[Bug 386661] Review Request: writer2latex - OpenOffice.org to LaTeX/XHTML filter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: writer2latex - OpenOffice.org to LaTeX/XHTML filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=386661 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 03:57 EST --- http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/writer2latex/writer2latex.spec http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/writer2latex/writer2latex-0.5-4.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 283721] Review Request: bolzplatz2006 - Slam Soccer 2006 is a funny football game in 3D-comic-style
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bolzplatz2006 - Slam Soccer 2006 is a funny football game in 3D-comic-style https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=283721 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 03:42 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) bolzplatz2006.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/bolzplatz2006-1.0.3/license.txt This should be fixed, because of our utf-8 policy. Oops, will fix, I missed this as when I first packaged this rpmlint didn't do UTF-8 checks for some reason. bolzplatz2006.src: W: strange-permission bolzplatz2006.sh 0755 You should comment this unusual permission. It doesn't need to be 755 in the src.rpm install will fix the permissions when installing, I'll fix this. SPEC: export JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/jvm/java-icedtea use %_libdir instead of path Can't do java is always under /usr/lib even on x86_64. I'll fix the 2 other minor issues once a full review is done, thanks for the input sofar. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 404031] Review Request: mythes-en - English thesaurus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mythes-en - English thesaurus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=404031 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 03:40 EST --- done, thanks for the smooth review, makes my life a whole lot easier. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 283721] Review Request: bolzplatz2006 - Slam Soccer 2006 is a funny football game in 3D-comic-style
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bolzplatz2006 - Slam Soccer 2006 is a funny football game in 3D-comic-style https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=283721 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 03:30 EST --- bolzplatz2006.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/bolzplatz2006-1.0.3/license.txt This should be fixed, because of our utf-8 policy. bolzplatz2006.src: W: strange-permission bolzplatz2006.sh 0755 You should comment this unusual permission. SPEC: export JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/jvm/java-icedtea use %_libdir instead of path -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 404021] Review Request: mythes-sk - Slovak thesaurus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mythes-sk - Slovak thesaurus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=404021 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 03:19 EST --- built -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 398791] Review Request: BlockOutII - A free adaptation of the original BlockOut DOS 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: BlockOutII - A free adaptation of the original BlockOut DOS game Alias: BlockOutII https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=398791 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 12:33 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) Then you're using an old Fedora version todo this on explicitly stating an encoding is deprecated now. Do you have a reference to where this is documented? desktop-file-validate needs to be fixed on F-7 if this is the case. Please file a bug if you have the documentation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 235236] Review Request: vblade - Virtual EtherDrive (R) blade daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vblade - Virtual EtherDrive (R) blade daemon Alias: vblade https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=235236 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 12:29 EST --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 339021] Review Request: compizconfig-backend-gconf - GConf backend for compizconfig
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: compizconfig-backend-gconf - GConf backend for compizconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=339021 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|376551 | nThis|| Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 13:30 EST --- i've moved the crash problem as another bug separate from this package review .. #406771 closing this .. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 386531] Review Request: kuftp - Graphical FTP Client for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kuftp - Graphical FTP Client for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=386531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 13:57 EST --- (In reply to comment #14) There are also some errors in the description: most notable features ARE ... (Plural). missing whitespace between is,you. The whole second sentence sounds a like bad English to me, but that should better be decided by a native speaker. Mhm sorry my english is not very good. I have the description from the authors website. But i fixed the errors i hope =) All other erros fixed to New files: SPEC URL: http://yasha.alfahosting.org/kuftp.spec SRPM URL: http://yasha.alfahosting.org/kuftp-0.9.1-2.fc8.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 398791] Review Request: BlockOutII - A free adaptation of the original BlockOut DOS 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: BlockOutII - A free adaptation of the original BlockOut DOS game Alias: BlockOutII https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=398791 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 14:26 EST --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 387261] Review Request: libcmpiutil - Utility library for CIM providers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libcmpiutil - Utility library for CIM providers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=387261 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 14:22 EST --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 389151] Review Request: xchat-ruby - X-Chat plugin adding Ruby scripting functionality
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xchat-ruby - X-Chat plugin adding Ruby scripting functionality https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=389151 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 18:55 EST --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 407031] Review Request: pcapy - A Python interface to libpcap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pcapy - A Python interface to libpcap https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=407031 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||407041 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 387261] Review Request: libcmpiutil - Utility library for CIM providers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libcmpiutil - Utility library for CIM providers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=387261 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 21:32 EST --- Successful build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=267904 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 265841] Review Request: blcr - Berkeley Lab Checkpoint/Restart for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: blcr - Berkeley Lab Checkpoint/Restart for Linux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=265841 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX Flag||fedora-review- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 22:40 EST --- I guess there's not much more to do here but close this ticket. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 400441] Review Request: trac-iniadmin-plugin - Expose all TracIni options using the Trac 0.10 config option API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: trac-iniadmin-plugin - Expose all TracIni options using the Trac 0.10 config option API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=400441 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 22:15 EST --- You might want to reference SVN revision in the comment after URL; referencing latest gets a different file which happens to have the same contents (for now). Should the version be 0.1 or 0.10? setup.py says one thing, but the tarball would seem to suggest otherwise. I'm going to assume that 0.1 is proper and the 0.10 refers to the trac version it works with. Does this package really need python-setuptools at runtime? rpmlint says: trac-iniadmin-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation which is OK; it really has no documentation. Checklist: * source files match upstream: f915159e70818d74a0a46e4803e8dce09249001dded58d476d60825982f90310 iniadminplugin_0.10-r2824.zip * 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. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. ? final provides and requires: trac-iniadmin-plugin = 0.1-1.20071126svn2824.fc9 = python(abi) = 2.5 ? python-setuptools trac Is python-setuptools really required? * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * eggs are built from source. * no dependencies are downloaded. (Not that it would work in mock anyway.) * egg-info files are included in the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 241078] Review Request: perl-Net-SSH2 - Support for the SSH 2 protocol via libSSH2
Please 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-Net-SSH2 - Support for the SSH 2 protocol via libSSH2 Alias: perl-Net-SSH2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241078 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 23:32 EST --- Not much to say; now builds fine in rawhide because libssh2 is there, and rpmlint is silent. * source files match upstream: 4bd78eb0b3099271e2047d4e727c8105c07d22d732ca0fb76c37b11f80b64fc4 Net-SSH2-0.18.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 (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: SSH2.so()(64bit) perl(Net::SSH2) = 0.18 perl(Net::SSH2::Channel) perl(Net::SSH2::Dir) perl(Net::SSH2::File) perl(Net::SSH2::Listener) perl(Net::SSH2::PublicKey) perl(Net::SSH2::SFTP) perl-Net-SSH2 = 0.18-1.fc9 = libssh2.so.1()(64bit) perl = 0:5.006 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(AutoLoader) perl(Carp) perl(Exporter) perl(File::Basename) perl(IO::File) perl(Net::SSH2::Channel) perl(Net::SSH2::File) perl(Net::SSH2::Listener) perl(Net::SSH2::SFTP) perl(Socket) perl(XSLoader) perl(strict) perl(warnings) * %check is present and all tests pass: 61/72 skipped: - non-interactive session All tests successful, 61 subtests skipped. Files=1, Tests=72, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.04 cusr + 0.02 csys = 0.06 CPU) (Skipped tests are not runnable within mock) * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 285571] Review Request: seekwatcher - IO visualization with blktrace
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: seekwatcher - IO visualization with blktrace https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=285571 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 23:26 EST --- *sigh* I guess maybe I'm just really really bad at this ;-) Is that rpmlint output? Ok, now my build log looks clean and rpmlint too. Ok... once more with feeling: http://people.redhat.com/esandeen/seekwatcher-rpm/seekwatcher-0.9-2.fc8.src.rpm Thanks for puttting up with me :) Hope I've got it now. -Eric -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 350341] Review Request: postfix-logwatch - A postfix log analyzer for logwatch
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: postfix-logwatch - A postfix log analyzer for logwatch Alias: postfix-logwatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=350341 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 23:16 EST --- Whats the status here? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 254056] Review Request: e16 - The Enlightenment window manager, DR16
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: e16 - The Enlightenment window manager, DR16 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254056 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 23:14 EST --- Spot: Any word back on the license here? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 285571] Review Request: seekwatcher - IO visualization with blktrace
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: seekwatcher - IO visualization with blktrace https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=285571 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 22:15 EST --- (In reply to comment #17) And keeping up with chris http://people.redhat.com/esandeen/seekwatcher-rpm/seekwatcher-0.9-1.fc8.src.rpm with this SRPM I got, seekwatcher.noarch: I: checking seekwatcher.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.9 0.9-1.fc8 The last entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package. seekwatcher.src: I: checking seekwatcher.src: W: no-%build-section The spec file does not contain a %build section. Even if some packages don't directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's configuration to provide additional under the hood functionality, such as injection of automatic -debuginfo subpackages. Add the section, even if empty. Also, make sure to keep timestamps http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-0239576e441f9ef53d175c4aec8c12868dffb5ab And if you like you can use defattr as defattr(-,root,root,-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 407031] Review Request: pcapy - A Python interface to libpcap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pcapy - A Python interface to libpcap https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=407031 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 21:49 EST --- Unable to download SRPM -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 405221] Review Request: kdebase3 - K Desktop Environment - core 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: kdebase3 - K Desktop Environment - core files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=405221
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|devel |rawhide
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 21:42 EST ---
I took the liberty to fix the rpmlint warnings which are actual problems:
kdebase3.src:2394: W: macro-in-%changelog post
Bad, % should be escaped.
Fixed.
kdebase3.i386: E: percent-in-obsoletes kdebase-extras 6:
%{version}-%{release}
kdebase3.i386: E: percent-in-provides kdebase-extras 6:
%{version}-%{release}
Macros not expanded properly, this one needs fixing!
Fixed.
kdebase3-devel.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided kdebase-devel
kdebase3-devel.i386: E: useless-explicit-provides kdebase3-devel
But this one is a mistake (kdebase3-devel providing itself rather than
kdebase-devel to match the Obsoletes or nothing).
Fixed.
Spec URL: http://repo.calcforge.org/f9/kdebase3.spec
SRPM URL: http://repo.calcforge.org/f9/kdebase3-3.5.8-12.fc7.src.rpm
(I removed the binary RPMs because they're outdated and rpmlint has been done
already anyway, if you want to test, please rebuild the current SRPM.)
