at: https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/375/ant.spec https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/376/ant-1.6.5-4jpp.2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235189] Review Request: nautilus-python - Python bindings for Nautilus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nautilus-python - Python bindings for Nautilus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235189 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 197417] Review Request: php-pear-Validate - Validation Class for Various Data Types
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Validate - Validation Class for Various Data Types Alias: php-pear-Validate https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197417 [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 197419] Review Request: php-pear-Validate-Finance-CreditCard - Validation class for Credit Cards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Validate-Finance-CreditCard - Validation class for Credit Cards Alias: Validate-Finance-CC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197419 [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 205060] Review Request: perl-Sub-Name - Name -- or rename -- a sub
Please 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-Sub-Name - Name -- or rename -- a sub Alias: perl-Sub-Name https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205060 [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 210785] Review Request: php-pear-XML-Beautifier - Class to format XML documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-XML-Beautifier - Class to format XML documents Alias: pear-XML-Beautifier https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210785 [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 212923] Review Request: php-pear-XML-RSS - RSS parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-XML-RSS - RSS parser Alias: pear-XML-RSS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212923 [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 222597] Review Request: php-pear-Crypt-CHAP - Class to generate CHAP packets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Crypt-CHAP - Class to generate CHAP packets Alias: pear-Crypt-CHAP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222597 [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 237170] Review Request: repoman - Tool for configuring yum(8) settings and repositories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: repoman - Tool for configuring yum(8) settings and repositories https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237170 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 14:19 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) It looks like you also need a sponsor? Yes. 1. The source url doesn't seem quite right http://www.boston.burdell.org/repoman/src/repoman-0.7.tar.gz works. (ie, it needs a /src/ in there) Fixed. 2. rpmlint says: a) W: repoman no-dependency-on usermode Should Requires: usermode since you have a link to consolehelper. Fixed. b) W: repoman incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.7 0.7-1.fc7 Should have the Release on the versions in the changelog... ie, 0.7-1 Fixed. c) W: repoman conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/pam.d/repoman W: repoman conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/security/console.apps/repoman Are users ever likely to modify those files? Should they be noreplace? Most likely users will never have to modify those files. But, they are config files and we wouldn't go to the trouble of making them config files if we didn't want to give the users the option of changing them. I've added the noreplace attribute. 2. You shouldn't need to require desktop-file-utils anymore, also you might use the standardized scriptlet for updating the mime-type key. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#head-de6770dd9867fcd085a73a4700f6bcd0d10294ef Fixed. 3. You should use desktop-file-install to install the .desktop file: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-254ddf07aae20a23ced8cecc219d8f73926e9755 Fixed, I think. Not sure if I'm using this correctly. 4. Is there a reason for the (8) after yum in the summary and description? I find it distracting, and many people won't know what it means. Only to indicate it's a command with a man page. Removed the (8). Finally two items that are by no means blockers, but I thought I would mention: - Perhaps you could talk with the yum-presto maintainer and see if it would be possible/easy to add support for deltarpm repos when they appear? Definitely something to look in to. Added it to the TODO list. - I see that this application doesn't have an icon. Perhaps you could ask for someone on the art group to whip one up? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/DesignService Also added to the TODO list. I have put all of these changes together in repoman-0.8. Here is the new srpm and spec file: http://www.boston.burdell.org/repoman/RPMS/source/repoman-0.8-1.fc7.src.rpm http://www.boston.burdell.org/repoman/RPMS/source/repoman.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 227241] Review Request: kde-settings - Config files for kde
