[Bug 246312] Review Request: Pygments - A syntax highlighting engine written in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: Pygments - A syntax highlighting engine written in
Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246312
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 03:01 EST ---
If the package is named "python-pygments" then the spec file needs to be named
"python-pygments.spec".
The LICENSE file seems to me to be a regular 3-clause BSD license. Where did
you see the LGPL?
There's no need to manually require python; rpm finds the python(abi)
requirement on its own.
You should use %{_bindir} instead of /usr/bin and %{_mandir} instead of
/usr/share/man in your %files section.
I have to say I've not seen any package placing English manpages in a
language-specific directory. My rawhide system has 26 manpages under
/usr/share/man/en (so I suppose it's not unheard of) and about 10500 in
/usr/share/man.
Review:
* source files match upstream:
c1394c794a8c3056ff581ccc09d089a3d99fb9d6a44e03eaac4165365b8f2707
Pygments-0.8.1.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
X specfile is not properly named.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field says LGPL but the license is BSD
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* rpmlint is silent.
? final provides and requires are sane:
python-pygments = 0.8.1-1.fc8
=
/usr/bin/python
? python >= 2.3 (manual dependency not needed)
python(abi) = 2.5
* %check is not present as there is no upstream test suite. I manually
verified
the above tests.
* 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.
--
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 243631] Review Request: msmtp - an SMTP client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: msmtp - an SMTP client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243631 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 04:37 EST --- * rpmlint is silent * GPL, license included * follow naming and packaging guidelines * source match upstream ba5b61d5f7667d288f1cfadccfff8ac5 msmtp-1.4.12.tar.bz2 * sane provides * %files section right APPROVED 2 remarks: - info and man pages timestamps are not kept. The following should do the trick: make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL='install -p' - linking is done by adding the library names to the command line instead of using -l. That's because gnulib/m4/lib-link.m4 is used instead of standard autoconf macros. I have read a bit the code, seems like upstream wants to use $libdir/libsomething.so and set rpath whatever the default path is. I don't really understand the implication of this choice. I guess that the result is right on Fedora in any case. The link command is: gcc -std=gnu99 -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -o msmtp conf.o list.o msmtp.o net.o netrc.o smtp.o stream.o tools.o tls.o ../gnulib/libgnu.a /usr/lib/libgnutls.so /usr/lib/libgsasl.so /usr/lib/libidn.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 246227] Review Request: Brutus Keyring - small and simple keyring daemon based upon libgcrypt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Brutus Keyring - small and simple keyring daemon based upon libgcrypt Alias: brutus-keyring https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246227 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 04:47 EST --- OK, the server is up again and the spec and srpm can be accessed. -- 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 245655] Review Request: perl-Gearman - Distributed job 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: perl-Gearman - Distributed job system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245655 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 05:23 EST --- The package now includes the license. New version: http://rubenkerkhof.com/packages/perl-Gearman.spec http://rubenkerkhof.com/packages/perl-Gearman-1.09-1.fc7.src.rpm -- 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 244171] Review Request: SteGUI - SteGUI is a graphical front-end to Steghide
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: SteGUI - SteGUI is a graphical front-end to Steghide https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244171 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 06:38 EST --- > I removed the CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS to let the code compile with it owns Instead, you need to patch it to build with $RPM_BUILD_FLAGS or find other ways to make it accept the custom CXXFLAGS passed in from the outside. For example: make CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" all would work. See comment 5, which shows an excerpt from the build log where the code did not accept the flags yet. Here for clarity: CFLAGS='-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protec tor --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unw ind-tables' CXXFLAGS='-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-prot ector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-u nwind-tables' [...] make all g++ -Wall -pedantic -O2 `fltk-config --cxxflags` -c -o src/Callback.o src/Call back.cc [...] gcc -O2 -c -o src/Player.o src/Player.c -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 243631] Review Request: msmtp - an SMTP client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: msmtp - an SMTP client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243631 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 06:39 EST --- * Sat Jun 30 2007 Nikolay Vladimirov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 1.4.12-7 - timestamps fix Spec URL: http://ns.bgtld.net/build/msmtp.spec SRPM URL: http://ns.bgtld.net/build/msmtp-1.4.12-7.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 246227] Review Request: Brutus Keyring - small and simple keyring daemon based upon libgcrypt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Brutus Keyring - small and simple keyring daemon based upon libgcrypt Alias: brutus-keyring https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246227 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 07:26 EST --- New files to fix a small spec file syntax issue. Spec URL: http://www.omesc.com/sites/default/files/downloads/dist/brutus-keyring/Fedora%207/SPECS/brutus-keyring.spec SRPM URL: http://www.omesc.com/sites/default/files/downloads/dist/brutus-keyring/Fedora%207/SRPMS/brutus-keyring-0.9.0-2.fc7.src.rpm -- 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 244346] Review Request: mailutils - Collection of GNU mail-related 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: mailutils - Collection of GNU mail-related utilities
Alias: mailutils-review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244346
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 07:51 EST ---
You don't use some features, like
libgsasl, guile, or emacs-mh. I think these should be shipped.
I think it is bad to conflict with nmh. I think that
you should use
--with-mh-bindir
instead.
Some suggestions:
* put the %post and friends before the %files section. There is no
reason, except that it is how all the other spec files are done
in fedora.
* use wildcards for man pages and info pages in %files, like
%{_infodir}/%{name}.info*
%{_mandir}/man1/popauth.1*
* don't use .gz in the install-info %preun, install-info is able to
figure out itself what compression it should use.
* use
rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/%{name}/*.a
instead of
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/%{name}/*.a
that way build will break if something changed upstream.
* It seems to me that COPYING.LESSER should be in libs %doc
I also guess that devel subpackage is LGPL licensed.
I would also add COPYING in all the subpackages, since
the doc subpackage may not be installed.
Alternatively you could have all packages depend on -doc
since it is tiny, and more like a common package that really
a doc package in my opinion.
* since this package is heavily split it would be nice, in my
opinion, to try to have a similar layout than in other repos.