* Sat Dec 01 2007 Kevin Kofler [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 6:3.5.8-12
- merge updated ConsoleKit patch with Mandriva's (Nicolas Lécureuil's) xdmcp
fixes from kdebase-3.5.8-9 (#243560, Mandriva#34786)
- build as kdebase3 on F9+ (not F10+)
- fix unescaped macros and a typo in changelog
- move kdebase-extras Provides/Obsoletes to the correct place
- fix check of %%{name} against kdelibs instead of kdebase
- fix Provides/Obsoletes for kdebase3-libs and kdebase3-devel
This resolves the rpmlint part and is now ready for the manual review
checklist.
IMPORTANT: The temporary hack forcing %fedora to 9 for testing purposes will
have to go away before/after import, at the very least before this is ever
committed to a non-F9 branch. ;-)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 407041] Review Request: pcapdiff - Compares packet captures, detects forged, dropped or mangled packets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pcapdiff - Compares packet captures, detects forged, dropped or mangled packets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=407041 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||407031 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 407041] New: Review Request: pcapdiff - Compares packet captures, detects forged, dropped or mangled packets
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/show_bug.cgi?id=407041 Summary: Review Request: pcapdiff - Compares packet captures, detects forged, dropped or mangled packets Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: low Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] SPEC URL : http://zanoni/fedora/pcapdiff/pcapdiff.spec SRPM URL : http://zanoni/fedora/pcapdiff/pcapdiff-0.1-1.fc8.src.rpm Decription: Pcapdiff is a tool developed by the EFF to compare two packet captures and identify potentially forged, dropped, or mangled packets. Two technically- inclined friends can set up packet captures (e.g. tcpdump or Wireshark) on their own computers and produce network traffic between their two computers over the Internet. Later, they can run pcapdiff on the two packet capture files to identify suspicious packets for further investigation. See Detecting packet injection: a guide to observing packet spoofing by ISPs and EFF's Test Your ISP Project for more background. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 405221] Review Request: kdebase3 - K Desktop Environment - core 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: kdebase3 - K Desktop Environment - core files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=405221
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 23:49 EST ---
MUST Items:
+ rpmlint output: warnings indicating actual problems already fixed, see above
+ named and versioned according to the Package Naming Guidelines
+ spec file name matches base package name
+ Packaging Guidelines:
+ License GPLv2 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 need updating for kdebase3
+ no non-UTF-8 characters
+ relevant documentation included
+ RPM_OPT_FLAGS are used (%configure macro)
+ debuginfo package is valid
+ no static libraries
+ no .la files except the plugins which are needed in KDE 3 (hooray for KDE 4
fixing this, but kdebase3 still needs them)
+ no duplicated system libraries
+ no rpaths, at least on i386
+ giving the config files in /usr a pass, as KDE has always
used /usr/share/config
+ no init scripts, so init script guideline doesn't apply
+ GUI executables all have .desktop files
! ... but there's .desktop files for apps which aren't being shipped
+ 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
+ license included as %doc
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ source matches upstream:
MD5SUM: 9990c669229d8fca4c5e354441fd
SHA1SUM: 07f2e33aef101e97237676719ef2bf8418d894b2
+ builds on at least one arch (F7 i386 live system)
+ no known non-working arches, so no ExcludeArch needed
+ all required BuildRequires listed (same as kdebase which built fine in Koji
for F7/F8/F9)
+ no translations in original tarball, so translation/locale guidelines don't
apply
+ ldconfig correctly called in %post and %postun of -libs
+ package not relocatable
+ ownership correct (owns package-specific directories, doesn't own directories
owned by another package)
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ permissions OK
+ %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 symlinks are correctly in -devel
+ /usr/lib*/kde3/*.so plugins and /usr/lib*/kdeinit_*.so (NOT symlinks) are
correctly NOT in -devel
+ -devel requires %{name}-libs = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release}
+ .la files, .desktop files: see Packaging Guidelines section
+ buildroot is deleted at the beginning of %install
+ all filenames are valid UTF-8
SHOULD Items:
+ license already included upstream
+ no translations for description and summary provided by upstream
* Skipping mock, all architectures and functionality tests.
+ scriptlets are sane
+ subpackage Requires/Provides/Obsoletes are valid
+ no .pc files, so placement of .pc files is irrelevant
+ no exotic file dependencies
! however the dependency on /sbin/ldconfig in the main package is not needed
if -libs is being built
No real issues, APPROVED.
