[Bug 239470] Review Request: arping-ng - Sends IP and/or ARP pings (to the MAC address)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: arping-ng - Sends IP and/or ARP pings (to the MAC address) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239470 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-08 02:28 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) > /usr/include/libnet.h:87:2: error: #error "byte order has not been specified, > you'll need to #define either LIBNET_LIL_ENDIAN or LIBNET_BIG_ENDIAN. See the > documentation regarding the libnet-config script." Seems that you are using libnet10 instead of libnet-devel (which contains libnet-1.1). Up to FC6 libnet10 and libnet-devel relationship were completely messed up. I stated it here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229297#c3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 240287] Review Request: muParser - A fast math parser 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: muParser - A fast math parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240287
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-08 02:21 EST ---
So I have modify the Requires of the devel package to:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} pkgconfig
right so?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239470] Review Request: arping-ng - Sends IP and/or ARP pings (to the MAC address)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: arping-ng - Sends IP and/or ARP pings (to the MAC address) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239470 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-08 02:21 EST --- The source timestamp is not kept: $ ls -l arping-2.05.tar.gz ../SOURCES/arping-2.05.tar.gz -rw-rw-r-- 1 dumas dumas 32287 jan 28 2005 arping-2.05.tar.gz -rw-rw-r-- 1 dumas dumas 32287 mai 7 16:14 ../SOURCES/arping-2.05.tar.gz You can use wget -N or spectool -g to keep timestamp (and curl also has a similar option). I don't see any other issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227669] Review Request: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-08 01:59 EST --- The site above seems down for me... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235293] Review Request: adminutil - Utility library for Fedora Directory Server administration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: adminutil - Utility library for Fedora Directory Server administration Alias: adminutil https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235293 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-08 01:57 EST --- Dennis, 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 197137] Review Request: Conga - Remote management interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Conga - Remote management interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197137 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-08 00:13 EST --- Hey Jim: Any thoughts on which way you would like to go? See comment #15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241486] Review Request: ocaml-curl - OCaml Curl library (ocurl)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocaml-curl - OCaml Curl library (ocurl) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241486 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-08 00:12 EST --- ho! So the block NEEDSPONSOR should be set. this guideline it's a good point. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195365] Review Request: etcnet - /etc/net network configuration system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: etcnet - /etc/net network configuration system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195365 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-08 00:11 EST --- I'd be all for an alternative as well, but the submitter hasn't responded. I am going to close this review now. Denis: Feel free to reopen this review request or submit a new one if you would like to submit this package again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193319] Review Request: chestnut-dialer - A PPP dialing program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: chestnut-dialer - A PPP dialing program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193319 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG OtherBugsDependingO|177841 |201449 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-08 00:05 EST --- ok, no word for a week, and someone else is working on submitting this. I am going to go ahead and close this request 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 241076] Review Request: redet-doc - Documentation for redet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: redet-doc - Documentation for redet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241076 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-08 00:01 EST --- Thank you! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: redet-doc Short Description: Documentation for redet Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-6 F-7 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 241075] Review Request: redet - Regular expression development and execution 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: redet - Regular expression development and execution tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241075 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-08 00:01 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) > Sorry it's taken me three days to get back to this. > > It's fine if you put off the manpage bit; it's kind of pointless to compress > it > yourself but I don't think it's a blocker. > > Unfortunately this fails to build in mock for me; you just need to add a build > dependency on desktop-file-utils and everything goes through fine. Ahh! I'll fix that when I get home. > > I installed on my desktop and found a problem with the desktop file: It has no > GenericName entry, so instead of "Redet (Regular expression whatever)" I just > get "Redet". I would recommend replacing "Comment" with "GenericName" in your > desktop file, but the desktop entry spec doesn't require GenericName so I > don't > think it's a blocker. I'll fix this tonight as well. > > I am not sure if TCL actually supports StartupNotify=true, but startup > notification seems to work well enough for me under KDE so I suppose it's OK. > > So since there's only one remaining trivial blocker and it will keep you from > actually building the package, I'll go ahead and approve this and you can fix > it > when you check in. > > APPROVED New Package CVS Request === Package Name: redet Short Description: Regular expression development and execution tool Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-6 F-7 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 193712] Review Request: sos
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193712 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 23:52 EST --- Unfortunately this doesn't build for me (in mock building from a rawhide repo): Executing(%install): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.11747 + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd sos-1.4 + LANG=C + export LANG + unset DISPLAY + rm -rf /var/tmp/sos-1.4-1.fc8-root-mockbuild + /usr/bin/python setup.py -q install --root=/var/tmp/sos-1.4-1.fc8-root-mockbuild error: invalid Python installation: unable to open /usr/lib64/python2.5/config/Makefile (No such file or directory) error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.11747 (%install) I'm not anywhere near being a python expert; perhaps a build dependency on python-devel is needed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241483] Review Request: ocaml-expat - OCaml wrapper for the Expat XML parsing 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: ocaml-expat - OCaml wrapper for the Expat XML parsing library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241483 [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 241476] Review Request: ocaml-pxp - Validating XML 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: ocaml-pxp - Validating XML parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241476 [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 241475] Review Request: ocaml-ulex - OCaml lexer generator for Unicode
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocaml-ulex - OCaml lexer generator for Unicode https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241475 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 23:45 EST --- Starting 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 241487] Review Request: cduce - An XML-oriented functional language.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cduce - An XML-oriented functional language. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241487 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 23:45 EST --- i'll start a full review once the bug dependency #241472 review will done (by me). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241472] Review Request: ocaml-ocamlnet - Network protocols for OCaml