I haven't really found other repos packaging mailutils, except
for alt linux, but I may have missed something. Maybe you could
use the split from the upstream specfile, as long as it makes sense
(no -dev subpackage, for example).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 233603] Review Request: guidance - System administration tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: guidance - System administration tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233603 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 10:14 EST --- OK, I'm not really very savvy on this stuff, but I decided to take a risk and play with this package: I went ahead and changed the name of /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.d/40guidance-displayconfig_restore to /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.d/40guidance-displayconfig_restore.sh, and restarted the box. This action fixed several problems: Item #1) The ~/.xsession-errors stopped; Item #3) Partly my goof-up: guidance refers to /etc/sysconfig/hsqldb, where the line: ". /etc/java/java.conf" loads the entry "JAVA_HOME=$JVM_ROOT/java", which for some reason was commented out by default (!!??); un-commenting this line and restoring the original /etc/sysconfig/hsqldb (apparently) fixes this item, however, it begs the questions: a) is hsqldb even required, and must hsqldb be running for guidance to work correctly, as there are still the other errors? and b) if /etc/java/java.conf is not correctly configured (and it apparently is not by default), guidance will still fail completely, as noted previously; Item #4) Non-privileged use appears to yield the same results, which now appear in ~/.xsession-errors if guidance is invoked within Kcontrol center; I haven't had time yet to verify if they are all the same errors as before; Item #6) The modules now open and function within Kcontrol center as intended; strangely, there are two identical copies of each, both of which work identically, but this duplication may be the result of my many tweaks; Item #7) When run inside Kcontrol, most or maybe all of the runtime errors still show up (now in ~/.xsession-errors), but I haven't had time yet to verify all of them. Hope this info helps. Will forward more info later. Regards, Vince -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 244171] Review Request: SteGUI - SteGUI is a graphical front-end to Steghide
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: SteGUI - SteGUI is a graphical front-end to Steghide https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244171 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 11:00 EST --- OK I changed the desktop file to a version 1.0 I change the make all to make CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" all rpmlint is clean here, and mock works (but I am not very good to find the error, all that I saw is that the line before and after are different) SPEC : http://pingoured.dyndns.org/public/RPM/SteGUI/SteGUI.spec SPRM : http://pingoured.dyndns.org/public/RPM/SteGUI/SteGUI-0.0.1-9.fc6.src.rpm Thank you for your help :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 245432] Review Request: libtomcrypt - comprehensive, portable cryptographic 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: libtomcrypt - comprehensive, portable cryptographic toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245432 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 11:57 EST --- FYI, you must actually install the package in order to see those rpmlint complaints. -- 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 245499] Review Request: python-elixir - A declarative mapper for SQLAlchemy
Please 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-elixir - A declarative mapper for SQLAlchemy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245499 [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 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 241081] Review Request: R-widgetTools-1.12.0-2 - Tools to support the construction of tcltk widgets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: R-widgetTools-1.12.0-2 - Tools to support the
construction of tcltk widgets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241081
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 12:19 EST ---
I have mark the files in /R/library/%{packname} as %doc (I have to remove then
to %files)
I went back to the previous situation, I do not used the --no-docs any more on
the set up.
SPEC : http://pingoured.dyndns.org/public/RPM/R-widgetTools/R-widgetTools.spec
SRPM :
http://pingoured.dyndns.org/public/RPM/R-widgetTools/R-widgetTools-1.12.0-6.fc6.src.rpm
Thanks :-)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 246227] Review Request: Brutus Keyring - small and simple keyring daemon based upon libgcrypt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Brutus Keyring - small and simple keyring daemon based upon libgcrypt Alias: brutus-keyring https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246227 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- 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 246227] Review Request: brutus-keyring - small and simple keyring daemon based upon libgcrypt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: brutus-keyring - small and simple keyring daemon based upon libgcrypt Alias: brutus-keyring https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246227 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: Brutus |Review Request: brutus- |Keyring - small and simple |keyring - small and simple |keyring daemon based upon |keyring daemon based upon |libgcrypt |libgcrypt -- 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 245357] Review Request: libopensync-plugin-syncml - plugin for using syncml with opensync
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libopensync-plugin-syncml - plugin for using syncml with opensync https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245357 [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 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 244752] Review Request: mod_dnssd - An Apache HTTPD module which adds Zeroconf 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: mod_dnssd - An Apache HTTPD module which adds Zeroconf support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244752 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 245432] Review Request: libtomcrypt - comprehensive, portable cryptographic 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: libtomcrypt - comprehensive, portable cryptographic toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245432 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 13:20 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) > FYI, you must actually install the package in order to see those rpmlint complaints. Nice, good to learn something new. I get some still now. I'll see if I can figure out what is going on. -- 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 246227] Review Request: brutus-keyring - small and simple keyring daemon based upon libgcrypt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: brutus-keyring - small and simple keyring daemon based upon libgcrypt Alias: brutus-keyring https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246227 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 13:27 EST --- Well, for 0.9.0-2: * Comments - Are the comments above Summary entry needed? I suggest to remove them * Requires - Check the Requires for -devel subpackage. Especially, check the description in libBrutusKeyringd-1.0.pc . ? Conflicts - By the way, currently Fedora's newest evolution-brutus is 1.1.26.2-2.fc7. This srpm means that Fedora's evolution-brutus has to be updated? * Documents - Please install the following -- AUTHORS ChangeLog -- - On the other hand, I suggest to remove the following -- INSTALL - This file is needed for people who want to build and install this package by themselves and is not needed for people who use rpm package. -- -- 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 245432] Review Request: libtomcrypt - comprehensive, portable cryptographic 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: libtomcrypt - comprehensive, portable cryptographic toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245432 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 13:59 EST --- New spec and srpm that really do fix the rpmlint warnings for undefined-non-weak symbol. SPEC http://jeremy.hinegardner.org/fedora/libtomcrypt/libtomcrypt.spec SRPM http://jeremy.hinegardner.org/fedora/libtomcrypt/libtomcrypt-1.17-5.fc7.src.rpm -- 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 245081] Review Request: libp11 - a small library for dealing with PKCS#11 tokens