(We can address the remaining nitpicks:
! Summary, Description need updating for kdebase3
! ... but there's .desktop files for apps which aren't being shipped
! however the dependency on /sbin/ldconfig in the main package is not needed
if -libs is being built
while waiting for the CVS request to be processed or even after import.)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 405221] Review Request: kdebase3 - K Desktop Environment 3 - core 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: kdebase3 - K Desktop Environment 3 - core files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=405221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: kdebase3 - K|Review Request: kdebase3 - K |Desktop Environment - core |Desktop Environment 3 - core |files |files Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 23:53 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: kdebase3 Short Description: K Desktop Environment 3 - core files Owners: than,rdieter,kkofler,svahl Branches: InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: no -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 386661] Review Request: writer2latex - OpenOffice.org to LaTeX/XHTML filter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: writer2latex - OpenOffice.org to LaTeX/XHTML filter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=386661 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 22:49 EST --- BuildRoot: is fixed. openoffice.org-* package scriptlets protected from failure. javadoc scriptlets banished. rpmlint is down t: openoffice.org-writer2latex.x86_64: W: no-documentation openoffice.org-writer2latex.x86_64: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/writer2latex.uno.pkg/writer2latex.jar writer2latex.x86_64: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/writer2latex-0.5.jar writer2latex.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML writer2latex-javadoc.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation all of which are OK. So everything looks good to me; APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 251536] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-diamondtouch - Xorg diamondtouch input driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-diamondtouch - Xorg diamondtouch input driver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251536 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 23:13 EST --- Any further news on this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 398081] Review Request: libfprint - Tool kit for fingerprint scanner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libfprint - Tool kit for fingerprint scanner https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=398081 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 21:55 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) Ok corrected There are the new files SPEC: http://pingoured.dyndns.org/public/RPM/libfprint/libfprint.spec SRPM: http://pingoured.dyndns.org/public/RPM/libfprint/libfprint-0.0.4-2.fc8.src.rpm Thanks You need to add following to -devel not main rpm Requires: pkgconfig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 407031] New: Review Request: pcapy - A Python interface to libpcap
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/show_bug.cgi?id=407031 Summary: Review Request: pcapy - A Python interface to libpcap Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: low Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] SPEC URL : http://zanoni/fedora/pcapy/pcapy.spec SRPM URL: http://zanoni/fedora/pcapy/pcapy-0.10.5-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: Pcapy is a Python extension module that interfaces with the libpcap packet capture library. Pcapy enables python scripts to capture packets on the network. Pcapy is highly effective when used in conjunction with a packet-handling package such as Impacket, which is a collection of Python classes for constructing and dissecting network packets. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 216536] Review Request: FuzzyOcr - Checks for specific keywords in image attachments
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: FuzzyOcr - Checks for specific keywords in image attachments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=216536 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247704] Review Request: gifsicle - Powerful program for manipulating GIF images and animations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gifsicle - Powerful program for manipulating GIF images and animations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=247704 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 254008] Review Request: objectweb-asm - Version 3.0 of the ObjectWeb ASM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: objectweb-asm - Version 3.0 of the ObjectWeb ASM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 18:38 EST --- [1] LICENSE.txt must be included as a documentation file. Nice catch, I wonder why their dist target does not copy it over. Anyway, I am adding it as %doc in the next spin. [2] README.txt and LICENSE.txt both must have their end-of-line encodings fixed. I inspected both files and they don't have any EOL problems. Seem to be fine ix terminated lines. Why do you think there is a problem? [3] The package xml-commons-apis (or maybe just jaxp) is both a BuildRequires and a Requires, due to its use in the org.objectweb.asm.xml package. I am 100% sure it builds without it, so it is not a build requires. I did not see any target doing conditional compilation of classes based on its presence either. In any case, 'ant' itself brings jaxp, so it could be assumed (I removed with nodeps for testing). I checked the ASM web site http://asm.objectweb.org/ and could not find any reference about the need of xml-commons for anything. Yet you say it should be a run-time dependency. Is it something optional? But if it is, unless it is used by reflection, we should have needed it at build time too. An optional dependency perhaps? We don't add Requires for those. I will wait for your comments on the above before uploading the one with [1] fixed as I may be missing something. Thanks again for the reviewing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 405221] Review Request: kdebase3 - K Desktop Environment 3 - core 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: kdebase3 - K Desktop Environment 3 - core files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=405221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-01 00:13 EST --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 320421] Review Request: cwrite - console editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cwrite - console editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=320421 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 389151] Review Request: xchat-ruby - X-Chat plugin adding Ruby scripting functionality
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xchat-ruby - X-Chat plugin adding Ruby scripting functionality https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=389151 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 15:30 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: xchat-ruby Short Description: An X-Chat plugin providing scripting functionality with Ruby Owners: konradm Branches: F-7 F-8 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 242416] Review Request: texlive - Binaries for the TeX formatting system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: texlive - Binaries for the TeX formatting system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=242416 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 14:41 EST --- Yes, you are right. APPROVED! It will be easier to find out the post script issues with the package in rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 216536] Review Request: FuzzyOcr - Checks for specific keywords in image attachments
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: FuzzyOcr - Checks for specific keywords in image attachments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=216536 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |m) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 13:43 EST --- I'm afraid I've lost interest and time. If someone else could take over, that would be great. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 387261] Review Request: libcmpiutil - Utility library for CIM providers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libcmpiutil - Utility library for CIM providers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=387261 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 13:30 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: libcmpiutil Short Description: Utility library for CIM providers Owners: danms Branches: InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: No -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 398791] Review Request: BlockOutII - A free adaptation of the original BlockOut DOS 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: BlockOutII - A free adaptation of the original