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocaml-ocamlnet - Network protocols for OCaml https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241472 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 23:41 EST --- Starting 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 241076] Review Request: redet-doc - Documentation for redet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: redet-doc - Documentation for redet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241076 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 23:09 EST --- * source files match upstream: 3c45545a5a754622318df8ca9bf22f53ec10d34a03f9080c2bba5415b6cfbaec redet_manual-8.21.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream (it's included in the main redet package) * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none) * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: redet-doc = 8.21-1.fc8 = redet >= 8.21 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. 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 241075] Review Request: redet - Regular expression development and execution 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: redet - Regular expression development and execution tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241075 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 23:02 EST --- Sorry it's taken me three days to get back to this. It's fine if you put off the manpage bit; it's kind of pointless to compress it yourself but I don't think it's a blocker. Unfortunately this fails to build in mock for me; you just need to add a build dependency on desktop-file-utils and everything goes through fine. I installed on my desktop and found a problem with the desktop file: It has no GenericName entry, so instead of "Redet (Regular expression whatever)" I just get "Redet". I would recommend replacing "Comment" with "GenericName" in your desktop file, but the desktop entry spec doesn't require GenericName so I don't think it's a blocker. I am not sure if TCL actually supports StartupNotify=true, but startup notification seems to work well enough for me under KDE so I suppose it's OK. So since there's only one remaining trivial blocker and it will keep you from actually building the package, I'll go ahead and approve this and you can fix it when you check in. 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 240287] Review Request: muParser - A fast math parser 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: muParser - A fast math parser library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240287 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 21:49 EST --- OK, that's much better. The only remaining problem is that since you've added a pkgconfig file, the -devel subpackage now needs a depencency on pkgconfig. Anyway, you can fix that when you check in. 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 243012] Review Request: perl-Compress-Raw-Zlib - Perl interface to zlib compression 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: perl-Compress-Raw-Zlib - Perl interface to zlib compression library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243012 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 21:09 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Compress-Raw-Zlib Short Description: Perl interface to zlib compression library Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: devel InitialCC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184080] Review Request: webmin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: webmin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184080 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 20:54 EST --- Hey Scott. I don't think Jason works for redhat anymore, so email from this review might not be getting to him. I am pretty sure the spec that he used was the one from the upstream project. Unfortunately there are a number of issues with this spec file, it would take a lot of work to clean it up to the point that it would be acceptable to the Fedora guidelines. I would suggest that you perhaps start submitting a easier package and get to where you understand the guidelines and how spec files are written. This link, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WishList has a number of packages that are not yet packaged and someone is wishing for. If you are set on packaging webmin, I would suggest you start from a clean spec file and build it up to match all the guidelines, which will be a lot of work, but I think easier than trying to clean up the upstream project one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218258] Review Request: audacious-docklet - a docklet plugin for Audacious
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: audacious-docklet - a docklet plugin for Audacious https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218258 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs- |fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 20:48 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: audacious-plugins-docklet New Branches: FC6 F7 Updated Description: Rename audacious-docklet to audacious-plugins-docklet as discussed in this thread. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218258] Review Request: audacious-docklet - a docklet plugin for Audacious
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: audacious-docklet - a docklet plugin for Audacious https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218258 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 20:45 EST --- Created an attachment (id=156534) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=156534&action=view) new spec file for audacious-plugins-docklet Adding Obsoletes: audacious-docklet < 0.1.1-2 s statement -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239097] Review Request: nikto - Web server scanner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nikto - Web server scanner https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239097 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239470] Review Request: arping-ng - Sends IP and/or ARP pings (to the MAC address)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: arping-ng - Sends IP and/or ARP pings (to the MAC address) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239470 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 20:05 EST --- Updated: - Really keep timestamps on man file - Avoid /bin/sh dependency for docfile Spec URL: http://folk.ntnu.no/sindrb/packages/green_nyc/arping-ng.spec SRPM URL: http://folk.ntnu.no/sindrb/packages/green_nyc/arping-ng-2.05-5.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 184080] Review Request: webmin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: webmin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184080 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 20:03 EST --- (In reply to comment #0) Jason, I am interested in either helping with Webmin or taking over the project. Wou7ld you be interested in sharing your spec file with me? > Spec Name or Url: http://people.redhat.com/~jvdias/webmin/webmin.spec > SRPM Name or Url: http://people.redhat.com/~jvdias/webmin/webmin- > Description: > Upstream URL: http://webmin.com > webmin is a very popular web-based system configuration and administration > package, which can configure these sub-systems with a pure-perl HTTP GUI > interface: > acl dfsadminipsec passwd smf > adsl-client dhcpd jabber postfix software > apache dnsadminkrb5postgresql spam > at dovecot langppp-client squid > backup-config exports ldap-useradmin pptp-client sshd > bandwidth fdisk lilopptp-server status > bindfetchmail logrotate procstunnel > burner filelpadmin procmailsyslog > caldera firewalllvm proftpd telnet > cfenginefroxmailboxes pserver time > change-user fsdump majordomo qmailadmin tunnel > cluster-copygrubman quota updown > cluster-cronheartbeat mon raiduseradmin > cluster-passwd htaccess-htpass mount samba usermin > cluster-shell idmapd mscstyle3 sargvgetty > cluster-softwar images mysql sendmailwebalizer > cluster-useradm inetd net sentry webmin > cluster-usermin initnis servers Webmin > cluster-webmin inittab openslp shell webminlog > cpanipfilterpam shorewall wuftpd > cronipfwpap smart-statusxinetd > custom > I've obtained permission from the upstream maintainer, Jamie Cameron, > to import webmin into Fedora Extras. > I've submitted the webmin SRPM to CVS, but will not build it until the > Review process is completed . (In reply to comment #0) > Spec Name or Url: http://people.redhat.com/~jvdias/webmin/webmin.spec > SRPM Name or Url: http://people.redhat.com/~jvdias/webmin/webmin- > Description: > Upstream URL: http://webmin.com > webmin is a very popular web-based system configuration and administration > package, which can configure these sub-systems with a pure-perl HTTP GUI > interface: > acl dfsadminipsec passwd smf > adsl-client dhcpd jabber postfix software > apache dnsadminkrb5postgresql spam > at dovecot langppp-client squid > backup-config exports ldap-useradmin pptp-client sshd > bandwidth fdisk lilopptp-server status > bindfetchmail logrotate procstunnel > burner filelpadmin procmailsyslog > caldera firewalllvm proftpd telnet > cfenginefroxmailboxes pserver time > change-user fsdump majordomo qmailadmin tunnel > cluster-copygrubman quota updown > cluster-cronheartbeat mon raiduseradmin > cluster-passwd htaccess-htpass mount samba usermin > cluster-shell idmapd mscstyle3 sargvgetty > cluster-softwar images mysql sendmailwebalizer > cluster-useradm inetd net sentry webmin > cluster-usermin initnis servers Webmin > cluster-webmin inittab openslp shell webminlog > cpanipfilterpam shorewall wuftpd > cronipfwpap smart-statusxinetd > custom > I've obtained permission from the upstream maintainer, Jamie Cameron, > to import webmin into Fedora Extras. > I've submitted the webmin SRPM to CVS, but will not build it until the > Review process is complete
[Bug 239933] Review Request: perl-Danga-Socket - Event loop and event-driven async socket base class