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libp11 - a small library for dealing with PKCS#11 tokens https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245081 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 14:05 EST --- Hmm, the URL isn't actually correct; you're missing a "/files" after the hostname. It may be helpful for you to install the rpmdevtools package and run spectool -g *spec which will expand the macros in the Source URLs and download them all. But really, that's a minor issue; 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 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 246289] Review Request: atanks - Remake of a classic DOS game "Scorched Earth"
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: atanks - Remake of a classic DOS game "Scorched Earth" https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246289 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 14:06 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: atanks Short Description: Remake of a classic DOS game "Scorched Earth" Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-6 F-7 -- 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 245743] Review Request: python-isprelink - Python module to determine if a file has been prelinked
Please 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-isprelink - Python module to determine if a file has been prelinked https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245743 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 14:19 EST --- OK, everything looks good to me now. I guess one important lesson is to never trust upstream to do something sensible. 8c1f6bd83fe4298909f86af30c84ead18318935d9965539c56909ec390f5e6d1 isprelink-0.1.2.tar.gz and now we have * license text not included upstream. APPROVED -- 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 245655] Review Request: perl-Gearman - Distributed job 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: perl-Gearman - Distributed job system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245655 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 14:23 EST --- Great! rpmlint output is now clean, the errant provided symbol is gone, and the license is now obvious. APPROVED -- 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 245697] Review Request: perl-Gearman-Server - Function call "router" and load balancer
Please 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-Gearman-Server - Function call "router" and load balancer Alias: perl-Gearman-Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245697 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 14:35 EST --- OK, perl-Gearman is done and I've put it in a local repo so that I can build this. The license problem with perl-Gearman isn't repeated here. Review: * source files match upstream: 472c47d154a7168c627aad97fe04abdb3010275315e26382e13982ec4062a8cd Gearman-Server-1.09.tar.gz * 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. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(Gearman::Server) = 1.09 perl(Gearman::Server::Client) perl(Gearman::Server::Job) perl-Gearman-Server = 1.09-1.fc8 = /usr/bin/perl perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(Danga::Socket) perl(Danga::Socket) >= 1.52 perl(FindBin) perl(Gearman::Server) perl(Gearman::Server::Client) perl(Gearman::Server::Job) perl(Gearman::Util) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(IO::Socket::INET) perl(POSIX) perl(Scalar::Util) perl(Socket) perl(Sys::Hostname) perl(base) perl(fields) perl(lib) perl(strict) perl(vars) perl(warnings) * %check is present, but there's not actually a test suite to run: No tests defined for Gearman::Server extension. * 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. APPROVED -- 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 245655] Review Request: perl-Gearman - Distributed job 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: perl-Gearman - Distributed job system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245655 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 14:41 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Gearman Short Description: Distributed job system Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: F-6 F-7 -- 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 245697] Review Request: perl-Gearman-Server - Function call "router" and load balancer
Please 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-Gearman-Server - Function call "router" and load balancer Alias: perl-Gearman-Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245697 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 14:43 EST --- Thanks for the review Jason, New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Gearman-Server Short Description: Function call "router" and load balancer Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-6 F-7 -- 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 199154] Review Request: Slony-1 (postgresql-slony-engine)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Slony-1 (postgresql-slony-engine) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199154 [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 199154] Review Request: Slony-1 (postgresql-slony-engine)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: Slony-1 (postgresql-slony-engine)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199154
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 15:26 EST ---
Ok, here we go
- The upstream project is called Slony-I. Why is the package called
postgresql-slony1-engine?
- Source0 is not available.
http://main.slony.info/downloads/1.2/source/slony1-1.2.0.tar.bz2 seems to be
the right one (there's a doc tarball
as well)
- Errors during build:
chmod -R 644 doc/Makefile doc/adminguide doc/concept doc/howto
doc/implementation doc/support
chmod: cannot access `doc/adminguide/schemadoc.xml': Permission denied
chmod: cannot access `doc/adminguide/usingslonik.sgml': Permission denied
chmod: cannot access `doc/adminguide/slonyupgrade.sgml': Permission denied
etc...
the chmod -R 644 sets drw-r--r-- permissions on the directory, so you can't
reach the files in it.
Maybe you can use something like find doc/ -type f -exec chmod 600 {} \;
- It also seems to be missing yacc:
Missing yacc parser.y parser.c
- Since postgresql_autodoc is now available, maybe you can add it to the
BuildRequires
- I'd skip the %if %docs and %if %perltools. It's only one perl module, and
that cleans up the specfile a lot.
- This isn't necessary:
# Strip out -ffast-math from CFLAGS
CFLAGS=`echo $CFLAGS|xargs -n 1|grep -v ffast-math|xargs -n 100`
There is no -ffast-math in %{optflags}
- %configure --includedir %{_includedir}/pgsql --with-pgconfigdir=%{_bindir}
is probably not necessary either, pg_config is in the path, and will tell
configure where the libs and headers are
- Remove this line: #%define pg_version %(rpm -qv postgresql-devel|head -n
1|awk -F '-' '{print $3}')
- and this one: %define prefix /usr, they're not used
This won't work:
if [ -d /etc/rc.d/init.d ]
then
install -d %{buildroot}/etc/rc.d/init.d
fi
You check if the directory exists, and if it exists, you create it.
and replace that path with %{_initrddir}. If you add initscripts as a
requirement, that directory should be there
Good luck!