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kde-settings - Config files for kde Alias: kde-settings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227241 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Alias||kde-settings Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 15:06 EST --- I'll make an attempt at reviewing this right 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 216353] Review Request: vdr-text2skin - OSD skin plugin for VDR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vdr-text2skin - OSD skin plugin for VDR https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216353 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 15:23 EST --- Imported and built for FC-6 and devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216355] Review Request: vdr-skins - Collection of OSD skins for VDR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vdr-skins - Collection of OSD skins for VDR https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216355 Bug 216355 depends on bug 216353, which changed state. Bug 216353 Summary: Review Request: vdr-text2skin - OSD skin plugin for VDR https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216353 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237416] Review Request: Berusky - 2D logic game based on an ancient puzzle Sokoban.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Berusky - 2D logic game based on an ancient puzzle Sokoban. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237416 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 15:30 EST --- Should be fixed now, updated files are here: http://people.redhat.com/stransky/berusky/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237416] Review Request: Berusky - 2D logic game based on an ancient puzzle Sokoban.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Berusky - 2D logic game based on an ancient puzzle Sokoban. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237416 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 15:38 EST --- Its look line, that you didn't upload the updated package for berusky. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225248] Merge Review: ant
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: ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225248 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 15:39 EST --- Good: + Naming seems ok. + Tar ball matches with upstream. + Mock build works fine for FC6 and rawhide. Bad: - BR coreutils is not be included. - warning from rpmlint ant-manual: rpmlint of ant-manual: W: ant-manual dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/ant-manual-1.6.5/manual/api /usr/share/javadoc/ant-1.6.5 W: ant-manual symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/doc/ant-manual-1.6.5/manual/api /usr/share/javadoc/ant-1.6.5 W: ant-manual file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/ant-manual-1.6.5/manual/tutorial-tasks-filesets-properties.zip - Errors/warnings on rpmlint ant: E: ant devel-dependency java-devel W: ant non-standard-group Development/Build Tools W: ant incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.6.5-4jpp.2 0:1.6.5-4jpp.2.fc6 W: ant obsolete-not-provided ant-optional W: ant obsolete-not-provided ant-optional-full E: ant useless-explicit-provides ant -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216355] Review Request: vdr-skins - Collection of OSD skins for VDR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vdr-skins - Collection of OSD skins for VDR https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216355 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 15:48 EST --- Actually, in some situations VDR writes to the *.theme files, so I'll relocate them to /var/lib/vdr/themes instead of /usr/share. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227579] Review Request: spr - Statistical pattern recognition
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: spr - Statistical pattern recognition https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227579 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 16:27 EST --- Many thanks for the review! I'll fix the directory ownership in the -devel subpackage after importing the new package, but before the first build. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: spr Short Description: Statistical pattern recognition Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-6 EL-4 EL-5 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 233782] Review Request: vegastrike - 3D OpenGL spaceflight simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vegastrike - 3D OpenGL spaceflight simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233782 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 16:28 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) Hmm. Hans, I added BuildRequires: freeglut-devel to the spec file and rebuilt the SRPM, then ran that through mock; and it still fails with that above error. Is there another package that needs to be set as a dependency? Yes, a couple actually (my bad) here is a fixed version: Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/vegastrike.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/vegastrike-0.4.3-2.fc7.src.rpm This new version also includes a patch to make it keep the python system dirs in its import path, so that the builtin dir can be removed from the data 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 226190] Merge Review: netatalk
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: netatalk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226190 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |m) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 16:30 EST --- Most of problems are fixed now in rawhide. Others will be resolved 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 233783] Review Request: vegastrike-data - Data files for Vega Strike