Please 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-Danga-Socket - Event loop and event-driven async socket base class https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239933 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 19:29 EST --- Is there some reason this ticket is still open? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 237334] Review Request: perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-RSA -- Perl OpenSSL bindings for RSA support
Please 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-Crypt-OpenSSL-RSA -- Perl OpenSSL bindings for RSA support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237334 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 19:25 EST --- Please don't forget to close this bug once the package has been imported and built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 19:24 EST --- Thanks for looking at this! We had gotten rid of the rpath in the past... looks like it's crept back. Will get that fixed. >1) keyutils, openssl, pam requirements should be superfluous - library >dependencies take care of this ok. Removed. >2) kernel requires are tricky. Generally, we do > >Conflicts: kernel < 2.6.19 > >as there's no reason, for example, to pull a kernel into a buildroot. Well, the tricky part here is we need to require a kernel with ecryptfs.ko in it. For F-7 and devel no problems, as all of them have it. For FC-6 however, the early kernels didn't, and the updated ones do. I thought that the error end users get from yum on Requires is more usefull than Conflicts? >That's bad; these shouldn't be linked against things in /usr/lib. (Yes, some >people still run /usr separate.) Moreover, I suspect that both of these will >also dlopen the plugins in $(libdir)/ecryptfs? Thats a good Question. Michael? Any thoughts? Yes, those .so's under libdir/ecryptfs/ do dlopen the so's. This sounds like something for upstream to change? > -devel: what, if anything, will ever build against this? If there's nothing, >it may not be worth shipping. (Also,does this package maintain a stable ABI?) I don't know of anything... Michael? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 243012] Review Request: perl-Compress-Raw-Zlib - Perl interface to zlib compression 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: perl-Compress-Raw-Zlib - Perl interface to zlib compression library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243012 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 19:15 EST --- Cool, thanks for that update. * source files match upstream: 0f60879a7b3fa4c6439a67271095d2e1e6d084f3395baa323bd9d405d0bd90ac Compress-Raw-Zlib-2.004.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK (could use an extra "the", I suppose) * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: Zlib.so()(64bit) perl(Compress::Raw::Zlib) = 2.004 perl-Compress-Raw-Zlib = 2.004-1.fc8 = libz.so.1()(64bit) perl >= 0:5.004 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(AutoLoader) perl(Carp) perl(Exporter) perl(bytes) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(warnings) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=6, Tests=545, 2 wallclock secs ( 1.85 cusr + 0.10 csys = 1.95 CPU) * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239546] Review Request: mdsplib - METAR Decoder Software Package 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: mdsplib - METAR Decoder Software Package Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239546
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 19:09 EST ---
Sigh. Here is the page I was looking for earlier and couldn't find:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-82d97fc4a3421310f4e2971180e4165965b65662
So, you could also add a:
%package devel
Provides: foo-static = %{version}-%{release}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191492] Review Request: unuran-0.7.2
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: unuran-0.7.2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191492 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |201449 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 18:58 EST --- I'm not sure how you can say that nobody's interested since review comments were made. But I'll go ahead and close this; if anyone else wants to submit it, they're more than welcome to do so. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 243211] Review Request: chestnut-dialer - PPP (Point to Point Protocol) dialing program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: chestnut-dialer - PPP (Point to Point Protocol) dialing program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243211 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 18:54 EST --- Note also bug 193319. It looks like that will be closed soon as the submitter isn't responding to pings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 242873] Review Request: min12xxw - Print filter for Minolta printer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: min12xxw - Print filter for Minolta printer Alias: min12xxw-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=242873 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 243211] New: Review Request: chestnut-dialer - PPP (Point to Point Protocol) dialing program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243211 Summary: Review Request: chestnut-dialer - PPP (Point to Point Protocol) dialing program Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://folk.ntnu.no/sindrb/packages/chestnut-dialer.spec SRPM URL: http://folk.ntnu.no/sindrb/packages/chestnut-dialer-0.3.3-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: Chestnut Dialer is PPP (Point to Point Protocol) dialing program, written in Python. Many Internet providers, that provide dialup service, use PPP protocol; this program helps you to connect to Internet using a modem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239470] Review Request: arping-ng - Sends IP and/or ARP pings (to the MAC address)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arping-ng - Sends IP and/or ARP pings (to the MAC
address)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239470
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 18:00 EST ---
The timestamps for man pages are not kept. If you want to
use my solution you should also do (to regenerate the right
timestamp, before patching)
touch -r arping.8.man arping.8
and keep timestamp wile installing by using -p in
install -D -p -m 0644 arping.8 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man8/arping-ng.8
After adding arping-scan-net.sh to %%doc there is a bogus
dependency on /bin/sh. In my opinion this is not very
problematic but should be best avoided. I'd propose something
along
rm -rf __fedora_docs
cp -p arping-scan-net.sh __fedora_docs/
chmod a-x __fedora_docs/arping-scan-net.sh
..
%doc LICENSE README __fedora_docs/arping-scan-net.sh
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191492] Review Request: unuran-0.7.2
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: unuran-0.7.2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191492 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 17:41 EST --- I think that static libs could be interesting for the usual reasons for math libraries. This seems to be a very interesting package to me. I can't what makes you think that there is no interest in it, Jason made a pre-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 243010] Review Request: perl-Compress-Raw-Bzip2 - Perl interface to bzip2 compression 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: perl-Compress-Raw-Bzip2 - Perl interface to bzip2 compression library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 17:36 EST --- package imported and built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191492] Review Request: unuran-0.7.2
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: unuran-0.7.2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191492 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 17:10 EST --- OK, I'm not really that interested in this package anymore, and apparently nobody else is either. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227669] Review Request: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical
abstractions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 16:29 EST ---
> NOTE: From next time, please bump (increment) the release number
> of spec file each time you modify spec file.
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FrequentlyMadeMistakes
OK.
> * Must/Should be fixed
> ! Notes
> ? Questions
> = Okay
>
> Now I am reviewing formally. For 0.9-6:
>
> * Source
> - The source in your srpm differ from what I downloaded
> from the URL on your spec file??
> -
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ppl]$ ls -al *gz */*gz
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 tasaka1 tasaka1 6330518 2007-02-11 05:43
> ppl-0.9-6.fc8/ppl-0.9.tar.gz
> -rw--- 1 tasaka1 tasaka1 6023797 2006-03-12 00:00 ppl-0.9.tar.gz
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ppl]$ md5sum *gz */*gz
> 4096c2927b36fbf7c5329a53b035bc33 ppl-0.9.tar.gz
> 4c92a57a851b53e57d63aa64f2bd1f3a ppl-0.9-6.fc8/ppl-0.9.tar.gz
> -
Fixed.
> * rpmlint
> The result of rpmlint for srpm, binary rpms and the installed
> rpms is attached.
>
> SUMMARY:
> * Undefined non-weak symbols
> - Two libraries have undefined non-weak symbols. For rpms which want to
> provide also -devel subpackages, this cannot be allowed because linkage
> against these libraries fails because of these symbols.