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 246348] New: Review Request: parrot - Parrot Virtual Machine
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=246348 Summary: Review Request: parrot - Parrot Virtual Machine Product: Fedora Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/parrot/ SRPM URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/parrot-0.4.13-1.src.rpm Description: Parrot is a virtual machine designed to efficiently compile and execute bytecode for interpreted languages. Parrot will be the target for the final Perl 6 compiler, and is already usable as a backend for Pugs, as well as variety of other languages. Please note - This package is not quite ready for review, but I'm working on it. -- 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 245044] Review Request: Parrot - A VM for Dynamic Languages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Parrot - A VM for Dynamic Languages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245044 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 15:32 EST --- I'm going to take over submission of this package, so I've opened a new bug. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 246348 *** -- 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 246348] Review Request: parrot - Parrot Virtual Machine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: parrot - Parrot Virtual Machine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246348 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 15:32 EST --- *** Bug 245044 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are 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 246349] New: Review Request: perl-Perl6-Pugs - Perl 6 Implementation
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=246349 Summary: Review Request: perl-Perl6-Pugs - Perl 6 Implementation Product: Fedora Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Perl6-Pugs/perl-Perl6-Pugs.spec SRPM URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Perl6-Pugs-6.2.13-1.src.rpm Description: Pugs is an implementation of Perl 6, written in Haskell. It aims to support the full Perl 6 specification, as detailed in the Synopses. Please note - This package is not quite ready for review, but I'm working on it. -- 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 222478] Review Request: sofsip-cli - SIP VoIP/IM example client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sofsip-cli - SIP VoIP/IM example client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222478 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis|| Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 15:39 EST --- sofia-sip is essentially done; I've placed it in a local repo so that I can build this. Hmm, a new version just came out within the last month. I went ahead and bumped the version and rebuilt just to make sure there were no major changes; everything seems fine to me so I'll just approve this package and you can update it when you check in. For a CLI application, this sure has an amazing dependency list, including all of X. I guess that all comes along with the gstreamer-plugins requirements. * source files match upstream: 7aa8a02bee0aeb42be934aefeba058aff70b3a409e5b4113e9030a738b9c0800 sofsip-cli-0.12.tar.gz * 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 included in package. X latest version is 0.13 * 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: sofsip-cli = 0.12-1.fc8 = gstreamer-plugins-base gstreamer-plugins-farsight gstreamer-plugins-good libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libreadline.so.5()(64bit) libsofia-sip-ua-glib.so.3()(64bit) libsofia-sip-ua.so.0()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. Frankly I have no idea how to test this. * 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 222515] Review Request: sofiasip-gaim-prpl - SIP/SIMPLE plugin for Gaim
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sofiasip-gaim-prpl - SIP/SIMPLE plugin for Gaim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222515 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 15:49 EST --- Given that Gaim no longer exists in that form, what should be done about this package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 245432] Review Request: libtomcrypt - comprehensive, portable cryptographic 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: libtomcrypt - comprehensive, portable cryptographic toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245432 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 16:05 EST --- OK, everything builds OK and rpmlint is finally silent. The URL: and Source0: are off as with the libtommath; Source0: should be what's in URL: and URL: should be http://www.libtom.org/?page=features&newsitems=5&whatfile=crypt You generally shouldn't start Summary: with the name of the package. Those issues are minor; I'll go ahead and approve this and you can fix them when you check in. Review: * source files match upstream: e33b47d77a495091c8703175a25c8228aff043140b2554c08a3c3cd71f79d116 crypt-1.17.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. ? summary starts with the name of the package. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text (grant to public domain) included in package. * 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: libtomcrypt-1.17-5.fc8.x86_64.rpm libtomcrypt.so.0()(64bit) libtomcrypt = 1.17-5.fc8 = /sbin/ldconfig libtomcrypt.so.0()(64bit) libtommath >= 0.41 libtommath.so.0()(64bit) libtomcrypt-devel-1.17-5.fc8.x86_64.rpm libtomcrypt-devel = 1.17-5.fc8 = libtomcrypt = 1.17-5.fc8 libtomcrypt.so.0()(64bit) * %check is present and all tests pass (I think): store_testpassed cipher_test...passed modes_testpassed der_test..passed mac_test..passed pkcs_1_test...passed rsa_test..passed ecc_test..passed dsa_test..passed katja_testNOPpassed I guess "NOPpassed" means the test doesn't do anything. * ldconfig is called as necessary to install shared libs, and unversioned .so files are in the -devel subpackage. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets OK (ldconfig) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel subpackage. * 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 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 245688] Review Request: python-pywbem - Python WBEM client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-pywbem - Python WBEM client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245688 [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 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 245432] Review Request: libtomcrypt - comprehensive, portable cryptographic 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: libtomcrypt - comprehensive, portable cryptographic toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245432 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 16:11 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) > OK, everything builds OK and rpmlint is finally silent. > > The URL: and Source0: are off as with the libtommath; Source0: should be > what's > in URL: and URL: should be >http://www.libtom.org/?page=features&newsitems=5&whatfile=crypt Fixed. > You generally shouldn't start Summary: with the name of the package. Fixed > Those issues are minor; I'll go ahead and approve this and you can fix them > when > you check in. > > APPROVED Thanks! -- 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 245432] Review Request: libtomcrypt - comprehensive, portable cryptographic 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: libtomcrypt - comprehensive, portable cryptographic toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245432 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 16:15 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: libtomcrypt Short Description: a comprehensive, portable cryptographic toolkit Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: F-7 InitialCC: -- 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 246351] New: Review Request: -
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=246351 Summary: Review Request: - Product: Fedora Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://www.nosuchhost.net/~cheese/fedora/packages/libopensync-plugin-gnokii.spec SRPM URL: http://www.nosuchhost.net/~cheese/fedora/packages/libopensync-plugin-gnokii-0.22-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: plugin for using gnokii with opensync my second package; i need a sponsor -- 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 246351] Review Request: libopensync-plugin-gnokii - plugin for using gnokii with opensync
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libopensync-plugin-gnokii - plugin for using gnokii with opensync https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246351 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: -|using gnokii with opensync --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 16:26 EST --- i forgot to set the correct summary -- 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 226241] Merge Review: perl-Bit-Vector
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl-Bit-Vector https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226241 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 246215] Review Request: comgt - Linux UMTS/GPRS command-line 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: comgt - Linux UMTS/GPRS command-line tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246215
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 16:38 EST ---
!* no %{?dist} tag
* licensed under gpl, license included
* rpmlint:
W: comgt conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/comgt/command
W: comgt conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/comgt/dump
W: comgt conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/comgt/operator
W: comgt conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/comgt/sigmon
In fact, these are not config files but scripts so there's no need to add
noreplace flag
* I like db2452680c3d953631299e331daf49ef md5sum ;-)
* didn't check mock, but it should build well
* no problems with directories owning
Package gets approved but please don't forget to add a %{?dist} tag in the spec
file you'll send to cvs.