BlockOut DOS game
Alias: BlockOutII
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=398791
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 12:51 EST ---
REVIEW CHECKLIST
- rpmlint output
BlockOutII.x86_64: E: invalid-desktopfile
/usr/share/applications/fedora-BlockOutII.desktop
see comment #8
- package named according to package naming guidelines
- spec filename matches %{name}
- package meets packaging guidelines
- package licensed with fedora approved license
- license matches actual license
- license file in %doc
- written in American english
- spec file legible
- sources match upstream:
$ diff -ur BlockOutII-2.3/ ../SOURCES/BlockOutII-2.3
Only in BlockOutII-2.3/BlockOut/sounds: music.mp3
Only in ../SOURCES/BlockOutII-2.3/BlockOut/sounds: music.ogg
- successfully compiles and builds on F-7 x86_64
- All dependencies listed in BR
- no locales
- no shared libraries
- package is not relocatable
- package owns all directories it creates
- all other directories brought in from requires
- no duplicates in %files
- contains proper %clean
- macro usage is consistent
- contains code
- no large documentation
- no header files
- no static libraries
- no pkgconfig files
- package contains proper desktop file
see comment #7
- package does not own files or directories owned by other packages
- buildroot removed at beginning of %install
- all filenames valid UTF-8
SHOULD FIX
- investigate why 1024x768 does not display properly in full screen (are you
able to reproduce)
- file bug mention in comment #7
APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 283721] Review Request: bolzplatz2006 - Slam Soccer 2006 is a funny football game in 3D-comic-style
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bolzplatz2006 - Slam Soccer 2006 is a funny football game in 3D-comic-style https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=283721 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 12:31 EST --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 235234] Review Request: aoetools - ATA over Ethernet 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: aoetools - ATA over Ethernet Tools Alias: aoetools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=235234 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 12:28 EST --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 299171] Review Request: eclipse-slide - SELinux Polciy IDE Eclipse Plugin
Please 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-slide - SELinux Polciy IDE Eclipse Plugin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=299171 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 12:34 EST --- Update your srpm if you have some fixes for it (now I approved eclipse-setools) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 390571] Review Request: eclipse-setools - SETools Eclipse Plugin
Please 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-setools - SETools Eclipse Plugin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=390571 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 11:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #17) I have been creating Source0 by an export from svn and creating a tar from that - as noted in the SPEC file (lines 28-34). I'm wondering if it would be better to actually build and post the source tarball and use that as Source0 to avoid the svn1997 stuff in the RPM name. You are saying that you are the upstream and you can put the 3.3.2 tarball somewhere so that we can download it directly? It is very preferable. I think I understand what you are saying. You are saying that because the source is pulled from svn use the svn1997 naming for the RPM. Yes. But, once the 3.3.2 version is released (and tarball posted) then change the Source0 to reference to tarball and RPM name to 3.3.2-X. Yes, but this means that the formal 3.3.2 is *not yet released*? If my understanding is correct, for now use must use 3.3.2-0.X.svn. We expects: 3.3.2-0.1.svn1998 - 3.3.2-0.2.svn1998 - 3.3.2-0.3.svn2000 - 3.3.2-0.4.svn2002 - (3.3.2 tarball is released) - 3.3.2-1 - 3.3.2-2 - .. - 3.3.3-0.1.svn2100 - -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 405221] Review Request: kdebase3 - K Desktop Environment - core 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: kdebase3 - K Desktop Environment - core files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=405221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 180743] Review Request: pdsh
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pdsh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=180743 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 407041] Review Request: pcapdiff - Compares packet captures, detects forged, dropped or mangled packets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pcapdiff - Compares packet captures, detects forged, dropped or mangled packets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=407041 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 21:49 EST --- Unable to download SRPM -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 216534] Review Request: gocr - GNU Optical Character Recognition program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gocr - GNU Optical Character Recognition program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=216534 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 245357] Review Request: libopensync-plugin-syncml - plugin for using syncml with opensync
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libopensync-plugin-syncml - plugin for using syncml with opensync https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=245357 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 246351] Review Request: libopensync-plugin-gnokii - plugin for using gnokii with opensync
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libopensync-plugin-gnokii - plugin for using gnokii with opensync https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=246351 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 275081] Review Request: xenwatch - Virtualization utilities, mostly for Xen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xenwatch - Virtualization utilities, mostly for Xen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=275081 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 398471] Review Request: lipstik - Lipstik style for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lipstik - Lipstik style for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=398471 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 16:00 EST --- I mean a comment in the spec file. Information for the next generations. ;) There's one more thing. lipstik.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/lipstik-2.2.3/ChangeLog Simply run iconv on this file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 352761] Review Request: ds9 - Astronomical Data Visualization Application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ds9 - Astronomical Data Visualization Application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=352761 Bug 352761 depends on bug 333081, which changed state. Bug 333081 Summary: Programs linked with blt cannot find the libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=333081 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||ERRATA --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 10:54 EST --- Well, although upstream is willing to fix the problem with the file FlexLexer.h, it will probably pass another month until they find the time to do it. So I have created a new package with a temporal workaround: * I have downloaded from the flex CVS a version of FlexLexer.h with an updated license (it's release 1.22) * I have created a tarball without the offending FlexLexer.h In both cases I have tried to follow the guidelines in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL So these are the updated specfile and SRPM: SPEC: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/ds9.spec SRPM: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/ds9-5.0-2.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 235236] Review Request: vblade - Virtual EtherDrive (R) blade daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vblade - Virtual EtherDrive (R) blade daemon Alias: vblade https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=235236 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 11:05 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: vblade New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 235234] Review Request: aoetools - ATA over Ethernet 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: aoetools - ATA over Ethernet Tools Alias: aoetools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=235234 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 11:04 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: aoetools New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 400521] Review Request: qemu-launcher - A graphical front-end to Qemu virtual machines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qemu-launcher - A graphical front-end to Qemu virtual machines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=400521 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 405901] Review Request: libconfig - C/C++ configuration file 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: libconfig - C/C++ configuration file library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=405901 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 10:58 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) Good points. Fixed. New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/libconfig.spec New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/libconfig-1.2-3.fc9.src.rpm As expected, this does not build... http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=267299 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 390571] Review Request: eclipse-setools - SETools Eclipse Plugin