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vegastrike-data - Data files for Vega Strike https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233783 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 16:41 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) Here we go; sorry for the lateness of this review. ++ BAD: (1) rpmlint complains about several empty files in the source and binary RPMs: I: vegastrike-data checking E: vegastrike-data zero-length /usr/share/vegastrike/units/weapons/weapons.blank E: vegastrike-data zero-length /usr/share/vegastrike/units/factions/factions.template E: vegastrike-data zero-length /usr/share/vegastrike/units/weapons/weapons.template E: vegastrike-data zero-length /usr/share/vegastrike/units/subunits/subunits.blank E: vegastrike-data zero-length /usr/share/vegastrike/units/subunits/subunits.template E: vegastrike-data zero-length /usr/share/vegastrike/units/factions/factions.blank These seem ignorable at first glance though - could you verify this please? Yes, I saw those warnings before submission myself too, but I've deliberately ignored them, as I think these empty files might still be needed / usefull. (2) As-is, it seems to include its own locally-modified copy of various Python modules (modules/builtin/). A brief perusal of the diff between the included python modules and the system copies of them shows mostly variable renaming and similar generally-insignificant changes. Good catch, removed. (3) This contains a lot of ISO-8859 text files, as follows. These should be encoded in UTF-8. ./textures/sol2/sources.txt: ISO-8859 text ./accounts/test2.save:ISO-8859 text, with very long lines ./accounts/test1.save:ISO-8859 text, with very long lines ./accounts/default.save: ISO-8859 text, with very long lines ./universe/fgnames/purist.txt:ISO-8859 text ./universe/fgnames/forsaken.txt: ISO-8859 text ./universe/fgnames/LIHW.txt: ISO-8859 text ./universe/fgnames/confed.txt:ISO-8859 text ./universe/fgnames/highborn.txt: ISO-8859 text ./universe/fgnames/shaper.txt:ISO-8859 text ./universe/fgnames/cities.txt:ISO-8859 English text ./universe/fgnames/unadorned.txt: ISO-8859 text ./universe/fgnames/homeland-security.txt: ISO-8859 text ./universe/fgnames/ISO.txt: ISO-8859 text ./universe/fgnames/merchant.txt: ISO-8859 text ./universe/fgnames/andolian.txt: ISO-8859 text Notice these are data files, not user docs, and I think the game might actually expect / depend on them being ISO-8859, so I've kept these as is. (4) The splash_holovid and splash_pacifier animations contain objectionable images (scantily-clad women in rather lude poses). These should probably be removed or replaced with more appropriate content. These are just 2 of a long list of in game fake advertisements, which are there to create a certain atmosphere. I personally find the ones about guns and joining the army / the ones promoting militarism much more offensive then the 2 you name. IOW this is pretty subjective. Removing any of them feels like applying censorship to me, and lets please not go there unless things are clearly illegal or really bad taste / inappropriate (5) You make executable every Python file in this which has a shebang. Is this really needed or can the shebang lines be removed instead? (The rest of the scriplets are otherwise sane.) Most of these were in the builtin dir, the remaining 2 are really scripts meant to be executed stand alone, and thus should be executable. New version here: Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/vegastrike-data.spec I only updated the specfile as the sources didn't change and it takes eons to upload it with my link. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 234750] Review Request: avr-binutils - Cross Compiling GNU binutils targeted at avr
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: avr-binutils - Cross Compiling GNU binutils targeted at avr https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234750 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 16:44 EST --- Trond, thanks for the review! Ralf, thanks for all the input! Imported and build, closing. I'll post avr-gcc for review soonish. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230275] Review Request: varnish - High-performance HTTP accelerator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: varnish - High-performance HTTP accelerator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230275
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 17:18 EST ---
The short story:
Updated specfile:
http://users.linpro.no/ingvar/varnish/fedora-extras-commit/varnish.spec
Updated source rpm:
http://users.linpro.no/ingvar/varnish/fedora-extras-commit/varnish-1.0.3-6.src.rpm
Details and comments:
* Matthias Saou
- The %lib_name doesn't seem very useful, and having used plain
libs instead of -n %{lib_name} for the sub-package would make
things clearer. Also, the future devel package would be named
wrong since it would be varnish-libs-devel.
The macro has been hanging around since I experimented with names and
an old mandrake-ish rpmlint. Agreed and fixed.
- Some brackets are used inconsistently (%version-%{release}).
Ah, thanks. Fixed.
- A condrestart should probably be added in %postun, as it makes
sense to restart varnishd after an update.
Yup, added.
- The .gz extensions in %files for the man pages are wrong, you should use
something like *.1* instead, for people who rebuild with uncompressed or
bzip2ed man pages.
Fixed
- You could spare a lot of mkdir -p by using install -D.
Fixed
- The --sbindir=/usr/sbin on the %configure line is redundant.
No, it's not. At least, not unless this has been fixed in upstream
very, recently. In 1.0 it was needed.
- The iteration for the UTF-8 conversion would be best done with a
glob, i.e. for i in bin/*/*.1, as it'll be less subject to break
if any programs are added or removed.
...and it became simpler and shorter too. Fixed.
- I would personally add a comment above the Requires: gcc line to
explain that varnish *really* needs a C compiler at runtime by
design because of its VCL files.
Point. Fixed.
- The explicit requirements on ncurses should be removed, as it's wrong to
have it (wouldn't allow for a compat-ncurses to work right).
