[Bug 246716] Review Request: ruby-RMagick - Graphics Processing for Ruby and Ruby on Rails
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ruby-RMagick - Graphics Processing for Ruby and Ruby
on Rails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246716
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 08:44 EST ---
Ok im' not very experienced in ruby. here are few comments:
*%definerubyabi 1.8
Is this a hardrequires or is it possible to have someting like in python:
%{expand: %%define pyver %(python -c 'import sys;print(sys.version[0:3])')}
* why does this is needed : %define repoid 21576 ?
* Why do you have BuildRequires: ruby and ruby-devel ?
* About # 1. First hack ImageMagick font configuration
Does this is a special tweak for RMagick or this could be fixed in ImageMagick
pacakge ?
build.log:
* Why theses dependencies aren't found ?
checking for AdaptiveBlurImageChannel... no
checking for AdaptiveResizeImage... no
...
checking for GetColorHistogram... no
checking for GetColorInfoArray... no
...
checking for GetImageStatistics... no
checking for GetMagickInfoArray... no
...
checking for GrayscalePseudoClassImage... no
checking for InterpolatePixelColor... no
checking for IsImageSimilar... no
checking for LinearStretchImage... no
checking for OrderedPosterizeImageChannel... no
checking for PolaroidImage... no
checking for QuantumOperatorRegionImage... no
checking for RecolorImage... no
checking for SetImageRegistry... no
checking for SketchImage... no
checking for UniqueImageColors... no
checking for PaletteBilevelMatteType enum value... no
...
checking if GetImageQuantumDepth has only 1 argument... no
checking if GetColorInfoList has only 2 arguments... no
checking if GetTypeInfoList has only 2 arguments... no
checking if GetMagickInfoList has only 2 arguments... no
checking if ColorInfo.color is a MagickPixelPacket... no
* -doc
Installed docs in $(pwd)/Trash are the same as thoses present in doc from source
- good
But do # 3. clean up is needed to prevent thoses files to be installed ? Are
they installed in $(pwd)/Trash ? Why not to use instead (for -doc)
%doc Trash/*
* naming - I don't know if this is mandatory but -docs is sometime choosen
instead of -doc for documentation sub-package...
* rpmlint on installed file is quiet
--
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 248120] Review Request: soprano - Qt wrapper API to different RDF storage solutions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: soprano - Qt wrapper API to different RDF storage solutions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248120 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 08:02 EST --- As promised Kevin... :) -- 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 248119] New: Review Request: libtimidity - MIDI to WAVE converter library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248119 Summary: Review Request: libtimidity - MIDI to WAVE converter library 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://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/libtimidity.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/libtimidity-0.1.0-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: This library is based on the TiMidity decoder from SDL_sound library. Purpose to create this library is to avoid unnecessary dependences. SDL_sound requires SDL and some other libraries, that not needed to process MIDI files. In addition libtimidity provides more suitable API to work with MIDI songs, it enables to specify full path to the timidity configuration file, and have function to retrieve meta data from MIDI song. --- Reviewers: note, this is necessary to add midi playback support to gstreamer, since the plugin is currently under development it is in gstreamer-plugins-bad from the repo that must not be named. To test this, install libtimidity-devel and the gstreamer-plugins-bad.src.rpm and rebuild gstreamer-plugins-bad. -- 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 230344] Review Request: bacula - Cross platform network backup for Linux, Unix, Mac and Windows.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bacula - Cross platform network backup for Linux, Unix, Mac and Windows. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230344 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 07:43 EST --- Created an attachment (id=159155) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=159155action=view) fix Provides and Requires I was not able to update bacula 2.0.2 to 2.0.3 with rpm -Fvh bacula*.rpm on my FC6/x86_64 machine. There were strange dependency problems. This patch should fix them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 238994] Review Request: memcached - High Performance, Distributed Memory Object Cache
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: memcached - High Performance, Distributed Memory Object Cache https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238994 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 09:44 EST --- Okay, we have a build in devel for F8. Please test it if you can once the RPM hits the rawhide mirrors. I'm guessing that once we test it out we can mark this bug as NEXTRELEASE? And then, on to F-7 and EPEL 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 247615] Review Request: TECkit - Conversion library and mapping compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: TECkit - Conversion library and mapping compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247615 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 08:47 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: TECkit Short Description: Conversion library and mapping compiler Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: 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 230344] Review Request: bacula - Cross platform network backup for Linux, Unix, Mac and Windows.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bacula - Cross platform network backup for Linux, Unix, Mac and Windows. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230344 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 10:27 EST --- Thx Dan, good catch. http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/bacula/bacula-2.0.3-5.src.rpm has fixed the problem -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241532] Review Request: angrydd - Falling blocks game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: angrydd - Falling blocks game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241532 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 10:24 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) From COPYING: death.wav: Copyright 2003 Manuel Moss (http://armagetron.sf.net/) break.wav: Copyright 2003 John-Paul Gignac (http://pathological.sf.net) gameover.wav: Copyright 2002 Pete Shinners (http://www.pygame.org) These are all under the GPL and thus match this: Unless otherwise noted above, all material (source code, documentation, and game data) is licensed under the GNU GPL version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation, copyrighted by the owners credited above. The full text of the license follows. So I read the text above as everything being GPL except for these: clicked.wav, rotate.wav, select-confirm.wav, select-move.wav, and tick.wav: Released into the public domain. If this is not allowed in your jurisdiction, you may freely copy, distribute, modify, and distribute modified versions of these files, for any purpose. And these are public domain and thus fine too. IOW I don't see a license problem here, I hope this helps. Rafal, with that cleared, any chance you can comment on the other parts of the review so kindly done by Jon? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 248120] New: Review Request: soprano - Qt wrapper API to different RDF storage solutions