--
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 243716] Review Request: perl-Text-Markdown - A text-to-HTML filter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-Markdown - A text-to-HTML filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243716 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 16:42 EST --- This fails to build for me; you're missing some build dependencies. I think you need perl(Test::More), perl(Test::Pod) and perl(Test::Pod::Coverage). Also, the license looks like BSD to me, not GPL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 245694] Review Request: php-pear-Phlickr - Phlickr is a PHP5 based api kit used with the Flickr API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Phlickr - Phlickr is a PHP5 based api kit used with the Flickr API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245694 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 16:48 EST --- Are you able to access the upstream web site? All I get is an empty page in Firefox and an "Error reading from socket" error from links. I can't fetch the upstream source, either; sourceforge either redirects me endlessme or eventually sends me to a nonexistent URL. -- 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 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||wickert.de) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 17:05 EST --- This seems to be stalled completely. Christoph: Are you still interested in reviewing this? Lee: Are you still interested in submitting this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226241] Merge Review: perl-Bit-Vector
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl-Bit-Vector https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226241 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 17:11 EST --- Created an attachment (id=158299) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=158299&action=view) Cleanup patch - Fix find option order. - Use fixperms macro instead of our own chmod incantation. - Remove check macro cruft. - Improve Summary. - Remove redundant perl build dependency. - BR ExtUtils::MakeMaker. - Set OPTIMIZE when we run Makefile.PL, not make. - BR perl(Carp::Clan) instead of perl-Carp-Clan. - Remove redundant Carp::Clan dependency. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187317] Review Request: mindi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mindi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187317 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 17:03 EST --- This seems to be stalled, blocked on the reviewer. Setting NEEDINFO. In addition, the submitter needs sponsorship according to bug 187318. Aurelien, were you aware of 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 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 17:26 EST --- Hello Jason. Yes, I am still very interested in submitting this. I'm not quite sure what the stall is for. Getting packages into Fedora Extras seems quite impossible :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 245491] Review Request: ndesk-dbus - Managed DBus implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ndesk-dbus - Managed DBus implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245491 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 17:37 EST --- David: Thanks for fixing the issues I brought up. The only thing left is that it does not build in Mock (Development). However, this appears to be an error with the mono packages' dependency tree. My attempt created the following in the build.log file: [...] --> Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Missing Dependency: libglib-2.0.so.0 is needed by package mono-devel Error: Missing Dependency: libz.so.1 is needed by package mono-core Error: Missing Dependency: libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1) is needed by package mono-core Error: Missing Dependency: libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) is needed by package mono-devel Error: Missing Dependency: libgcc_s.so.1 is needed by package mono-core Error: Missing Dependency: libglib-2.0.so.0 is needed by package mono-core Error: Missing Dependency: libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) is needed by package mono-core Error: Missing Dependency: libgthread-2.0.so.0 is needed by package mono-core Error: Missing Dependency: libgcc_s.so.1 is needed by package mono-devel Error: Missing Dependency: libgthread-2.0.so.0 is needed by package mono-devel Error: Missing Dependency: libgmodule-2.0.so.0 is needed by package mono-core Error: Missing Dependency: libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1) is needed by package mono-devel build DEBUG: Executing timeout(0): /usr/sbin/mock-helper chroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64/root /sbin/runuser - root -c "cd /;/sbin/runuser -c 'rpmbuild --rebuild --target x86_64 --nodeps /builddir/build/SRPMS/ndesk-dbus-0.5.2-4.fc8.src.rpm' mockbuild" Installing /builddir/build/SRPMS/ndesk-dbus-0.5.2-4.fc8.src.rpm Building target platforms: x86_64 Building for target x86_64 Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.59257 + umask 022 [...] Thus, these two BR packages do not get installed into the buildroot. However, I just tested this and it does indeed build fine in an F-7 mock run. Therefore, I won't consider that a blocker. (Alas, I had not realized at first that mono-core is a runtime dependency of mono-devel, so mono-core should not be an explicit BR.) However, there is still work needed to be done on this package before it can be accepted: > W: ndesk-dbus summary-not-capitalized ndesk-dbus is a C# implementation of > D-Bus. > W: ndesk-dbus summary-ended-with-dot ndesk-dbus is a C# implementation of > D-Bus. > W: ndesk-dbus mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 15, tab: line 1) (1) Please fix your Summary and your inconsistency of tabs/space usage. > W: ndesk-dbus unversioned-explicit-obsoletes dbus-sharp > W: ndesk-dbus unversioned-explicit-provides dbus-sharp You need to give an E:V-R to these tags, making it explicitly larger than that of dbus-sharp to provide a proper upgrade path for users. Please see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRename for more information. > W: ndesk-dbus macro-in-%changelog setup This is really bad. Unfortunately, macros in the %changelog do also expand and cause unexpected troubles later. Remove the macro or escape it by using an extra percent sign (e.g., "%%setup" and "%%macro_here"). > E: ndesk-dbus no-binary > E: ndesk-dbus only-non-binary-in-usr-lib These two say that the package has no binaries in it, but this is a Mono library which RPM still has troubles identifying, it seems. Thus, these seem harmless. -- 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 243631] Review Request: msmtp - an SMTP client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: msmtp - an SMTP client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243631 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 17:40 EST --- Ah, I forgot about that: New Package CVS Request === Package Name: msmtp Short Description: SMTP client Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-6 F-7 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 226242] Merge Review: perl-BSD-Resource
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl-BSD-Resource https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226242 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226242] Merge Review: perl-BSD-Resource
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl-BSD-Resource https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226242 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 17:51 EST --- Created an attachment (id=158300) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=158300&action=view) t/setrlimit.t patch to fix test failure -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 245694] Review Request: php-pear-Phlickr - Phlickr is a PHP5 based api kit used with the Flickr API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Phlickr - Phlickr is a PHP5 based api kit
used with the Flickr API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245694
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 17:52 EST ---
According to Drew (drewish.com frontpage) he *just* reorganized his entire
site.
The URL for the project is now: http://drewish.com/tags/phlickr
And the URL for the source,
http://sourceforge.net/projects/phlickr/
According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SourceUrl I am
supposed to use
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz. I don't
think there is a macro for tolower%{name} in the spec file. It appears that
SourceForge does not honor uppercase project names in their directory
structure.