Right. Removed, and let rpm find the correct deps by itself.
- The kernel requirement should probably be removed from the libs
package, unless they are the ones requiring 2.6 specific features
(but I think it's only the daemon).
Yup, that's correct. Fixed.
rpmlint's output is valuable, but having it empty unfortunately doesn't
necessarily mean that the package is perfect!
But of course. Thanks for the input. I also stole some of your init-
and config file items :-)
Ingvar
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237579] New: Review Request: cernlib-g77 - General purpose CERN library and associated binaries
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=237579 Summary: Review Request: cernlib-g77 - General purpose CERN library and associated binaries 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.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/cernlib-g77.spec SRPM URL: http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/cernlib-g77-2006-6.fc7.src.rpm Description: This is a sort of compat package for the cernlib. Indeed in F7 the cernlib is compiled by gfortran, however gfortran compiled libraries are binary incompatible with g77 compiled libraries (and therefore have a different soname). Moreover gfortran is sort of new, so I think it is interesting to be able to use g77 and gfortran compiled binaries and libraries in parallel. The spec file is the cernlib specfile with the %bcond reversed in order to have g77 used instead of gfortran. To have cernlib and cernlib-g77 packages available from the same spec file, there is a use of a lot of conditionals, so the spec file isn't that legible, but in my opinion it is more maintainable like that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237579] Review Request: cernlib-g77 - General purpose CERN library and associated binaries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cernlib-g77 - General purpose CERN library and associated binaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237579 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 17:24 EST --- Jose, since you did the cernlib review, could it be possible for you to review that one too? I'd like to have it in F7 if possible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232018] Review Request: perl-YAML-Syck - Fast, lightweight YAML loader and dumper
Please 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-YAML-Syck - Fast, lightweight YAML loader and dumper Alias: perl-YAML-Syck https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232018 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||237594 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 226337] Merge Review: pyparted
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: pyparted
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226337
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO
Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]
||om)
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 18:10 EST ---
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[!] Rpmlint output:
Source RPM:
E: pyparted no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
pyparted-debuginfo pyparted: no output
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type:GPL
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is written in American English. See also note 23 below
[x] Spec file for the package is legible.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: f431a4e84a7a5671c1ed653c99d25a89c9acbf8d
pyparted-1.8.6.tar.bz2
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on:devel/x86_64
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR:
Arches excluded: -
Why: -
[!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. See below issue #3
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[!] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. See below under
issue #3
[x] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: devel, x86_64 and i386
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: devel, x86_64 and i386
[x] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x] File based requires are sane.
[x] Latest version is packaged.
=== Issues ===
1. Please add back the rm -fR buildroot line in %install, looks like it was
deleted by accident when editing the make line
2. The description tag says it is used for manipulation partition tables. I am
not a native English speaker, but to me it looks like a cat has eaten a word. I
suggest [...] used for manipulation of partition tables or [...] used for
manipulating partition tables
3. The Summary field says python module for... while the Desc field starts
with python modules for. How about sticking with either singular (module) or
plural (modules) ?