Please 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-setools - SETools Eclipse Plugin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=390571 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 14:52 EST --- Ok, I have gone through the 'Get a Fedora Account' experience. I am requesting sponsorship. I have corrected the changelog. Thanks for all your help and patience! I have also updated the eclipse-slide.spec while going through this one so it shouldn't be to far off. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 386531] Review Request: kuftp - Graphical FTP Client for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kuftp - Graphical FTP Client for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=386531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 10:41 EST --- Update to version 0.9.1 and added install and thanks file to %doc SPEC URL: http://yasha.alfahosting.org/kuftp.spec SRPM URL: http://yasha.alfahosting.org/kuftp-0.9.1-1.fc8.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 405901] Review Request: libconfig - C/C++ configuration file 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: libconfig - C/C++ configuration file library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=405901 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 10:28 EST --- Good points. Fixed. New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/libconfig.spec New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/libconfig-1.2-3.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 393421] Review Request: kdebase-workspace - K Desktop Environment - Workspace
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebase-workspace - K Desktop Environment - Workspace https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=393421 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 12:32 EST --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 390571] Review Request: eclipse-setools - SETools Eclipse Plugin
Please 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-setools - SETools Eclipse Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=390571
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 09:55 EST ---
(In reply to comment #15)
You are suggesting the 1997svn because the source is being pulled from an SVN
tree directly? Would it be better to generate and post a source tarball from
the SVN tree and use that in Source0?
Umm? What do you mean by the second sentence? Is the tarball
currently used as Source0 is not from SVN tree?
I am suggesting 1997svn because your spec file reads that
you created Source0 from svn repository and when I tried the
current revision seems 1997.
And 3.3.2-X vs 3.3.2-0.X because of the versioning of the dependency
setools-java-libs?
No. As written by http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines ,
if the tarball used as Source0 is the pre-release of 3.3.2
you should use 3.3.2-0.X for EVR of Fedora rpm. If not
(i.e. if the tarball used as Source0 is after the release of 3.3.2),
you should use 3.3.2-X
The 3.3.2 release is 'formal'. If there are code changes in
the future the version will go to 3.3.3 (or higher). I don't think this rpm
should care about the -X of the setools-libs-java rpm.
X (this is a integer) is not related to setools. X means that
if you change the spec file of eclipse-setools, you should change
the EVR as 3.3.2-1, 3.3.2-2, . as before.
Personally I would like to leave the version as 3.3.2-X and post a source
tarball.
Well, would you write again how you created the Source0?
- If there is a URL from which we can download the tarball used
as Source0, use the URL as Source0 and use 3.3.2-{1,2,3,...} as
EVR.
- If you used svn to create souce tarball, you should use
3.3.2-2.svn1997 - 3.3.2-3.svn1997 - 3.3.2-4.svn1998 -
3.3.3-1.svn2000 (for example).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 405901] Review Request: libconfig - C/C++ configuration file 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: libconfig - C/C++ configuration file library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=405901 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 09:40 EST --- Missing a build requires on texinfo-tex for building the PDF docs and I get unpackaged files (/usr/share/info/dir dropping). rpmlint is clean, everything else looks pretty good -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 405901] New: Review Request: libconfig - C/C++ configuration file 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/show_bug.cgi?id=405901 Summary: Review Request: libconfig - C/C++ configuration file 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://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/libconfig.spec SRPM URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/libconfig-1.2-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: Libconfig is a simple library for manipulating structured configuration files. This file format is more compact and more readable than XML. And unlike XML, it is type-aware, so it is not necessary to do string parsing in application code. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 390571] Review Request: eclipse-setools - SETools Eclipse Plugin
Please 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-setools - SETools Eclipse Plugin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=390571 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 11:00 EST --- I have been creating Source0 by an export from svn and creating a tar from that - as noted in the SPEC file (lines 28-34). I'm wondering if it would be better to actually build and post the source tarball and use that as Source0 to avoid the svn1997 stuff in the RPM name. I think I understand what you are saying. You are saying that because the source is pulled from svn use the svn1997 naming for the RPM. But, once the 3.3.2 version is released (and tarball posted) then change the Source0 to reference to tarball and RPM name to 3.3.2-X. Is that correct? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 405901] Review Request: libconfig - C/C++ configuration file 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: libconfig - C/C++ configuration file library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=405901 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 10:15 EST --- *** Bug 264641 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 390571] Review Request: eclipse-setools - SETools Eclipse Plugin
Please 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-setools - SETools Eclipse Plugin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=390571 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 09:35 EST --- You are suggesting the 1997svn because the source is being pulled from an SVN tree directly? Would it be better to generate and post a source tarball from the SVN tree and use that in Source0? And 3.3.2-X vs 3.3.2-0.X because of the versioning of the dependency setools-java-libs? The 3.3.2 release is 'formal'. If there are code changes in the future the version will go to 3.3.3 (or higher). I don't think this rpm should care about the -X of the setools-libs-java rpm. Personally I would like to leave the version as 3.3.2-X and post a source tarball. What is your opinion? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 390571] Review Request: eclipse-setools - SETools Eclipse Plugin
Please 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-setools - SETools Eclipse Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=390571
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 09:06 EST ---
Well, I have not checked 3.3.2-2, however
* For source tarball
- In such case, I recommend to use
3.3.2-X.1997svn%{?dist} for EVR (if this is after the formal
3.3.2 release of eclipse-setools, otherwise I recommend
3.3.2-0.X.1997svn%{?dist}) where X is to be incremented as 1, 2,...