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=248120 Summary: Review Request: soprano - Qt wrapper API to different RDF storage solutions 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://kdeforge.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SOURCES/soprano/devel/soprano.spec SRPM URL: http://kdeforge.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SOURCES/soprano/devel/soprano-0.9.0-1.src.rpm Description: Qt wrapper API to different RDF storage solutions -- 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 240090] Review Request: ftgl - OpenGL frontend to Freetype 2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ftgl - OpenGL frontend to Freetype 2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240090 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 10:11 EST --- Spec URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/ftgl/ftgl-2.1.2-3.kwizart.fc6.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/ftgl/ftgl.spec Description: OpenGL frontend to Freetype 2 - And more Requires is needed for .pc file (so -devel package). Please check: /usr/include/FTGL/FTGL.h Mesa seems also required but as they do not bundle .pc file, then i down't knwo how to do with them (leaving them in Libs for now...) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 233602] Review Request: pykdeextentions - A collection of python packages to support KDE applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pykdeextentions - A collection of python packages to support KDE applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233602 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 10:10 EST --- http://kdeforge.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SOURCES/pykdeextensions/pykdeextensions.spec http://kdeforge.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SOURCES/pykdeextensions/pykdeextensions-0.4.0-2.src.rpm %changelog * Fri Jul 13 2007 Rex Dieter rdieter[AT]fedoraproject.org 0.4.0-2 - omit empty NEWS - use chrpath to fix rpath issue(s) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195647] Review Request: redland
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: redland https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195647 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 06:00 EST --- (Please check the contents of .pc file on the review. I filed this as bug 248106 ) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2007-07-13 10:48 EST --- http://kdeforge.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SOURCES/guidance/guidance.spec http://kdeforge.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SOURCES/guidance/guidance-0.8.1-1.src.rpm * Fri Jul 13 2007 Rex Dieter rdieter[AT]fedoraproject.org 0.8.0-1 - guidance-0.8.0 - FIXME/TODO: include ^install* hacks from http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-kde/kde-extras/guidance/trunk/debian/rules?op=file (arg, these install hacks/fixes *really* should be upstreamed, and not required in packaging). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 224244] Review Request: 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: gaim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224244 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 10:52 EST --- Any chance someone could say definitively whether this ticket needs a review or should be closed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 243187] Review Request: edac-utils - user space utilities for EDAC subsystem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: edac-utils - user space utilities for EDAC subsystem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243187 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|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 224458] Review Request: libsilc (dependency of 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: libsilc (dependency of gaim) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224458 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 10:56 EST --- Is a review of this still needed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2007-07-13 10:56 EST --- fyi, this is a great package, but I have (too) many packages to maintain already, so I would very much prefer if someone else would either take over maintainership or help comaintain this. (same goes for pykdeextensions) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 246138] Review Request: eclipse-QuickREx - QuickREx is a regular-expression test Eclipse Plug-In
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eclipse-QuickREx - QuickREx is a regular-expression test Eclipse Plug-In https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246138 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 11:32 EST --- The permissions on the fetch script are still 0764. However, rpmlint warns when they are 0755 as well so if you change them to 755, we'll be good to go! Have you heard back from Bastian yet on the naming issue? -- 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 248163] New: Review Request: gtk-nodoka-engine - The Nodoka gtk engine
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=248163 Summary: Review Request: gtk-nodoka-engine - The Nodoka gtk engine 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://feannatar.hostuju.cz/fedora/files/development/SPECS/gtk-nodoka-engine.spec SRPM URL: http://feannatar.hostuju.cz/fedora/files/development/SRPMS/gtk-nodoka-engine-0.3.1-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: This package contains the Nodoka gtk engine as well as Nodoka theme for metacity and gtk. Note: Current upstream is me and Daniel Geiger and we currently release it on the fedora wiki (see the spec file for URL). I however consider submitting a request for inclusion in fedorahosted projects. For more info about the Nodoka theme and engine see fedora-art-list archives. -- 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 247894] Review Request: R-multcomp - Simultaneous inference for general liner hypotheses R 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: R-multcomp - Simultaneous inference for general liner
hypotheses R Package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247894
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 12:09 EST ---
The URL is not correct (or at least it gets me a 404); seems like it should be
http://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/Descriptions/%{packname}.html
rpmlint has the two usual R package complaints, plus:
W: R-multcomp mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 11, tab: line 4)
which isn't a problem.
Again the test suite spews a bunch of diffs but still succeeds.
Since the only real issue is the URL, I'll approve this and you can fix it when
you check in.
* source files match upstream:
58040d741b4036407b4c8f9967b8c163c0ba3bd2eff615f1cf09735f85542f77
multcomp_0.992-2.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.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
R-multcomp = 0.992-1.fc8
=
/bin/sh
R
R-mvtnorm
* %check is present and all tests pass.
* 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, just fix the 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 247930] Review Request: linkchecker - checks HTML documents for broken links
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: linkchecker - checks HTML documents for broken links
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247930
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 12:12 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=159201)
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=159201action=view)
mock build log of linkchecker 4.7-2 on rawhide i386
For 4.7-2:
* File entry
%{python_sitearch}/*
%{python_sitearch}/linkcheck
- This way of listing causes many duplicate file entry
on i386 (check the mock build log attached).
* again site_lib vs site_arch
- While arch-dependent files (usually .so file) must be installed
under site_arch directory, arch-independent .py{,o,c} files
must be installed under site_lib directory (so you have to
use both site_lib and site_arch)
* Directory ownership
- /usr/share/man/{de,fr}/man1 are already owned by man
* rpmlint
- Some files' permissions are not correct.