4. The makefile mentions the need of pkg-config since version 1.8.3. However
there is no .pc file and the spurious call to pkg-config (via LDFLAGS) leads to
an error message in the build log. I suggest either using the already existing
Makefile
[Bug 223592] Review Request: wuja - Gnome desktop applet for integration with Google calendar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wuja - Gnome desktop applet for integration with Google calendar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223592 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|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 192438] Review Request: fedora-xgl-settings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fedora-xgl-settings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192438 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|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 174288] Hspell-gui is a graphical front end to hspell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Hspell-gui is a graphical front end to hspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174288 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|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 210007] Review Request: libtune - standard API to access the kernel tunables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libtune - standard API to access the kernel tunables https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|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 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|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 196793] Review Request: php-pear-MDB2 - Database Abstraction Layer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-MDB2 - Database Abstraction Layer Alias: php-pear-MDB2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196793 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: php-pear- |Review Request: php-pear- |MDB2 - PEAR: Database |MDB2 - Database Abstraction |Abstraction Layer |Layer Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 20:22 EST --- Branch Package CVS Request === Package Name: php-pear-MDB2 Short Description: Database Abstraction Layer Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: EL-5 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 212917] Review Request: php-pear-DB-DataObject - An SQL Builder, Object Interface to Database Tables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-DB-DataObject - An SQL Builder, Object Interface to Database Tables Alias: DB-DataObject https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212917 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 20:27 EST --- Branch Package CVS Request === Package Name: php-pear-DB-DataObject Short Description: An SQL Builder, Object Interface to Database Tables Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: EL-5 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 227579] Review Request: spr - Statistical pattern recognition
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: spr - Statistical pattern recognition https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227579 [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 196793] Review Request: php-pear-MDB2 - Database Abstraction Layer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-MDB2 - Database Abstraction Layer Alias: php-pear-MDB2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196793 [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 218225] Review Request: php-pear-MDB2-Driver-mysql - MySQL MDB2 Driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-MDB2-Driver-mysql - MySQL MDB2 Driver Alias: pear-MDB2-mysql https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218225 [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 212917] Review Request: php-pear-DB-DataObject - An SQL Builder, Object Interface to Database Tables
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-DB-DataObject - An SQL Builder, Object Interface to Database Tables Alias: DB-DataObject https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212917 [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 225610] Merge Review: bcel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: bcel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225610 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226399] Merge Review: scim-tables
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-tables https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226399 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 22:35 EST --- I would like to have a EPEL EL-4 branch for this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 170303] Review Request: google-perftools: Very fast malloc performance analysis tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: google-perftools: Very fast malloc performance analysis tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=170303 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 23:25 EST --- Alright, lets get this one off the queue. Here are new packages, I had to disable smp_mflags (it builds out of order on SMP), and patch out the use of rpath. But, it does pass all of its tests! New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/google-perftools-0.91-1.fc7.src.rpm New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/google-perftools.spec Dmitry, if you're no longer interested in reviewing this, I'd understand. Just lemme know. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225627] Merge Review: bsf
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: bsf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225627
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-23 23:43 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.
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 link for Source0 is dead, and the version for the project does not exist on
the project's webpage.
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
* 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
X do not include the install or build instructions
* 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 bsf-2.3.0-11jpp.2.src.rpm
W: bsf non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
OK, group warnings can be ignored
* changelog should be in a 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
- this is largely subjective; use your judgement
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
OK
* BuildRequires are proper
- builds in mock will flush out problems here
Have not yet built in mock
- the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires:
bash
bzip2
coreutils
cpio
diffutils
fedora-release (and/or redhat-release)
gcc
gcc-c++
gzip
make
patch
perl
redhat-rpm-config
rpm-build
sed
tar
unzip
which
OK
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
OK
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
OK
* make sure description lines are = 80 characters
OK
* specfile written in American English
OK
* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
- see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
OK
* 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
OK, not a gui app
* should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
OK, it shouldn't have one
* 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
OK
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
OK
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
OK
* package should probably not be relocatable
OK
* package contains code
- see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
- in general, there should be no offensive content
OK
* package should own all directories and files
X package needs to require jpackage-utils as this package owns
/usr/share/java[doc]
* there should be no %files duplicates
X please get rid of the %ghost javadoc
* 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 /home/matt/topdir/RPMS/i386/bsf-2.3.0-11jpp.2.i386.rpm
W: bsf
[Bug 233782] Review Request: vegastrike - 3D OpenGL spaceflight simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vegastrike - 3D OpenGL spaceflight simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233782 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 231758] Review Request: perl-Workflow - Simple, flexible system to implement workflows
Please 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-Workflow - Simple, flexible system to implement workflows Alias: perl-Workflow https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231758 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-24 01:12 EST --- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-24 01:24 EST --- Built okay, 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 235471] Review Request: perl-PDF-API2 - Perl module for creation and modification of PDF files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-PDF-API2 - Perl module for creation and modification of PDF files Alias: perl-PDF-API2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235471 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-24 01:55 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) Go read file LICENSE in the package :) It's always this simple when I actually ask :) As to the fonts, they look perfectly fine. However, they may fall under the heading of content, and thus need a FESCo ack... If someone with a better feel of this sections than the guidelines could post a comment here, I'd much appreciate it. Otherwise, I have a review all ready to post. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