You can refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 390571] Review Request: eclipse-setools - SETools Eclipse Plugin
Please 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-setools - SETools Eclipse Plugin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=390571 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 08:44 EST --- Ok, I fixed the debuginfo-package and license. Good to know the ppc compiles ok. As for the SourceURL, the source is pulled from the svn repo and not the source tar file http://oss.tresys.com/projects/setools/wiki/download. This RPM is just depeding on the RPM built from that source (setools-java-libs.rpm and setools-libs.rpm). It is adding functionality on top of those rpms, which provide the java bindings into eclipse for slide and other eclipse plugins. Updated Links: SRPM: http://oss.tresys.com/projects/slide/chrome/site/srpm/eclipse-setools-3.3.2-2.src.rpm SPEC: http://oss.tresys.com/projects/slide/browser/trunk/build/SPEC/eclipse-setools.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 339021] Review Request: compizconfig-backend-gconf - GConf backend for compizconfig
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: compizconfig-backend-gconf - GConf backend for compizconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=339021 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 08:30 EST --- By the way, currently what causes this bug still open? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 390571] Review Request: eclipse-setools - SETools Eclipse Plugin
Please 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-setools - SETools Eclipse Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=390571
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 08:11 EST ---
Well, for 3.3.2-1:
* License
License is stated at public website
http://oss.tresys.com/projects/setools/wiki/license
- In this case, please use LGPLv2+.
(However, would you ask upstream developer to include license
text in the tarball from next version?)
* SourceURL
- Now as it seems you are using formally released tarball,
please write a full URL for Source0.
* rpmlint: E: empty-debuginfo-package
- For this package, the files under arch-specific directories
(i.e. %_libdir) are either text files or symlinks, so
debuginfo is useless for this package.
So please refer to the section Useless or incomplete debuginfo
packages due to other reasons of
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Debuginfo
and write in the spec file like:
---
Requires: setools-libs-java =
%{require_setools_major_ver}%{require_setools_fix_ver}
Requires: eclipse-platform
Requires: java-gcj-compat = 1.0.33
BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XX)
# Files under %%_libdir are either text files or symlinks to the libraries
# in setools-libs-java, so debuginfo rpm is useless.
%define debug_package %{nil}
%description
Note: in the comment or %changelog, please use %% so that macros
won't be expanded.
(In reply to comment #11)
I fixed the symlinks, but there is still some complaint about the .so files.
- Can be ignored for this package.
I was also messing with ppc support. While I can't test it, it might now
build.