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/phlickr/Phlickr-0.2.7.tgz this works.
New SPEC: http://www.stahnkage.com/rpms/php-pear-Phlickr.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.stahnkage.com/rpms/php-pear-Phlickr-0.2.7-2.src.rpm
--
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 246356] New: Review Request: perl-Gearman-Client-Async - Asynchronous Client for the Gearman distributed job system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246356 Summary: Review Request: perl-Gearman-Client-Async - Asynchronous Client for the Gearman distributed job system Product: Fedora Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://rubenkerkhof.com/packages/perl-Gearman-Client-Async.spec SRPM URL: http://rubenkerkhof.com/packages/perl-Gearman-Client-Async-0.94-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: Asynchronous Client for the Gearman distributed job system -- 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 226242] Merge Review: perl-BSD-Resource
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl-BSD-Resource https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226242 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 18:00 EST --- Created an attachment (id=158301) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=158301&action=view) Cleanup patch - Fix find option order. - Use fixperms macro instead of our own chmod incantation. - Remove check macro cruft. - Remove redundant BR perl. - BR ExtUtils::MakeMaker, Test::More, Test::Pod, and Test::Pod::Coverage. - Patch t/setrlimit.t to fix bogus test failure. - Set OPTIMIZE when running Makefile.PL, not make. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 243631] Review Request: msmtp - an SMTP client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: msmtp - an SMTP client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243631 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 18:09 EST --- Sorry for the delay in replying, I was in a short vacation. With respect to comment #24 and #25: I think that all packages which require smtpdaemon, MTA and usr/sbin/sendmail should be hunt down, tested, the real resource that they need should be identified and the package fixed according to the proposal in comment #25. However I think that the provides which are supported by the application (such as mailq for ssmtp - despite the fact that it does nothing) should be kept. For what is worth: - syslog (and syslog-ng) and mdadm work very happy directly with the /usr/sbin/sendmail file. I use them for almost an year on lots of live servers with ssmtp relaying the messages to the core logging server. So I bet that if msmtp would install a correctly configured alternative for /usr/sbin/sendmail these packages would not break. - squirrelmail can be configured to use either the sendmail binary directly or a SMTP server running on port 25. OTOH I am almost sure that no one installing a webmail server would want to use esmtp/msmtp/ssmtp as backend. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 18:17 EST --- Well, judging from the quantity of packages that get in every day, I'd say it's far from impossible but for a first-time maintainer you sure took on a really tough package that has needed a ton of work. And this package still has quite a few issues that need to be worked out, as I get nearly 400 complaints from rpmlint. So I guess it's up to Christoph at this point to complete his 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 235501] Review Request: jsdoc - Produces javadoc-style documentation from JavaScript sourcefiles
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jsdoc - Produces javadoc-style documentation from JavaScript sourcefiles https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235501 [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 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 18:59 EST --- Jason, would you mind sharing your rpmlint output? As discussed here, my rpmlint output looks as expected, relatively clean. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 245694] Review Request: php-pear-Phlickr - Phlickr is a PHP5 based api kit used with the Flickr API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Phlickr - Phlickr is a PHP5 based api kit used with the Flickr API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245694 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 19:02 EST --- Well, you don't have to use that precise download URL if it doesn't work for you; it's just a suggestion. Generally it's best to leave the package name out of the summary; otherwise you get things like the subject of this ticket: "PackageName - PackageName is a...". Also, there's no reason to provide a copy of the license if the upstream source doesn't include it. I tried to run the included test suite, but honestly I have no idea how to do it. I tried following the instructions on the upstream web site but I get no output. The above nonwithstanding, I don't see any blockers. Review: * source files match upstream: 3acd972cc22d4f65a086eb739c2e4490bfae1a23c6c23febe0601afbe09f1013 Phlickr-0.2.7.tgz * 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. * license text included in package (supplied in the srpm). * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: php-pear(Phlickr) = 0.2.7 php-pear-Phlickr = 0.2.7-2.fc8 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/pear php-pear(PEAR) * %check is not present. There's a test suite, but I have no idea how to actually run it. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (pear module installation). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. APPROVED -- 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 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 19:15 EST --- Created an attachment (id=158304) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=158304&action=view) rpmlint output No problem; here's the full output from my package build scripts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 246312] Review Request: Pygments - A syntax highlighting engine written in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: Pygments - A syntax highlighting engine written in
Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246312
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 19:31 EST ---
>From the FAQ (http://pygments.org/faq/):
"Pygments is licensed under the GNU LGPL, which means that it can be included
even in non-open-source projects as long as the possibly changed source code is
made public on request."
I will follow up with the author to find out which is the correct license. I
have made the other changes and will updated again once the correct LICENSE is
known.