>
> * devel packge dependency on non-devel package
> - Please explain
> * why ppl-swiprolog requires ncurses-devel
Sorry, I do not understand this question.
> * why ppl-utils requires glpk-devel
Because one of the utilities requires the GLPK library and, as far as I know,
there is only one package providing it, which is glpk-devel.
> Usually non-devel packages should not require devel related
> packages.
I see. What should I do then?
> = All other rpmlint complaints can be ignored.
>
> * Unwanted call of autotools after configure
> - Mock build log (will attach) says:
> --
> + make
> cd . && /bin/sh /builddir/build/BUILD/ppl-0.9/missing --run aclocal-1.9 -I m4
> /builddir/build/BUILD/ppl-0.9/missing: line 51: aclocal-1.9: command not found
> WARNING: `aclocal-1.9' is missing on your system. You should only need it if
>
> /bin/sh ./config.status --recheck
> --
> - Automated call of autotools and recall of config.status
> is wrong. Perhaps the timestamps of configure vs configure.ac
> are incorrect.
Should be OK now.
> * Timestamps
> - For make install, please use (for this package)
> --
> make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="%{__install} -p" install
> --
OK.
> Actually this package tries to install many documentaion/
> image files/etc..., which are not modified or created during
> rebuild and keeping timestamps on those files is recommended.
I am not sure I understand this.
> * Definitions in header files
> - Some definitions in some header files are very dangerous
> and may easyly cause definition conflict.
> For example, /usr/include/ppl.hh has some definitions such that
> ---
> #define HAVE_SYS_TYPES_H 1
> #define HAVE_UNISTD_H 1
> ---
> ... etc. These definition names are too generic and may cause
> conflicts on definition name space when other header files
> from other packages are included.
These are standard Autoconf macros. What is the right thing to do?
> Generally, these types of generic "#define" macro should be
> included in header files.
> Remove unneeded (and dangerous) #define and #ifdef macros
> or change the names of macros to less generic.
>
> - And note that #ifdef macros are generally unhappy. At least
> please ensure that #ifdef judgment does not affect the ABI
> of the libraries.
>
> (Same for /usr/include/pwl.hh in -pwl-devel package)
I am probably missing something here, so please be patient.
ppl.hh is a very complex object. It is not only an interface
file: it is also an implementation file as it contains
all the inline functions/methods and all the template code.
I have no idea how we could not use #ifdef's and #define's there.
> * About libppl_gprolog.so:
> -
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ppl_gprolog
> ppl_gprolog: error while loading shared libraries: libppl_gprolog.so: cannot
> open shared object file: No such file or directory
> ---
[Bug 243010] Review Request: perl-Compress-Raw-Bzip2 - Perl interface to bzip2 compression 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: perl-Compress-Raw-Bzip2 - Perl interface to bzip2 compression library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 16:16 EST --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210823] Review Request: wxsvg - C++ library to create, manipulate and render SVG 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: wxsvg - C++ library to create, manipulate and render SVG files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210823 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 16:12 EST --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239546] Review Request: mdsplib - METAR Decoder Software Package 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: mdsplib - METAR Decoder Software Package Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239546 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs?, fedora-review+ |fedora-review?, fedora-cvs- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 16:06 EST --- There are some issues with static libs that should be figured before this is imported into cvs... "- MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package" Also see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/StaticLinkage I think short term you could just move the static libs to a -static package, but fixing it to use dynamic would be better. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218258] Review Request: audacious-docklet - a docklet plugin for Audacious
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: audacious-docklet - a docklet plugin for Audacious https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218258 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 16:04 EST --- (In reply to comment #15) > What branches do you want to rename? No branches but the whole module. For the reasons please see the audacious-plugin-itouch review at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218256 BTW: IMO it should be audacious-plugin-docklet (singular instead of plural), just like Michael said in bug #222648 comment #3 @Yu: I just realized your spec is missing Obsoletes: and Provides: as described in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-3cfc1ea19d28975faad9d56f70a6ae55661d3c3d Without these tags people won't be able to upgrade without removing the old package 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 225346] Review Request: python-pgsql - Enhanced python interface to 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: python-pgsql - Enhanced python interface to PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225346 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 15:58 EST --- Well, the "#!/usr/bin/env python" on that script might make someone think they can run it directly, but yes, thats a minor issue. cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 242873] Review Request: min12xxw - Print filter for Minolta printer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: min12xxw - Print filter for Minolta printer Alias: min12xxw-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=242873 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 15:50 EST --- No need to add yourself to CC, owners get all emails already. cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218258] Review Request: audacious-docklet - a docklet plugin for Audacious
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: audacious-docklet - a docklet plugin for Audacious https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218258 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 15:45 EST --- Yu: Can you add an cvs request to do the rename? Then we can add cwickert at the same time. What branches do you want to rename? Do you want to keep cvs history or start over new? I will set cvs to - now and you can reset it to ? when you are ready. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 243187] Review Request: edac-utils - user space utilities for EDAC subsystem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: edac-utils - user space utilities for EDAC subsystem
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243187
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 15:31 EST ---
Suggested changes from initial pass through the spec:
1) Use the %{?dist} tag in the Release: field
2) Typical format for sf.net downloads is to use dl.sf.net, i.e.:
http://dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/edac-utils/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
3) Remove the CFLAGS= from the make line, its superfluous, as it gets set and
exported by the %configure macro, and make is picking that up fine.
4) Be consistent with use of spaces or tabs for indentation (see %post and
%preun).
5) %preun should probably try stopping the edac service before removing the
initscript (although not having looked at the exact nature of the initscript,
I'm guessing this may be essentially a no-op anyhow).
6) The .so and .h files really should go in an edac-utils-devel sub-package.
7) ldconfig needs to be run in %post and %postun
8) static libs and libtool archives shouldn't be installed
9) _smp_mflags should be prefixed with a ? so it doesn't cause build errors
and/or spew on systems that don't have it defined
10) ideally, rpmlint *should* be silent. I've patched up the spec with changes
for all of the above, but its still complaining a bit about the initscript:
$ rpmlint /build/RPMS/x86_64/edac-utils-*
W: edac-utils service-default-enabled /etc/init.d/edac
E: edac-utils missing-mandatory-lsb-tag Short-Description
W: edac-utils service-default-enabled /etc/init.d/edac
W: edac-utils no-reload-entry /etc/init.d/edac
E: edac-utils subsys-not-used /etc/init.d/edac
W: edac-utils incoherent-init-script-name edac
W: edac-utils-devel no-documentation
W: edac-utils-devel no-dependency-on edac-utils
For the most part, the W: bits are fine, but it'd be good to address the two
E:'s there. Both are relatively simple to fix.