-
W: linkchecker spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/linkchecker-4.7/doc/examples/check_urls.sh
W: linkchecker spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/linkchecker-4.7/cgi-bin/lc.cgi
W: linkchecker spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/linkchecker-4.7/cgi-bin/lc.fcgi
W: linkchecker spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/linkchecker-4.7/doc/rest2htmlnav
W: linkchecker spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/linkchecker-4.7/doc/examples/check_blacklist.sh
W: linkchecker spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/linkchecker-4.7/doc/examples/check_for_x_errors.sh
-
* Documents
* gettext files
- /usr/share/doc/linkchecker-4.7/doc/{de,fr}.po must be converted
by msgfmt (in gettext) and be installed into proper directories
and must not be installed as documents
* man files
- /usr/share/doc/linkchecker-4.7/doc/{de,fr}/linkchecker.1 must
not be needed (man files are installed)
--
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 230344] Review Request: bacula - Cross platform network backup for Linux, Unix, Mac and Windows.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bacula - Cross platform network backup for Linux, Unix, Mac and Windows. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230344 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 12:13 EST --- Created an attachment (id=159202) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=159202action=view) fix for %preun scriptlets a copy'n'paste bug that makes the %preun scriptlets fail -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 230344] Review Request: bacula - Cross platform network backup for Linux, Unix, Mac and Windows.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bacula - Cross platform network backup for Linux, Unix, Mac and Windows. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230344 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 12:29 EST --- http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/bacula/bacula-2.0.3-6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225623] Merge Review: bootparamd
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: bootparamd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225623 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||m) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235203] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235203
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 12:40 EST ---
release should be
Release:0.27.%{reltype}%{?dist}
instead of
Release:0.27.%{reltype}%{dist}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235203] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235203 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 12:41 EST --- + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/find-lang.sh /var/tmp/kdebluetooth-1.0-0.27.beta3-root-chitlesh kbluelock No translations found for kbluelock in /var/tmp/kdebluetooth-1.0-0.27.beta3-root-chitlesh + : + for PROG in '$PROG_LIST' + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/find-lang.sh /var/tmp/kdebluetooth-1.0-0.27.beta3-root-chitlesh kbluemon No translations found for kbluemon in /var/tmp/kdebluetooth-1.0-0.27.beta3-root-chitlesh + : + for PROG in '$PROG_LIST' + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/find-lang.sh /var/tmp/kdebluetooth-1.0-0.27.beta3-root-chitlesh kbluetooth No translations found for kbluetooth in /var/tmp/kdebluetooth-1.0-0.27.beta3-root-chitlesh + : + for PROG in '$PROG_LIST' This should be corrected. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247615] Review Request: TECkit - Conversion library and mapping compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: TECkit - Conversion library and mapping compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247615 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 12:29 EST --- The spec/package appears to be 'teckit' here, not 'TECkit'... Shouldn't the CVS package name be 'teckit' ? Or are you intending to import it as TECkit' for some reason? -- 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 235203] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235203 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 12:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #53) Either way, the input devices bug is known (fixed in svn) and beta4 is just around the corner [1] so I guess we can release and wait it out. [1] http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=147300 So why not revert back to beta2 which works as should ? With the beta3(your 0.27) on konqueror bluetooth:/ I can see my mobile phone and click on it sdp://[XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX]/ appears on the URL bar of konqueror, but sees nothing on my mobile phone, while beta2 does. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235203] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235203 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 12:53 EST --- Re: comment #58: mock build WORKSFORME: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/mock/fedora-7-i386-kde/kdebluetooth/ Re: comment #59: So why not revert back to beta2? If it's already fixed in svn, why not wait for beta4? :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235203] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235203 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 12:58 EST --- (In reply to comment #60) Re: comment #59: So why not revert back to beta2? If it's already fixed in svn, why not wait for beta4? :) I'm ok if the package isn't released to F-7 until beta4 comes out (since it still contains the crashes I mentioned before. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235203] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235203 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 13:01 EST --- Gilboa, please go ahead and follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure and get this into cvs, so changes/bugs can be tracked. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 240090] Review Request: ftgl - OpenGL frontend to Freetype 2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ftgl - OpenGL frontend to Freetype 2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240090 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 13:04 EST --- For -3: * font requirement - Please add the Requires to -utils the rpm which contains the needed fonts (freefont?) * .pc file Mesa seems also required but as they do not bundle .pc file, then i down't know how to do with them (leaving them in Libs for now...) - While it is okay for now that mesa does not ship .pc file because /usr/include/FTGL/FTGL.h says: - #include GL/gl.h - .pc file contains extra linkage requirement. For the description in the two lines Libs: and Cflags, -lfreetype and -I/usr/include/freetype2 should not be needed because ftgl.pc has Requires: freetype2. -- $ pkg-config --cflags freetype2 -I/usr/include/freetype2 -- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 244894] Review Request: yum-cron - get yum updates via a cron job
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: yum-cron - get yum updates via a cron job https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244894 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 13:19 EST --- The link to the SRPM in comment #9 above seems to be invalid. I'll be happy to shepherd this package through the system, but, well, I need a package to review first. -- 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 246716] Review Request: ruby-RMagick - Graphics Processing for Ruby and Ruby on Rails
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-RMagick - Graphics Processing for Ruby and Ruby on Rails https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246716 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 13:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) *%define rubyabi 1.8 Is this a hardrequires or is it possible to have someting like in python: There is surely some hack (some GLib users use the hack), it is rather complicated (because ruby is not included in minimum build environ) and I find the hack of little sense. NOTE: On rawhide, the hack you mentioned can no longer be used even for python because python is removed from minimum build environ * why does this is needed : %define repoid 21576 ? This figure is needed for source URL, but I don't want to write the figure directly on URL because this id may change for different version. * Why do you have BuildRequires: ruby and ruby-devel ? This type of BuildRequires frequently happens when BuildRequires target rpm ship -libs package (i.e. ruby-devel requires ruby-libs but does not require ruby itself). * About # 1. First hack ImageMagick font configuration Does this is a special tweak for RMagick or this could be fixed in ImageMagick pacakge ? This can be fixed by ImageMagick side fix, however to file a bug against ImageMagick, I must explain and justify why the fix is needed against ImageMagick, and before it perhaps I must investigate ImageMagick code... (for now I can only say after this fix RMagick works, don't know why it is needed in detail So for now I fixed RMagick side. build.log: * Why theses dependencies aren't found ? checking for AdaptiveBlurImageChannel... no checking for AdaptiveResizeImage... no This is because I build against ImageMagick and not against GraphicsMagick. From googling I have a impression that most user uses RMagick with ImageMagick. * -doc But do # 3. clean up is needed to prevent thoses files to be installed ? Are they installed in $(pwd)/Trash ? Why not to use instead (for -doc) %doc Trash/* Simply my custom. For documentation I don't want to use installed files by make file because it is usually troublesome. * naming - I don't know if this is mandatory but -docs is sometime choosen instead of -doc for documentation sub-package... lftp ftp.kddilabs.jp:/Linux/packages/fedora/development/i386/os/Fedora ls -al *-doc-* | wc -l 87 lftp ftp.kddilabs.jp:/Linux/packages/fedora/development/i386/os/Fedora ls -al *-docs-* | wc -l 33 -- 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 235203] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235203 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 14:08 EST --- (In reply to comment #51) beta3 should not be released as-is; there is more fixes in the SVN repo at http://websvn.kde.org/branches/extragear/kde3/pim/kdebluetooth that should be used, including what appears to be fixed for the kinputwizard crash. Nope, there is no such fix. I'm still encountering crashes even when using svn snapshots. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226198] Merge Review: nfs-utils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: nfs-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226198 [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] 2007-07-13 14:15 EST --- Any response? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 245160] Review Request: fann - A fast artificial neural network 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: fann - A fast artificial neural network library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245160 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 14:10 EST --- This is looking much better, but I'm still seeing all of the undefined-non-weak-symbol complaints listed in comment #3. I was able to force a link against libm by placing LIBS=-lm export LIBS between the %setup and %configure calls in the spec. With that, I see no rpmlint warnings. This seems to me to be a relatively sane way of getting this to link properly without actually patching and regenerating the autoconf scaffolding, since all four of the generated libraries need to link with libm. -- 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 226601] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-jamstudio
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: xorg-x11-drv-jamstudio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226601 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 14:14 EST --- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 240090] Review Request: ftgl - OpenGL frontend to Freetype 2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ftgl - OpenGL frontend to Freetype 2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240090
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 14:53 EST ---
Spec URL:
http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/ftgl/ftgl-2.1.2-4.kwizart.fc6.src.rpm
SRPM URL:
http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/ftgl/ftgl.spec
Description: OpenGL frontend to Freetype 2
So now ftgl.pc look like this:
--
prefix=/usr
exec_prefix=/usr
libdir=/usr/lib64
includedir=/usr/include
Name: ftgl
Description: OpenGL frontend to Freetype 2
Version: 2.0.5
Requires: freetype2
Libs: -lGLU -L/usr/lib64 -lGL -L${libdir} -lftgl
Cflags: -I${includedir} -I/usr/include
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220402] Review Request: jscall-sharp-0.0.2 - a JS binding for gecko-sharp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jscall-sharp-0.0.2 - a JS binding for gecko-sharp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220402 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] | |johnsons.co.uk) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 15:03 EST --- Closing after one week as promised. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202376] Review Request: openwebmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openwebmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202376 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] | |johnsons.co.uk) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 15:03 EST --- Closing as promised. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197137] Review Request: Conga - Remote management interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Conga - Remote management interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197137 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |m) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 15:05 EST --- It's been a week; closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227035] Review Request: aspectj-1.2.1-3jpp - AspectJ aspect-oriented language extension to Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aspectj-1.2.1-3jpp - AspectJ aspect-oriented language extension to Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227035 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 15:06 EST --- No response; closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 240333] Review Request: perl-SQL-Translator - Manipulate structured data definitions (SQL and more)
Please 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-SQL-Translator - Manipulate structured data definitions (SQL and more) Alias: perl-SQL-Translator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240333 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 15:09 EST --- I'm going to go ahead and close this out soon if there is no response. There are also several other open tickets from the same submitter; I'll start setting them NEEDINFO and (later) closing them out if Chris doesn't give some indication that he's still around. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 245342] Review Request: perl-Gnome2 - Perl interface to the 2.x series of the GNOME libraries
Please 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-Gnome2 - Perl interface to the 2.x series of the GNOME libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245342 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||om) -- 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 241079] Review Request: R-DynDoc-1.14.0 - Functions for dynamic documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: R-DynDoc-1.14.0 - Functions for dynamic documents https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241079 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: R-Dyndoc- |Review Request: R-DynDoc- |1.14.0 - Functions for |1.14.0 - Functions for |dynamic documents |dynamic documents -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241279] Review Request: avr-libc - C library for use with GCC on Atmel AVR microcontrollers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: avr-libc - C library for use with GCC on Atmel AVR microcontrollers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241279 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 16:36 EST --- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines MUST ITEMS: * rpmlint results: - should fix manpages to be zipped, (see below) $ rpmlint avr-libc-1.4.6-3.fc8.src.rpm E: avr-libc configure-without-libdir-spec $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/avr-libc-1.4.6-3.fc7.noarch.rpm W: avr-libc devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/avr/include/avr/iomxxhva.h -- repated for all .h files -- This looks OK to me, I dont see that it makes sense to split into avr-libc-devel W: avr-libc manpage-not-gzipped /usr/avr/share/man/man3/strsep.3 -- repeated for all manpages -- This looks like it should be fixed. E: avr-libc arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/avr/lib/avr3/crt43355.o -- repeated for all .o/.a files -- This look OK, as this is truly arch-indep and used for cross-compiling. W: avr-libc non-standard-dir-in-usr avr -- Not sure about this, looks ok (probably needs to be added to packaging guidelines) $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/avr-libc-docs-1.4.6-3.fc7.noarch.rpm (no output) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226132] Merge Review: mcelog
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: mcelog https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226132 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241279] Review Request: avr-libc - C library for use with GCC on Atmel AVR microcontrollers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: avr-libc - C library for use with GCC on Atmel AVR
microcontrollers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241279
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 16:55 EST ---
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
Here are all the MUST items that have problems
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
-- NOT OK: project: modified BSD, package spec: GPL
- MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
-- hmm... discuss? (see rpmlint output)
- MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
-- hmm... discuss? (see rpmlint output)
Possible solution: split out -devel package and have avr-libc require:
avr-libc-devel? Or possibly just rename the package.
- MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
-- GOOD (no -devel package, but maybe need one considering other review
items)
- MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
-- BAD
$ rpm -qf /usr/avr
avr-binutils- 2.17-3.fc7.x86_64
avr-libc- 1.4.6-1.x86_64
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241279] Review Request: avr-libc - C library for use with GCC on Atmel AVR microcontrollers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: avr-libc - C library for use with GCC on Atmel AVR
microcontrollers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241279
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 16:57 EST ---
Here is the entire list of MUST items for completeness (including items above
which have already been pointed out)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
-- GOOD - MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible
license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of
Packaging Guidelines.
-- GOOD
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
-- NOT OK: project: modified BSD, package spec: GPL- MUST: If (and only if)
the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then
that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be
included in %doc.
-- GOOD
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
-- GOOD
- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
-- GOOD
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
-- GOOD (md5sum match)
- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
-- GOOD
- MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture
-- no exclude-arch, GOOD
- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
-- GOOD
- MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
-- GOOD (no locales) - MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
-- GOOD (no shared libs)
- MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable,
-- GOOD (not relocatable)
- MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
-- GOOD (everything under /usr/avr)
- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
-- GOOD
- MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
-- GOOD
- MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
-- GOOD
- MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
-- GOOD
- MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
-- GOOD
- MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
-- GOOD (-doc subpackage)
- MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application.
-- GOOD
- MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
-- hmm... discuss?
- MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
-- hmm... discuss?
- MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files
-- GOOD (no pc files)
- MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
-- GOOD
- MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
-- GOOD (no -devel package, but maybe need one considering other review
items)
- MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
-- GOOD
- MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file,
-- GOOD (no GUI)
- MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
-- BAD
$ rpm -qf /usr/avr
avr-binutils- 2.17-3.fc7.x86_64
avr-libc- 1.4.6-1.x86_64
- MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
-- GOOD
- MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
-- GOOD.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235203] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework (take/2) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235203 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 16:59 EST --- kinputwizard fix has gone into svn. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241279] Review Request: avr-libc - C library for use with GCC on Atmel AVR microcontrollers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: avr-libc - C library for use with GCC on Atmel AVR microcontrollers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241279 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 17:09 EST --- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines SHOULD items (no problems here): - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. -- GOOD - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. -- Ok (no translations) - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. -- builds - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. -- cant check this myself. - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. -- works ok for me. - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. -- no scriptlets - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. -- no subpackages - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, -- no pc files - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, -- no additional deps. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241279] Review Request: avr-libc - C library for use with GCC on Atmel AVR microcontrollers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: avr-libc - C library for use with GCC on Atmel AVR microcontrollers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241279 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241279] Review Request: avr-libc - C library for use with GCC on Atmel AVR microcontrollers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: avr-libc - C library for use with GCC on Atmel AVR microcontrollers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241279 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 17:15 EST --- file ownership issue possibly not an issue: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-a5931a7372c4a00065713430984fa5875513e6d4 == Another exception for directory ownership in packages is when there is no clear dependency hierarchy. An example: Foo-Animal-Emu puts files into /usr/share/Foo/Animal/Emu Foo-Animal-Llama puts files into /usr/share/Foo/Animal/Llama Neither package depends on the other one. Neither package depends on any other package which owns the /usr/share/Foo/Animal/ directory. In this case, each package must own the /usr/share/Foo/Animal/ directory. == -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 248224] New: Review Request: iwl4965 -firmware - Firmware for Intel® PRO/Wireless 4 965 A/G/N network adaptors
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=248224 Summary: Review Request: iwl4965-firmware - Firmware for Intel® PRO/Wireless 4965 A/G/N network adaptors 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://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/7/testing/iwl4965-firmware/iwl4965-firmware.spec SRPM URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/7/testing/iwl4965-firmware/iwl4965-firmware-4.44.15-1.kwizart.fc7.src.rpm Description: Firmware for Intel® PRO/Wireless 4965 A/G/N network adaptors From https://bugzilla.redhat.com/245379 I don't know if this will be required in the future for EL-5... For now iwl4965 can only be found with recent iwlwifi version from intelwireless.org ( I think 0.35 can support it). As wireless-dev will sync with this version, the question is can this be provided at least from the testing repository until it will be bundled with a standard Fedora kernel I've been requested by someone who own such hardware to do kmod's, but i prefer to patch the kernel (see here for testing: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/7/testing/kernel/ ) -- 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 241279] Review Request: avr-libc - C library for use with GCC on Atmel AVR microcontrollers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: avr-libc - C library for use with GCC on Atmel AVR microcontrollers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241279 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 17:28 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines Here are all the MUST items that have problems - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. -- NOT OK: project: modified BSD, package spec: GPL Oops, good catch, will fix - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. -- hmm... discuss? (see