- Renamed spec to python-pygments.spec
- Moved man page from en/man1 to man1
- using %{_bindir} and %{_mandir}
- removed python dep
Spec URL: http://stevemilner.org/tmp/python-pygments.spec
SRPM URL: http://stevemilner.org/tmp/python-pygments-0.8.1-1.fc7.src.rpm
md5sums:
790879ac2d4bede0b8610dc6591836ad python-pygments.spec
1baf417aca29caccece7851eb5948dff python-pygments-0.8.1-1.fc7.src.rpm
--
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 245743] Review Request: python-isprelink - Python module to determine if a file has been prelinked
Please 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-isprelink - Python module to determine if a file has been prelinked https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245743 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 19:34 EST --- Thanks for the review! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: python-isprelink Short Description: Python module to determine if a file has been prelinked Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: devel F-7 FC-6 EL-5 EL-4 InitialCC: -- 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 222478] Review Request: sofsip-cli - SIP VoIP/IM example client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sofsip-cli - SIP VoIP/IM example client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222478 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 19:37 EST --- Thanks for the review! I'll be sure and update to the latest version before importing. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: sofsip-cli Short Description: SIP VoIP/IM example client Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: devel F-7 FC-6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222475] Review Request: sofia-sip - Sofia SIP User-Agent 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: sofia-sip - Sofia SIP User-Agent library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222475 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 19:41 EST --- Thanks for the review! I'll fix up the description and remove the .h.in (AFAIK they aren't needed) before importing. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: sofia-sip Short Description: Sofia SIP User-Agent library Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: devel F-7 FC-6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222478] Review Request: sofsip-cli - SIP VoIP/IM example client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sofsip-cli - SIP VoIP/IM example client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222478 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 19:41 EST --- Oops... forgot to set the CVS flag... New Package CVS Request === Package Name: sofsip-cli Short Description: SIP VoIP/IM example client Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: devel F-7 FC-6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 243631] Review Request: msmtp - an SMTP client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: msmtp - an SMTP client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243631 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 19:52 EST --- (In reply to comment #37) > With respect to comment #24 and #25: I think that all packages which require > smtpdaemon, MTA and usr/sbin/sendmail should be hunt down, tested, the real > resource that they need should be identified and the package fixed according > to > the proposal in comment #25. It seems to me that basically all the Requires for smtpdaemon and /usr/sbin/sendmail are right, especially now that mutt won't have the /usr/sbin/sendmail requires anymore. > However I think that the provides which are > supported by the application (such as mailq for ssmtp - despite the fact that > it > does nothing) should be kept. Why should they be kept if they do nothing? It tricks the application or the user than wants to use it, that's no good. However the package that use alternatives for mailq but in fact doesn't really implement it (ssmtp and esmtp) don't Provides it, so it is right in my opinion. > For what is worth: > - syslog (and syslog-ng) and mdadm work very happy directly with the > /usr/sbin/sendmail file. I use them for almost an year on lots of live servers > with ssmtp relaying the messages to the core logging server. So I bet that if > msmtp would install a correctly configured alternative for /usr/sbin/sendmail > these packages would not break. It depends whether a /usr/sbin/sendmail without local delivery is right or not. I think that what I will do with esmtp is still provides sendmail, but with lower priority. And I will leave only /usr/sbin/sendmail in alternatives. In any case I really think that Provides MTA should be removed. > - squirrelmail can be configured to use either the sendmail binary directly > or a > SMTP server running on port 25. OTOH I am almost sure that no one installing > a > webmail server would want to use esmtp/msmtp/ssmtp as backend. squirrelmail requires /usr/sbin/sendmail, this is quite right. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220931] Review Request: ZoneMinder - Linux CCTV package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ZoneMinder - Linux CCTV package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220931 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 21:02 EST --- Updated package to address all comments above. All built and should appear in updates-testing for fc6, f7 and in rawhide sometime soon. Everyone please give me any feedback you can (good or bad) so I'll know when to mark it stable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190040] Review Request: hydrogen - Advanced drum machine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hydrogen - Advanced drum machine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190040 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 21:03 EST --- Trying to build this on F7... src/lib/FLACFile.cpp: In member function 'void FLACFile_real::load(std::string)': src/lib/FLACFile.cpp:167: error: 'set_filename' was not declared in this scope src/lib/FLACFile.cpp:169: error: no matching function for call to 'FLACFile_real::init()' /usr/include/FLAC++/decoder.h:226: note: candidates are: virtual FLAC__StreamDecoderInitStatus FLAC::Decoder::File::init(FILE*) /usr/include/FLAC++/decoder.h:227: note: virtual FLAC__StreamDecoderInitStatus FLAC::Decoder::File::init(const char*) /usr/include/FLAC++/decoder.h:228: note: virtual FLAC__StreamDecoderInitStatus FLAC::Decoder::File::init(const std::string&) src/lib/FLACFile.cpp:170: error: 'FLAC__FILE_DECODER_OK' was not declared in this scope src/lib/FLACFile.cpp:174: error: 'process_until_end_of_file' was not declared in this scope make[1]: *** [src/FLACFile.o] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/lmacken/rpmbuild/BUILD/hydrogen-0.9.3' make: *** [hydrogenPlayer] Error 2 make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs src/lib/FLACFile.cpp: In member function 'void FLACFile_real::load(std::string)': src/lib/FLACFile.cpp:167: error: 'set_filename' was not declared in this scope src/lib/FLACFile.cpp:169: error: no matching function for call to 'FLACFile_real::init()' /usr/include/FLAC++/decoder.h:226: note: candidates are: virtual FLAC__StreamDecoderInitStatus FLAC::Decoder::File::init(FILE*) /usr/include/FLAC++/decoder.h:227: note: virtual FLAC__StreamDecoderInitStatus FLAC::Decoder::File::init(const char*) /usr/include/FLAC++/decoder.h:228: note: virtual FLAC__StreamDecoderInitStatus FLAC::Decoder::File::init(const std::string&) src/lib/FLACFile.cpp:170: error: 'FLAC__FILE_DECODER_OK' was not declared in this scope src/lib/FLACFile.cpp:174: error: 'process_until_end_of_file' was not declared in this scope make[1]: *** [src/FLACFile.o] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/lmacken/rpmbuild/BUILD/hydrogen-0.9.3' make: *** [hydrogen] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.93730 (%build) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 245694] Review Request: php-pear-Phlickr - Phlickr is a PHP5 based api kit used with the Flickr API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Phlickr - Phlickr is a PHP5 based api kit used with the Flickr API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245694 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 21:11 EST --- I can change the description to not reference the package name. I will also contact the author about running the test suite. I included the license, because I thought it was the "RIGHT THING" to do. Also, I had no other docs, and rpmlint complains about that IIRC. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: php-pear-Phlickr Short Description: PHP5 based api kit used with the Flickr API Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC6, F7, EL-4, EL-5 InitialCC: -- 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 222478] Review Request: sofsip-cli - SIP VoIP/IM example client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sofsip-cli - SIP VoIP/IM example client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222478 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221769] Review Request: libcgi - CGI easy as C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libcgi - CGI easy as C https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221769 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 21:15 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 225288] Merge Review: at
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225288
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 21:42 EST ---
Re-reviewed.
Any reason why '%define major_ver 3.1.10' is needed when %{version} is the same
value?
This is not a blocker, just a quetsion.
Everything else looks good.