Index: edac-utils.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/dist/rpms/edac-utils/devel/edac-utils.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -p -r1.4 edac-utils.spec
--- edac-utils.spec 6 Jun 2007 20:10:50 - 1.4
+++ edac-utils.spec 7 Jun 2007 19:31:05 -
@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
Name: edac-utils
Version: 0.9
-Release: 1
+Release: 1%{?dist}
Summary: Userspace helper for kernel EDAC drivers
Group: System Environment/Base
License: GPL
URL: http://edac-utils.sourceforge.net/
-Source0:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/edac-utils/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
+Source0:
http://dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/edac-utils/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
Patch0:edac_ctl-remove_driver_loading.patch
Patch1:edac_init-fix_messages.patch
@@ -23,44 +23,62 @@ of an init script which makes sure EDAC
are loaded at system startup, as well as a library and utility
for reporting current error counts from the EDAC sysfs files.
+%package devel
+Summary: Development files for %{name}
+Group: Development/Libraries
+
+%description devel
+This package contains the development headers and libraries
+for %{name}.
+
%prep
%setup -q
%patch0 -p1
%patch1 -p1
%build
-%configure
-make %{_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"
+%configure --disable-static
+make %{?_smp_mflags}
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
make install-exec install-data DESTDIR="$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"
+# Remove libtool archive
+rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/*.la
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%post
+/sbin/ldconfig
if [ $1 = 1 ]; then
- /sbin/chkconfig --add edac
+ /sbin/chkconfig --add edac
fi
%preun
if [ $1 = 0 ]; then
+ /sbin/service edac stop >/dev/null 2>&1 || :
/sbin/chkconfig --del edac
fi
+%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
+
%files
-%defattr(-,root,root,0755)
+%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc README NEWS ChangeLog DISCLAIMER
%{_sbindir}/edac-ctl
%{_bindir}/edac-util
-%{_libdir}/*
+%{_libdir}/*.so.*
%{_mandir}/*/*
-%{_includedir}/edac.h
%dir %attr(0755,root,root) %{_sysconfdir}/edac
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/edac/*
%{_sysconfdir}/init.d/edac
+%files devel
+%defattr(-,root,root,-)
+%{_libdir}/*.so
+%{_includedir}/edac.h
+
%changelog
* Wed Jun 06 2007 Aristeu Rozanski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0.9-1
- Updated version to 0.9, separate project 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 243006] Review Request: apr, apr-util -- add maintainers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: apr, apr-util -- add maintainers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 15:22 EST --- Yes, co-owners should both get a copy of any bugzilla emails for the package. If that doesn't happen for some reason, let us know. cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 243187] Review Request: edac-utils - user space utilities for EDAC subsystem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: edac-utils - user space utilities for EDAC subsystem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243187 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 243187] Review Request: edac-utils - user space utilities for EDAC subsystem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: edac-utils - user space utilities for EDAC subsystem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243187 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 243187] New: Review Request: edac-utils - user space utilities for EDAC subsystem
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=243187 Summary: Review Request: edac-utils - user space utilities for EDAC subsystem Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/arozansk/edac-utils/edac-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/arozansk/edac-utils/edac-utils-0.9-1.src.rpm Description: edac-utils package contains the userspace utilities to perform EDAC related operations such as labeling memory module slots and checking for EDAC reported errors. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 240373] Review Request: qtiplot - Data Analysis and Scientific Plotting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qtiplot - Data Analysis and Scientific Plotting https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240373 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 14:47 EST --- The bottom line is that the kernel gets to be special and has hooks and hacks in various places to make it work. Those simply will not be extended to this package. The best thing to do is to remove the documentation from this package and submit it separately. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 217259] Review Request: alsa-firmware - Firmware for several ALSA-supported sound card
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: alsa-firmware - Firmware for several ALSA-supported sound card https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217259 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | 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 191492] Review Request: unuran-0.7.2
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: unuran-0.7.2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191492 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 14:20 EST --- Hmm, no comments in eight months. I'll close this ticket soon unless there is some progress here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227669] Review Request: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #156450|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 13:12 EST --- Created an attachment (id=156487) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=156487&action=view) mock build log of ppl-0.9-6 on F-devel i386 mock build log attached -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227669] Review Request: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical
abstractions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 13:09 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=156485)
--> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=156485&action=view)
rpmlint check result for ppl 0.9-6
NOTE: From next time, please bump (increment) the release number
of spec file each time you modify spec file.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FrequentlyMadeMistakes
* Must/Should be fixed
! Notes
? Questions
= Okay
Now I am reviewing formally. For 0.9-6:
* Source
- The source in your srpm differ from what I downloaded
from the URL on your spec file??
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ppl]$ ls -al *gz */*gz
-rw-rw-r-- 1 tasaka1 tasaka1 6330518 2007-02-11 05:43
ppl-0.9-6.fc8/ppl-0.9.tar.gz
-rw--- 1 tasaka1 tasaka1 6023797 2006-03-12 00:00 ppl-0.9.tar.gz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ppl]$ md5sum *gz */*gz
4096c2927b36fbf7c5329a53b035bc33 ppl-0.9.tar.gz
4c92a57a851b53e57d63aa64f2bd1f3a ppl-0.9-6.fc8/ppl-0.9.tar.gz
-
* rpmlint
The result of rpmlint for srpm, binary rpms and the installed
rpms is attached.
SUMMARY:
* Undefined non-weak symbols
- Two libraries have undefined non-weak symbols. For rpms which want to
provide also -devel subpackages, this cannot be allowed because linkage
against these libraries fails because of these symbols.
* devel packge dependency on non-devel package
- Please explain
* why ppl-swiprolog requires ncurses-devel
* why ppl-utils requires glpk-devel
Usually non-devel packages should not require devel related
packages.
= All other rpmlint complaints can be ignored.
* Unwanted call of autotools after configure
- Mock build log (will attach) says:
--
+ make
cd . && /bin/sh /builddir/build/BUILD/ppl-0.9/missing --run aclocal-1.9 -I m4
/builddir/build/BUILD/ppl-0.9/missing: line 51: aclocal-1.9: command not found
WARNING: `aclocal-1.9' is missing on your system. You should only need it if
/bin/sh ./config.status --recheck
--
- Automated call of autotools and recall of config.status
is wrong. Perhaps the timestamps of configure vs configure.ac
are incorrect.
* Timestamps
- For make install, please use (for this package)
--
make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="%{__install} -p" install
--
Actually this package tries to install many documentaion/
image files/etc..., which are not modified or created during
rebuild and keeping timestamps on those files is recommended.