rpmlint output) - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. -- hmm... discuss? (see rpmlint output) Possible solution: split out -devel package and have avr-libc require: avr-libc-devel? Or possibly just rename the package. As already explained in the mailinglist discussion, the guidelines or just plain bogus in this (exceptional) case, just ignore them. - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. -- BAD $ rpm -qf /usr/avr avr-binutils- 2.17-3.fc7.x86_64 avr-libc- 1.4.6-1.x86_64 Unfortunately the review checklist is a bit to short / simple when describing this. see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-a5931a7372c4a00065713430984fa5875513e6d4 For the full story, to quote it: Another exception for directory ownership in packages is when there is no clear dependency hierarchy. An example: Foo-Animal-Emu puts files into /usr/share/Foo/Animal/Emu Foo-Animal-Llama puts files into /usr/share/Foo/Animal/Llama Neither package depends on the other one. Neither package depends on any other package which owns the /usr/share/Foo/Animal/ directory. In this case, each package must own the /usr/share/Foo/Animal/ directory. Since binutils doesn't need libc and libc doesn't need binutils there is no clear dependency hierarchy, thus they should both own /usr/avr Ah, I just saw your comment you find this ourselves, yes its no an issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241279] Review Request: avr-libc - C library for use with GCC on Atmel AVR microcontrollers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: avr-libc - C library for use with GCC on Atmel AVR microcontrollers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241279 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 17:30 EST --- Before I forget many thanks! And once your satisfied with the discussion around the exceptional parts of this package, can you please post a final Must Fix list, I would like to avoud a gazillion iterations :) Sofar I have as Must Fix: -gzip manpages -fix License field in specfile (oops) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247984] Review Request: Etoys - Squeak-based learning environment for OLPC
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Etoys - Squeak-based learning environment for OLPC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247984 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 17:41 EST --- Fixed _smp_mpflags and cleaning New Spec URL: http://etoys.laptop.org/srpm/etoys-2.0.1451-1.spec New SRPM URL: http://etoys.laptop.org/srpm/etoys-2.0.1451-1.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 247984] Review Request: Etoys - Squeak-based learning environment for OLPC
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Etoys - Squeak-based learning environment for OLPC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247984 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||247983 -- 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 247983] Review Request: squeak-vm - Squeak virtual machine for OLPC
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: squeak-vm - Squeak virtual machine for OLPC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247983 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||247984 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 245342] Review Request: perl-Gnome2 - Perl interface to the 2.x series of the GNOME libraries
Please 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-Gnome2 - Perl interface to the 2.x series of the GNOME libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245342 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |om) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 17:49 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) Any response to the comments on the debuginfo issue raised above? If I know someone's going to respond I'll go ahead and do a full review this. I'll clean the issues noted in the comment above. Currently out of town, but will get to it next week. -- 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 248231] New: Review Request: ustr - String library, very low memory overhead, simple to import
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=248231 Summary: Review Request: ustr - String library, very low memory overhead, simple to import 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://people.redhat.com/jantill/fedora/ustr.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jantill/fedora/ustr-1.0.0-2.fc7.src.rpm Description: Hi, I already have a couple of packages, so hopefully this shouldn't be too bad :). rpmlint gives a couple of warnings, but they should be ignored AIUI. Micro string library, very low overhead from plain strdup() (Ave. 44% for 0-20B strings). Very easy to use in existing C code. At it's simplest you can just include a single header file into your .c and start using it. This package also distributes pre-built shared libraries. -- 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 241473] Review Request: ocaml-ssl - SSL bindings for OCaml
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocaml-ssl - SSL bindings for OCaml https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241473 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 18:19 EST --- Starting review... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 221256] Review Request: etswitch - A *nix 'minimizer' for a few games
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: etswitch - A *nix 'minimizer' for a few games https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221256 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 18:34 EST --- Closing as promised. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 246539] Review Request: R-BufferedMatrix - A matrix data storage object held in temporary files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: R-BufferedMatrix - A matrix data storage object held in temporary files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246539 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 18:42 EST --- OK, this looks good to me. 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 247699] Review Request: R-BufferedMatrixMethods - Microarray Data related methods that utlize BufferedMatrix
Please 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-BufferedMatrixMethods - Microarray Data related methods that utlize BufferedMatrix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247699 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 18:51 EST --- This fails to build: init_package.c:5:84: error: /usr/share/R/library/BufferedMatrix/include/doubleBufferedMatrix_stubs.c: No such file or directory make: *** [init_package.o] Error 1 ERROR: compilation failed for package 'BufferedMatrixMethods' Looks like it needs a build requirement on R-BufferedMatrix-devel. Could you clean up the commented sections in the spec? Especially the %files list gets a bit confusing. -- 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 248120] Review Request: soprano - Qt wrapper API to different RDF storage solutions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: soprano - Qt wrapper API to different RDF storage
solutions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248120
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 19:01 EST ---
MUST Items:
+ rpmlint output OK:
SRPM, soprano, soprano-debuginfo produce no warnings
W: soprano-devel no-documentation - see relevant documentation below
+ named and versioned according to the Package Naming Guidelines
+ spec file name matches base package name
+ Packaging Guidelines:
+ License LGPL OK, matches actual license
+ No known patent problems
+ No emulator, no firmware, no binary-only or prebuilt components
+ Complies with the FHS
+ proper changelog, tags, BuildRoot, Requires, BuildRequires, Summary,
Description
+ no non-UTF-8 characters
! relevant documentation is included
While the minimum documentation is present, the upstream package also
supports generating Doxygen documentation, which would be useful to package (in
a -apidocs subpackage).