APPROVED.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221769] Review Request: libcgi - CGI easy as C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libcgi - CGI easy as C https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221769 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 22:11 EST --- Also built for EL-4 and EL-5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 22:12 EST --- (In reply to comment #45) > > Christoph: Are you still interested in reviewing this? Yes, but this really is a hard one, especially as there is confusion (about the name) and regressions. As I said before, the 2 latest packages don't work at all because of the not executable files. (In reply to comment #46) > Getting packages into Fedora Extras seems quite impossible :-) Lee, I'm very sorry about that, of course this is partly my fault. On the other hand: The binary package you gave me in comment #40 simply doesn't work and I don't think this is because of machine but of the package itself. I promise (once again) to look at this more deeply tomorrow. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226218] Merge Review: openssh
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: openssh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 22:23 EST --- Looks good now. I like the spec file cleanup. 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 222515] Review Request: sofiasip-gaim-prpl - SIP/SIMPLE plugin for Gaim
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sofiasip-gaim-prpl - SIP/SIMPLE plugin for Gaim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222515 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 22:45 EST --- I think for now I'll just close it... I haven't even attempted to build this against pidgin/libpurple and I don't have the spare cycles to handle any problems getting the two to work together. I'll reopen it later if I find the time to test it out. Or someone else is welcome to take over packaging if they want 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 230802] Review Request: perl-Callback - Object interface for function callbacks
Please 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-Callback - Object interface for function callbacks Alias: perl-Callback https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230802 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-30 23:11 EST --- Hi Jason, I am having some trouble with my privileges. I am working on it at the moment. Thanks and regards, -- Pai -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 246368] New: Review Request: pbbuttonsd - hotkeys, power management, and keyboard backlight for Apple laptops
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=246368 Summary: Review Request: pbbuttonsd - hotkeys, power management, and keyboard backlight for Apple laptops Product: Fedora Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~somlo/pbbuttonsd.spec SRPM URL: http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~somlo/pbbuttonsd-0.8.0-1.src.rpm Description: The pbbuttonsd daemon supports special hotkeys, and handles power management, light sensors, and keyboard backlighting on Apple laptops, of both ppc and i386 variety. It also offers generic support for a wider range of other laptops and notebooks. -- 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 245491] Review Request: ndesk-dbus - Managed DBus implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ndesk-dbus - Managed DBus implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245491 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-01 01:06 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.lovesunix.net/fedora/ndesk-dbus.spec SRPM URL: http://www.lovesunix.net/fedora/ndesk-dbus-0.5.2-5.fc8.src.rpm Okay, take 5. Fixed the summaries, the nasty use of spaces instead of tabs and hopefully I understood how obsoletes and provides work now. Fixed up macro use in changelog. Now all that remains is to make mock love us.. I hope. This seems to be a mock bug, maybe opening a bug against mock and letting it block this one would be acceptable? I would really not like to release ndesk-dbus on the world without being able to have it at least on all supported releases at the same time since depend specs are likely to need alterations to not use bundled copies and that would create ugly unless done at the same time (keeping if nesting to weed out devel would be the pinnacle of ugly). Upstream is intending on renaming future tarball releases to ndesk-dbus so a lot of the ugly should go away in the future, they do however request that packagers put up with ugly for now. -- 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 243716] Review Request: perl-Text-Markdown - A text-to-HTML filter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-Markdown - A text-to-HTML filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243716 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-01 02:01 EST --- Spec URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/7/SRPMS/perl-Text-Markdown-1.0.3-2.fc7.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/7/SRPMS/perl-Text-Markdown-1.0.3-2.fc7.src.rpm add BRs for missing modules -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 243664] Review Request: innotop - Console MySQL Monitor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: innotop - Console MySQL Monitor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243664 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-01 02:20 EST --- Imported and built successfully on Fedora branches (EL branches are a WOP ;-)) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 246227] Review Request: brutus-keyring - small and simple keyring daemon based upon libgcrypt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: brutus-keyring - small and simple keyring daemon based upon libgcrypt Alias: brutus-keyring https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246227 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-01 02:34 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > Well, for 0.9.0-2: > > * Comments > - Are the comments above Summary entry needed? > I suggest to remove them I'm confused here. Which comments do you mean? There are a few empty lines above "Summary" in the spec file, but those are mandated by my support of other RPM based distributions (SUSE 10.2 and 10.3). > * Requires > - Check the Requires for -devel subpackage. > Especially, check the description in > libBrutusKeyringd-1.0.pc . You are right. Those requirements was different. I've added the requirements for libIDL and ORBit2 to the devel package. > ? Conflicts > - By the way, currently Fedora's newest evolution-brutus is > 1.1.26.2-2.fc7. This srpm means that Fedora's > evolution-brutus has to be updated? Yes. e-b<=1.1.28 installs brutus-keyring by itself. Separating brutus-keyring and e-b is really the right thing to do technically. I've pushed the e-b modifications to svn (svn.brutus.net) for Brian to pick up. > * Documents > - Please install the following > -- > AUTHORS > ChangeLog OK, done. > -- > - On the other hand, I suggest to remove the following > -- > INSTALL - This file is needed for people who want to > build and install this package by themselves and > is not needed for people who use rpm package. > -- OK, removed. New files here: Spec URL: http://www.omesc.com/sites/default/files/downloads/dist/brutus-keyring/Fedora%207/SPECS/brutus-keyring.spec SRPM URL: http://www.omesc.com/sites/default/files/downloads/dist/brutus-keyring/Fedora%207/SRPMS/brutus-keyring-0.9.0-3.fc7.src.rpm -- 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 246227] Review Request: brutus-keyring - small and simple keyring daemon based upon libgcrypt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: brutus-keyring - small and simple keyring daemon based upon libgcrypt Alias: brutus-keyring https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246227 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-01 02:36 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) > > ? Conflicts > > - By the way, currently Fedora's newest evolution-brutus is > > 1.1.26.2-2.fc7. This srpm means that Fedora's > > evolution-brutus has to be updated? > > Yes. e-b<=1.1.28 installs brutus-keyring by itself. This should be "e-b<1.1.28" _not_ "e-b<=1.1.28". -- 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