* Definitions in header files
- Some definitions in some header files are very dangerous
and may easyly cause definition conflict.
For example, /usr/include/ppl.hh has some definitions such that
---
#define HAVE_SYS_TYPES_H 1
#define HAVE_UNISTD_H 1
---
... etc. These definition names are too generic and may cause
conflicts on definition name space when other header files
from other packages are included.
Generally, these types of generic "#define" macro should be
included in header files.
Remove unneeded (and dangerous) #define and #ifdef macros
or change the names of macros to less generic.
- And note that #ifdef macros are generally unhappy. At least
please ensure that #ifdef judgment does not affect the ABI
of the libraries.
(Same for /usr/include/pwl.hh in -pwl-devel package)
* About libppl_gprolog.so:
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ ppl_gprolog
ppl_gprolog: error while loading shared libraries: libppl_gprolog.so: cannot
open shared object file: No such file or directory
-
* ppl_gprolog is not launched. Perhaps
- ppl_gprolog should be moved to where is not included in
default path
- or libppl_gprolog.so should be moved to where ldconfig
checks
- or ppl_gprolog should have rpath for %{_libdir}/%{name}
- or something else?
=
I have not checked for documentation yet, but please
fix above.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
[Bug 242651] Review Request: perl-Mail-Audit - something flexible to filter mail using Perl tests.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: perl-Mail-Audit - something flexible to filter mail
using Perl tests.
Alias: perl-Mail-Audit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=242651
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO||177841
nThis||
Alias||perl-Mail-Audit
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 13:08 EST ---
A couple comments... check out bug 242311 's comments also :)
The man pages must not be marked as %doc. %doc is for random
documentation/examples/tests/etc that are useful but don't fit anywhere else.
There must be a %check section.
The perl_vendorlib/etc %defines at the top my raise some eyebrows; they haven't
really been needed since... um. RHEL3 days? RHL9? A review will probably
insist you either take them out, or conditionalize them such that the local
definitions aren't defined to the system already, a la:
%{?!perl_vendorlib: ...}
I'd just nix them, personally, unless you can make a case for needing them
somewhere.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228537] Review Request: perl-IO-Compress-Base - Base package for new perl-IO-Compress modules
Please 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-IO-Compress-Base - Base package for new perl-IO-Compress modules https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228537 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 12:01 EST --- Here are some that have uncommented the Test:: BuildRequires mentioned in comment #1 : http://people.redhat.com/rnorwood/rpms/Compression/perl-IO-Compress-Base-2.004-1.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/rnorwood/rpms/Compression/perl-IO-Compress-Base.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 242544] Review Request: xbiso - an ISO extraction utility for xdvdfs images
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xbiso - an ISO extraction utility for xdvdfs images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=242544 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 11:58 EST --- xbiso-0.6.1-1.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239761] Review Request: python-IPy - Python module for handling IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses and Networks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-IPy - Python module for handling IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses and Networks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239761 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 11:57 EST --- python-IPy-0.53-2.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 243012] Review Request: perl-Compress-Raw-Zlib - Perl interface to zlib compression 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: perl-Compress-Raw-Zlib - Perl interface to zlib compression library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243012 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 11:50 EST --- (Just replaced the spec and .srpm above with a pair that BuildRequire: perl(Test::Pod) (like perl-Compress-Raw-Bzip2)) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 243010] Review Request: perl-Compress-Raw-Bzip2 - Perl interface to bzip2 compression 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: perl-Compress-Raw-Bzip2 - Perl interface to bzip2 compression library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 11:42 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Compress-Raw-Bzip2 Short Description: Perl interface to bzip2 compression library Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: devel InitialCC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 243010] Review Request: perl-Compress-Raw-Bzip2 - Perl interface to bzip2 compression 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: perl-Compress-Raw-Bzip2 - Perl interface to bzip2 compression library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243010 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 11:40 EST --- Alrightey, then: new spec and SRPM: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rnorwood/rpms/Compression/perl-Compress-Raw-Bzip2.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/rnorwood/rpms/Compression/perl-Compress-Raw-Bzip2-2.004-1.src.rpm with Test::Pod coverage goodness. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227669] Review Request: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 11:37 EST --- Assiging. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 243147] New: Review Request: arm-gp2x-linux-SDL - Cross Compiled SDL Library targeted at arm-gp2x-linux
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=243147 Summary: Review Request: arm-gp2x-linux-SDL - Cross Compiled SDL Library targeted at arm-gp2x-linux Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/arm-gp2x-linux-SDL.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/arm-gp2x-linux-SDL-1.2.9-2.fc8.src.rpm Description: This is a Cross Compiled version of the SDL Library, which can be used to compile and link binaries for the arm-gp2x-linux platform, instead of for the native i386 platform. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212984] Review Request: hunspell-ar - Arabic word list/dictionaries for OpenOffice
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hunspell-ar - Arabic word list/dictionaries for OpenOffice https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212984 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 11:08 EST --- so, new rpmlint output, all other guidelines also adhered to. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227669] Review Request: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 10:38 EST --- > Still does not get compiled: > * BuildRequires > - (As a workaround,) readline-devel is missing for BuildRequires Done. > * Unneeded libtool .la archive > - Please remove these (see the bottom of the build log) Done. > * compilatin flags > - Fedora specific compilation flags are not honored. > -- > make all-recursive > make[1]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/ppl-0.9' > Making all in utils > make[2]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/ppl-0.9/utils' > if g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I/usr/include/glpk > -I/usr/lib/gprolog-1.3.0/include -I/usr/include/Yap -W -Wall -g -O2 -MT timi > ngs.o -MD -MP -MF ".deps/timings.Tpo" -c -o timings.o timings.cc; \ > > Please check fedora compilation flags by > `rpm --eval %optflags' (and the section "Compiler flags" of > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines ) It should be OK now. The revised files are: http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl-0.9-6.src.rpm http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl.spec http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/ppl-0.9.tar.gz http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl-0.9-docfiles.patch http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl-0.9-configure.patch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210823] Review Request: wxsvg - wxSVG is C++ library to create, manipulate and render SVG 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: wxsvg - wxSVG is C++ library to create, manipulate and render SVG files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210823 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 10:04 EST --- Okay. No problem. - This package (wxsvg) is APPROVED by me. - -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 210823] Review Request: wxsvg - C++ library to create, manipulate and render SVG 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: wxsvg - C++ library to create, manipulate and render SVG files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210823 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: wxsvg - |Review Request: wxsvg - C++ |wxSVG is C++ library to |library to create, |create, manipulate and |manipulate and render SVG |render SVG files|files Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 10:09 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: wxsvg Short Description: C++ library to create, manipulate and render SVG files Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: devel F-7 FC-6 EL-5 (only the most recent) 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 239546] Review Request: mdsplib - METAR Decoder Software Package 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: mdsplib - METAR Decoder Software Package Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239546 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 09:39 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mdsplib Short Description: METAR Decoder Software Package Library Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: devel F-7 FC-6 FC-5 EL-4 EL-5 (all current) 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 210823] Review Request: wxsvg - wxSVG is C++ library to create, manipulate and render SVG 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: wxsvg - wxSVG is C++ library to create, manipulate and render SVG files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210823 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 09:38 EST --- > I just mention that the recommended URL uses downloads.