+ RPM_OPT_FLAGS are used (%cmake macro)
+ debuginfo package is valid
+ no static libraries nor .la files
+ no duplicated system libraries
+ no rpaths, at least on i386 (I ran readelf -d on the shared objects)
+ no configuration files, so %config guideline doesn't apply
+ no init scripts, so init script guideline doesn't apply
+ no executables, so no .desktop file present or needed
+ no timestamp-clobbering file commands
+ _smp_mflags used
+ scriptlets are valid
+ not a web application, so web application guideline doesn't apply
+ no conflicts
+ complies with all the legal guidelines
+ COPYING included as %doc
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ source matches upstream:
MD5SUM: 703f11ca18f50c500b62cd44c84145e5
SHA1SUM: df2179aa29eb1a7d4d21e82ef94699dfc497f388
+ builds on at least one arch (F7 i386 live system)
+ no known non-working arches, so no ExcludeArch needed
+ all build dependencies listed in CMakeLists.txt are listed in BuildRequires
(However, an additional BuildRequires: doxygen will be needed for
the -apidocs.)
+ no translations in original tarball, so translation/locale guidelines don't
apply
+ ldconfig correctly called in %post and %postun
+ package not relocatable
+ ownership correct (owns package-specific directories, doesn't own directories
owned by another package)
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ permissions set properly
+ %clean section present and correct
+ macros used where possible
+ no non-code content
+ no large documentation files, so no -doc package needed
+ %doc files not required at runtime
+ all header files in -devel
+ no static libraries, so no -static package needed
+ no .pc files, so no Requires: pkgconfig needed
+ /usr/lib/*.so symlink is correctly in -devel
+ /usr/lib/soprano/*.so plugin (NOT a symlink) is correctly NOT in -devel
+ -devel requires %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ no .la files
+ no GUI programs (in fact, no executables at all), so no .desktop file needed
+ buildroot is deleted at the beginning of %install
But I strongly recommend a:
mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
after the:
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
to prevent a potential symlink attack as pointed out by the OpenSUSE folks.
+ all filenames are valid UTF-8
SHOULD Items:
+ license already included upstream
+ no translations for description and summary provided by upstream
! I get a weird error in mock (tested FC6 i386 with Plague results and Rawhide
i386, both on F7 build host):
+ %cmake .
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.20248: line 28: fg: no job control
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.20248 (%build)
I don't know if this is my fault or if something's screwed in your package or
the %cmake macro.
* Skipping the all architectures test, I only have i386.
* Can't really test that the package functions as described without building
some KDE 4 stuff against it first, skipping for now.
+ scriptlets are sane
+ no subpackages other than -devel, so Usually, subpackages other than devel
should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. is
irrelevant
+ no .pc files, so placement of .pc files is irrelevant
+ no file dependencies
I see no real blockers except the strange error in mock. Thus, consider this
APPROVED if you can get it to build in mock.
However:
1. It would be useful to package the Doxygen documentation:
* add BuildRequires: doxygen
* create an -apidocs subpackage
2. I'd also suggest adding the mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the
[Bug 248120] Review Request: soprano - Qt wrapper API to different RDF storage solutions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: soprano - Qt wrapper API to different RDF storage solutions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248120 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 19:06 EST --- Uhm, duh, no wonder it doesn't build in mock, you're missing the BuildRequires: cmake! So please add this before importing. -- 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 248120] Review Request: soprano - Qt wrapper API to different RDF storage solutions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: soprano - Qt wrapper API to different RDF storage solutions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248120 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 19:19 EST --- Just to confirm: After adding the: BuildRequires: cmake the package builds in mock for both Rawhide and FC6, so with this change, it is APPROVED (but see the 2 suggested changes). -- 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 233602] Review Request: pykdeextentions - A collection of python packages to support KDE applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pykdeextentions - A collection of python packages to
support KDE applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233602
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 20:13 EST ---
Package name: PASS (pykdeextensions)
License: PASS (LGPL)
Spec Legible: PASS (en_US)
md5sum matches: PASS (5249c7288c1b2bed44a2d9d3313a)
rpmlint clean:NOTES
Builds correctly: PASS (i386)
RPaths removed: PASS
Spec has %clean: PASS
Macro use consistant: PASS
Contains code/content:PASS
-doc subpackage: NA
-devel subpackage:PASS
-static subpackage: NA
pkgconfig depend: NA
Contains %doc:PASS
Library suffix: NA
No .la files: NA
Use desktop-file-install: NA
No duplicate ownerships: PASS
rm -rf %{buildroot}: PASS
RPM uses valid UTF-8: PASS
%defattr is set: PASS
No duplicate %files: PASS
Not relocatable: PASS
Calls ldconfig: PASS
Supports Locales: NA
BR's are correct: PASS
NA - Not Applicable
NT - Not Tested
rpmlint on build RPMS:
E: pykdeextensions non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/qtuicompiler.py 0644
E: pykdeextensions non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/kdedistutils.py 0644
E: pykdeextensions-devel non-executable-script
/usr/share/apps/pykdeextensions/app_templates/kdeapp/src/prefdialog.py 0644
I'm assuming these scripts are meant to be non-executable, so APPROVED
Oh, and If you do need a comaintainer, let me know.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 248120] Review Request: soprano - Qt wrapper API to different RDF storage solutions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: soprano - Qt wrapper API to different RDF storage solutions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248120 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 20:36 EST --- ... and make the compilation log more verbose (i.e. add VERBOSE=1) -- 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 248120] Review Request: soprano - Qt wrapper API to different RDF storage solutions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: soprano - Qt wrapper API to different RDF storage solutions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248120 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 20:37 EST --- How would that be useful? We don't need useless console spewage. Errors are already printed as it is. -- 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 225746] Merge Review: fedora-release
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: fedora-release https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225746 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version||7.89-3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247402] Review Request: GspiceUI - A GUI to freely available Spice Electronic circuit similators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: GspiceUI - A GUI to freely available Spice Electronic
circuit similators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247402
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 21:58 EST ---
(In reply to comment #13)
For 0.8.90-3:
* URL
- IMO generally http://sourceforge.net/projects/name has
useless information.