*sourceforge*.net, > while I don't know the different between this and downloads.*sf*.net They're the same AFAIK, so it shouldn't be a problem. It's the "download" vs. "downloads" part that matters most, since without the "s" it can point to a web page, whereas with the "s" it points to some kind of redirection scripts, which sends to the file on a mirror which has it. > why are there some b7 series tarball?? Anyway perhaps fedora > wants b7_3 because it is newer... I don't know. Let's try to have the latest go through the review. If you find any problems with it, just let me know and I can revert to some previous version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225346] Review Request: python-pgsql - Enhanced python interface to 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: python-pgsql - Enhanced python interface to PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225346 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 09:36 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: python-pgsql Short Description: Enhanced python interface to PostgreSQL Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-6 F-7 EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225346] Review Request: python-pgsql - Enhanced python interface to 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: python-pgsql - Enhanced python interface to PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225346 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 09:32 EST --- I've adjusted the license name to appease rpmlint, but removing the "#!/usr/bin/env python" is a bit too anal, in my opinion. :) It's completely inoffensive where it is, and just complicates the specfile needlessly. Will request CVS bits in a moment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239385] Review Request: peless - Text Browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: peless - Text Browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239385 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 09:11 EST --- Paul, would you rewrite your spec file? The guilelines are mainly on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines You can also check the existing spec file for example. e.g.: http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/*checkout*/devel/xterm/xterm.spec?root=core a bit more complicated example: http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/*checkout*/devel/kazehakase/kazehakase.spec?root=extras -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 236521] Review Request: nspluginwrapper - A compatibility layer for Mozilla/Firefox plugins
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nspluginwrapper - A compatibility layer for Mozilla/Firefox plugins Alias: nspluginwrapper https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236521 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 08:23 EST --- s/quite/quiet/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 236521] Review Request: nspluginwrapper - A compatibility layer for Mozilla/Firefox plugins
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: nspluginwrapper - A compatibility layer for
Mozilla/Firefox plugins
Alias: nspluginwrapper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236521
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 08:21 EST ---
Sorry for late reply, forgot to add me into CC.
The reason to remove %{_bindir}/nspluginwrapper was that that would clash.
Say on ppc if you want 64-bit nspluginwrapper with ppc target_arch
and 32-bit nspluginwrapper with ppc64 target_arch at the same time, what
would %{_bindir}/nspluginwrapper point to?
Ideally the configuration program would be changed, so that it finds out
what nspluginwrapper host versions are available, what their target arch is
and depending on the architecture of the target plugin you want to install into
nspluginwrapper it would register it for all hosts that have those target_arch
configured. So, if you have ppc -> ppc64 and ppc64 -> ppc nspluginwrapper,
running the proglet to install 32-bit plugin would register it in the 64-bit
nspluginwrapper and vice versa.
Regarding npwrapper.so symlink, perhaps rpmlint was quite on your package,
that doesn't mean it was correct.
ln -s npwrapper.so %{buildroot}%{nslibdir}/mozilla/plugins/npwrapper.so
creates a symlink pointing to itself (i.e. a symlink loop).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 242873] Review Request: min12xxw - Print filter for Minolta printer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: min12xxw - Print filter for Minolta printer Alias: min12xxw-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=242873 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis|| Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 07:44 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: min12xxw Short Description: Print filter for Minolta printer Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-6 F-7 InitialCC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227669] Review Request: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 07:43 EST --- Created an attachment (id=156450) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=156450&action=view) mock build log of ppl-0.9-6 on F-devel i386 (readline-devel added) Still does not get compiled: * BuildRequires - (As a workaround,) readline-devel is missing for BuildRequires * Unneeded libtool .la archive - Please remove these (see the bottom of the build log) * compilatin flags - Fedora specific compilation flags are not honored. -- make all-recursive make[1]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/ppl-0.9' Making all in utils make[2]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/ppl-0.9/utils' if g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I/usr/include/glpk -I/usr/lib/gprolog-1.3.0/include -I/usr/include/Yap -W -Wall -g -O2 -MT timi ngs.o -MD -MP -MF ".deps/timings.Tpo" -c -o timings.o timings.cc; \ Please check fedora compilation flags by `rpm --eval %optflags' (and the section "Compiler flags" of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines ) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 243109] New: Review Request: loki-lib - Loki C++ Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243109 Summary: Review Request: loki-lib - Loki C++ Library Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://astro-sfg.fis.ucm.es/~spr/loki-lib.spec SRPM URL: http://astro-sfg.fis.ucm.es/~spr/loki-lib-0.1.6-0.1.src.rpm Description: A C++ library of designs, containing flexible implementations of common design patterns and idioms. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218258] Review Request: audacious-docklet - a docklet plugin for Audacious
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: audacious-docklet - a docklet plugin for Audacious https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218258 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 07:29 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) > I rename audacious-docklet to audacious-plugins-docklet as proposed. > What should I do with cvs and build-sys now? > > new spec file is: The spec looks good to me, but you should have used an attachment for this. There is a typo in the last changelog entry. Version needs to be 0.1.1-3 instead of 0.1-3. To rename the module in cvs you need to follow the cvs admin procedure as described in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure Package Change Request == Updated Package Name: audacious-plugins-docklet Updated Fedora CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227669] Review Request: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical
abstractions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 06:29 EST ---
All the static archives are now in `*-static' packages.
>>> - and currently /usr/share/doc/ppl/ is not owned by any package.
>> What can I do to fix that?
>
> Simpy add %dir %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}
Done.
> Also:
> --
> %doc %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/ppl-user-0.9-html/*
> --
> (in -docs subpackage) is wrong. In this style,
> the directory %{_datadir}/doc/ppl-user-0.9-html itself is not
> owned by any package.
>
> For this case, simply change to
> --
> %doc %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/ppl-user-0.9-html/
> --
> The file entry
> --
> foo/
> --
> (where foo/ is a directory) means the directory foo/ itself
> and all files/directories/etc under foo/
Done.
>> This is a bug in the SWI-Prolog (pl) package: it requires readline-devel.
>> Should we work around that bug and require readline-devel ourselves?
> Please do a work-around. I cannot do a formal review unless
> mockbuild succeeds.
Done.
> Also, if it is a bug of pl side, please file a bug report
> against pl.
Done: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243084
The revised files are:
http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl-0.9-6.src.rpm
This comes from
http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl.spec
http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/ppl-0.9.tar.gz
http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl-0.9-docfiles.patch
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230512] Review Request: viewvc - Browser interface for CVS and SVN version control 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: viewvc - Browser interface for CVS and SVN version control repositories https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230512 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 05:26 EST --- Oh, I see. I guess I was a bit terse at first... sorry about 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 242873] Review Request: min12xxw - Print filter for Minolta printer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: min12xxw - Print filter for Minolta printer Alias: min12xxw-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=242873 [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 241486] Review Request: ocaml-curl - OCaml Curl library (ocurl)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocaml-curl - OCaml Curl library (ocurl) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241486 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 04:34 EST --- Xavier, Nigel: Just a quick note to say that I'll be bringing out updated versions of these packages when I have time (probably next week). I intend to: (1) Make sure they all compile on bytecode-only architectures. (2) Remove the recursive call to rpm in ocaml-find-requires.sh (3) Change the mod deps to ocaml(Module) = hash (4) Investigate getting ocaml-find-requires/ocaml-find-provides into rpmbuild base so that we don't need external scripts (5) (Possibly) rebase to OCaml 3.10 (#5 is ambitious) These come out of the Fedora Packaging meeting last Tuesday (see the IRC log here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes20070605?highlight=ocaml ) Rich. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227669] Review Request: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 04:09 EST --- (In reply to comment #14) > > ppl-devel-static and ppl-pwl-devel-static > > I prefer this naming style. There was a clarification and guidelines state now that it should be ppl-static and ppl-pwl-static I think it should be better to stick to the guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/StaticLibraryChanges -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 212984] Review Request: hunspell-ar - Arabic word list/dictionaries for OpenOffice
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hunspell-ar - Arabic word list/dictionaries for OpenOffice https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212984 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 03:58 EST --- U+0670 ARABIC LETTER SUPERSCRIPT ALEF U+0671 ARABIC LETTER ALEF WASLA U+06A4 ARABIC LETTER VEH and a couple of others but it does seem that he hasn't used those letters in the corpus. Still it looks like the safest approach to use the conversion script. Yup, it appears to "just work" in OOo, the above little two lines of Arabic are considered respectively correct and in-correct in OOo. So we do we go for here, would you like to maintain such a proposed hunspell-ar package, or should I do it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 239939] Review Request: libgii - General Graphics Interface toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libgii - General Graphics Interface toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239939
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 03:33 EST ---
Further comments :
- I think exporting CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS is redundant (%configure does that)
- Setting "--libdir=%{_libdir}" is redundant (%configure does that)
- The 's|LDFLAGS = -L/usr/lib|LDFLAGS = -L%{_libdir}|' substitution seems a
little dangerous, as if the next version has "LDFLAGS = -L/usr/lib64" somehow,
you're going to be replacing it with /usr/lib6464 on 64bit archs. A more solid
fix could only be better.
- You forgot one last %dir in -devel : %dir %{_includedir}/ggi/
- I don't think the %dirs under %{_sysconfdir} should be in the -devel too.
Other than that it's already looking better ;-)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230344] Review Request: bacula - Cross platform network backup for Linux, Unix, Mac and Windows.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bacula - Cross platform network backup for Linux, Unix, Mac and Windows. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230344 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 03:33 EST --- Ok, next time I read all the comments before posting ;-) Just a side note: the release announced in comment #12 (bacula-2.0.3-2.el5.src.rpm) still has the locale problem mentioned in comment #1. The script /usr/libexec/bacula/make_catalog_backup only works for the mysql-backend. It should be rewritten to use the alternatives system. I have installed the following director packages: rpm -qa | grep bacula-dir bacula-director-common-2.0.3-2.fc7 bacula-director-postgresql-2.0.3-2.fc7 I had to edit make_catalog_backup to make it work for postgresql. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 243076] New: Review Request: reciteword - Recite Word Easily
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=243076 Summary: Review Request: reciteword - Recite Word Easily 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://reciteword.cosoft.org.cn/redhat/reciteword.spec SRPM URL: http://reciteword.cosoft.org.cn/redhat/reciteword-0.8.3-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: ReciteWord is an education software to help people to study English, recite words. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227669] Review Request: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical
abstractions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 03:22 EST ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> > Some notes:
> >
> > * Static archive
> > - Please explain why you want to include static archives in -devel
> > package first. Usually this must not be done for several reasons
> > (maintainance, security, etc) and if you want to ship static archives
> > (with reasonable reason), split all static archives into different
> > subpackages.
>
> The reasons why we need (and routinely use) static libraries are
> explained in the discussion above. In addition, the PPL can be
> interfaced to several Prolog engines and some of them require to
> link the library statically. Concerning the package naming,
> let me reproduce what I wrote in the discussion above:
>
> Coming back to the C/C++ world, there is the issue of where to put the
> static libraries. They are now in the ppl-devel package and ppl-pwl-devel
> packages. Should I move them to
>
> ppl-devel-static and ppl-pwl-devel-static
I prefer this naming style.
> > * Documentation directory
> > - should usually be %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}
> >
> Including the version would require too many changes (including changing
> the web pages of the project) and is better postponed to PPL 0.10.
Then I leave it for now.
> > - and currently /usr/share/doc/ppl/ is not owned by any package.
> What can I do to fix that?
Simpy add %dir %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}
Also:
--
%doc %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/ppl-user-0.9-html/*
--
(in -docs subpackage) is wrong. In this style,
the directory %{_datadir}/doc/ppl-user-0.9-html itself is not
owned by any package.
For this case, simply change to
--
%doc %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/ppl-user-0.9-html/
--
The file entry
--
foo/
--
(where foo/ is a directory) means the directory foo/ itself
and all files/directories/etc under foo/
> This is a bug in the SWI-Prolog (pl) package: it requires readline-devel.
> Should we work around that bug and require readline-devel ourselves?
Please do a work-around. I cannot do a formal review unless
mockbuild succeeds.
Also, if it is a bug of pl side, please file a bug report
against pl.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241758] Review Request: xar - The eXtensible ARchiver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xar - The eXtensible ARchiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241758 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 03:20 EST --- Thanks! All imported, built and pushed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