Googling gspiceui hits
http://www.geda.seul.org/tools/gspiceui/index.html first and
IMO this URL is more preferable.
As you wish.
* Requires/icon
- While icons are installed under %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/,
why don't you use these icons for desktop file and
use gnome-util.png instead and require redhat-artwork?
True, you are right about it. I don't remember why I did so.
Xavier in your next release please do take those two into consideration.
! OFF TOPIC
- I noticed that %_datadir/gEDA is owned by both libgeda and
geda-symbols. Is this okay?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# rpm -qf /usr/share/gEDA
libgeda-20070708-1
Tomorrow I'll commit 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 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] 2007-07-13 22:38 EST --- I have been approved. cvsextras requested. -- 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 243437] Review Request: gnome-specimen - A simple tool to view and compare fonts installed on your 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: gnome-specimen - A simple tool to view and compare
fonts installed on your system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243437
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 22:56 EST ---
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[ OK ] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ OK ] Spec file name must match the base package.
[ OK ] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[ OK ] Package successfully compiles and builds:
[ OK ] Mock: built on FC-devel [noarch package]
[ OK ] Package is not relocatable.
[ OK ] Buildroot is correct
[ OK ] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license.
[ OK ] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[ Ok ] License type: GPL
[ OK ] The source package includes the text of the license(s) in %doc.
[ OK ] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ OK ] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[ OK ] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
[ OK ] The spec file handles locales properly.
[ SKIP ] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[ OK ] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ OK ] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ OK ] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[ OK ] Permissions on files are set properly.
[ OK ] Package has a %clean section.
[ OK ] Package consistently uses macros.
[ CHECK ] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[ SKIP ] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[ OK ] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ SKIP ] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[ SKIP ] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[ SKIP ] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[ SKIP] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[ SKIP] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[ OK ] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[ OK ] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file.
[ OK ] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[ OK ] Rpmlint output: Silent on both SRPM and RPM.
==
*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 243437] Review Request: gnome-specimen - A simple tool to view and compare fonts installed on your 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: gnome-specimen - A simple tool to view and compare fonts installed on your system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243437 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-13 22:56 EST --- Follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVSAdminProcedure for the CVS Request procedure. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 241549] Review Request: pixie - 3D renderer Renderman compliant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pixie - 3D renderer Renderman compliant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241549
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-14 00:48 EST ---
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[ FAILED ] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ FAILED ] Spec file name must match the base package name.
[ OK ] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[ OK ] Package successfully builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
[ CHECK ] Tested on: Mock i386 [FC-devel]
[ OK ] Package is not relocatable.
[ OK ] Buildroot is correct
[ OK ] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license.
[ Ok ] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[ OK ] License type: LGPL
[ OK ] The source package includes the text of the license(s).
[ OK ] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ OK ] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[ OK ] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
[ CHECK ] The spec file handles locales properly.
[ OK ] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[ ? ] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ OK ] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ OK ] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[ Ok ] Permissions on files are set properly.
[ OK ] Package has a %clean section.
[ OK ] Package consistently uses macros.
[ OK ] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[ ? ] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[ ? ] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ SKIP ] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[ SKIP ] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[ SKIP ] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[ Ok ] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[ Ok ] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[ OK ] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[ SKIP ] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file.
[ OK ] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[ CHECK ] Requires:
libGL.so.1()(64bit) libGLU.so.1()(64bit) libHalf.so.4()(64bit)
libIex.so.4()(64bit) libIlmImf.so.4()(64bit) libImath.so.4()(64bit)
libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libpixiecommon.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libri.so.0()(64bit) libsdr.so.0()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libtiff.so.3()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
=== ISSUES ===
# Package Name:
The base package name is Pixie (with upper-case letter).
Please move it to Pixie instead of pixie.
That's also imply to move the name of spec file to the right one.
# Timestamps action:
This package have many text/documentations files and png/icons files
so keeping timestamps is desirable.
Does this package accept 'make INSTALL=install -p install' ?
# Some concerns about Large documentation:
The final package is mostly documentation.I don't think it's mandatory that it
be split into a -doc subpackage. But, it'll be not a bad idea to do so.
Also, any reason to mkdir'ed __doc (with double underscore) ?
# Ownership:
Currently your %file section (main package) sound good.
however, i've some comment about ownership (which can be improved).
--
%dir %{_libdir}/Pixie
%{_libdir}/Pixie/displays/
%{_libdir}/Pixie/modules/
--
The use of %{_libdir}/Pixie is enough and owned by the package (including
sub-folders)
--
%dir %{_datadir}/Pixie
%dir %{_datadir}/Pixie/shaders
%{_datadir}/Pixie/shaders/*.sdr
%{_datadir}/Pixie/shaders/*.sl
--
You don't need to own sub-folders if you already own parent directory.
And, As above, this can be improved by %{_datadir}/Pixie (which's enough to be
owned)
# Quick request:
Nicolas, will you upload somewhere the packaged x86_64 binaries please ?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