- Actually this builds on all archs.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=267040
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 320421] Review Request: cwrite - console editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cwrite - console editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=320421 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 08:21 EST --- First of all, it seems that this is your first submit of review request. I guess you have to get sponsored, am I right? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 229180] Review Request: texlive-texmf - Architecture independent parts of the TeX formatting system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: texlive-texmf - Architecture independent parts of the TeX formatting system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=229180 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 07:14 EST --- Is this installable on f8, or will there be a backport for f8? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229180] Review Request: texlive-texmf - Architecture independent parts of the TeX formatting system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: texlive-texmf - Architecture independent parts of the TeX formatting system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=229180 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 07:05 EST --- Yes, I excluded the texlive-doc package from the repository, because of the limited quota. It should work fine as soon as texlive-texmf is in rawhide. BTW. texlive-texmf-0.14 is now in the repository. The only change is move from htmlview to xdg-open. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226237] Merge Review: pcmciautils
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: pcmciautils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226237 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 06:54 EST --- APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 242416] Review Request: texlive - Binaries for the TeX formatting system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: texlive - Binaries for the TeX formatting system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=242416 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 06:42 EST --- All you noted except postscript order is now fixed in 0.16, which I just uploaded. Since this version of TeXLive is now linked against poppler and the patched version of it is now applied in rawhide I think nothing hinders TeXLive inclusion to rawhide. After that we could have basic infrastructure like bugzilla for texlive component which is desperately needed. Tracking multiple issues in this single bugreport is a pain for me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225671] Merge Review: curl
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: curl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225671 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 06:25 EST --- Applied. Thanks Paul! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 389151] Review Request: xchat-ruby - X-Chat plugin adding Ruby scripting functionality
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xchat-ruby - X-Chat plugin adding Ruby scripting functionality https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=389151 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 06:27 EST --- Now I should be sponsoring you. Please continue Join process. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 283721] Review Request: bolzplatz2006 - Slam Soccer 2006 is a funny football game in 3D-comic-style
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bolzplatz2006 - Slam Soccer 2006 is a funny football game in 3D-comic-style https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=283721 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 05:45 EST --- At the first time some data start downloading and then nothing. I try to run it only on laptop without another lcd and change settings, but nothing happened. There's no response from programme only try to change screen and then nothing. If it's working for someone else, then it is ok. I'll give you +, because everything from the review point has been done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 226124] Merge Review: man-pages-es
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: man-pages-es https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226124 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 03:02 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) It seems that http://es.tldp.org/ does not work, shall we change it to http://ditec.um.es/~piernas/manpages-es/ ? I agree. IMHO it would be wise to contact upstream and telling them that this link isn't working too. BTW, I also reviewed man-pages-it (#226125) that share many issues with this package. Bye, Andrea. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 398081] Review Request: libfprint - Tool kit for fingerprint scanner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libfprint - Tool kit for fingerprint scanner https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=398081 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 21:46 EST --- I am really sorry to all. Don't know how come this goes off my bugzilla radar. Surely I want to review this. I think because of mock package changes by its maintainer I went into some problems in my local mock setup. And then I forgot this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 285571] Review Request: seekwatcher - IO visualization with blktrace
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: seekwatcher - IO visualization with blktrace https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=285571 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 17:45 EST --- And keeping up with chris http://people.redhat.com/esandeen/seekwatcher-rpm/seekwatcher-0.9-1.fc8.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 299171] Review Request: eclipse-slide - SELinux Polciy IDE Eclipse Plugin
Please 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-slide - SELinux Polciy IDE Eclipse Plugin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=299171 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 14:59 EST --- Yes, I have made fixes based on the experience of eclipse-setools. I have posted updated the SPEC and src.rpm Spec URL (same as before): http://oss.tresys.com/projects/slide/browser/trunk/build/SPEC/eclipse-slide.spec SRPM URL (new): http://oss.tresys.com/projects/slide/chrome/site/srpm/eclipse-slide-1.3.4-0.1.svn2002.src.rpm I guess this still needs to wait for eclipse-setools to actually be in rawhide though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 400441] Review Request: trac-iniadmin-plugin - Expose all TracIni options using the Trac 0.10 config option API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: trac-iniadmin-plugin - Expose all TracIni options using the Trac 0.10 config option API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=400441 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 390571] Review Request: eclipse-setools - SETools Eclipse Plugin
Please 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-setools - SETools Eclipse Plugin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=390571 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 12:05 EST --- Exactly, we are uptream for the eclispe-setools rpm and this is a pre-release. I have updated the version to eclipse-setools-3.3.2-0.2.svn1998 as requeested. SRPM: http://oss.tresys.com/projects/slide/chrome/site/srpm/eclipse-setools-3.3.2-0.2.svn1998.src.rpm SPEC: http://oss.tresys.com/projects/slide/browser/trunk/build/SPEC/eclipse-setools.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 398081] Review Request: libfprint - Tool kit for fingerprint scanner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libfprint - Tool kit for fingerprint scanner https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=398081 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 11:50 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) As I have also package pam_fprint, do you want me to upload it on the BZ ? So that you can do the two reviews on the same time and therefore test if the packages work. For different packages, please file a new review request. By the way, are you reviewing this package, Parag? (You seem to have set fedora-cvs flag). If so, please change the status of this bug appropriately. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 399721] Review Request: fusion icon - Compiz Fusion panel applet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fusion icon - Compiz Fusion panel applet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=399721 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 320421] Review Request: cwrite - console editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: cwrite - console editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=320421
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 10:25 EST ---
For general packaging guideline, you can refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
Well, for 0.1.12-1:
* License tag
- Now the license tag GPL is invalid for Fedora.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
* SourceURL
- Please write the correct URL for Source0
(Correct here means that from the written URL we can
download the tarball used in srpm directly by wget -N,
for example).
* Parallel make support
- Support parallel make if possible (please refer to
the section Parallel make of Guildlines wiki page.
* Timestamps
- When you use cp or install commands in spec file,
please add -p option to keep timestamps on installed
files.
* chmod in %post
- Why is this needed?
* info scriptlet
- Please refer to the section Texinfo of
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
* defattr
- Now we recommend %defattr(-,root,root,-)
* Directory ownership issue
-
%files
%{_datadir}/%{name}/*
-
- This causes:
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ LANG=C rpm -qf /usr/share/cwrite/help.txt
cwrite-0.1.12-1.fc9
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ LANG=C rpm -qf /usr/share/cwrite
file /usr/share/cwrite is not owned by any package
-
i.e. the directory %_includedir/%name is not owned by any package.
You can fix this by
-
%files
%{_datadir}/%{name}/
-
This contains the directory %_datadir/%name itself *and*
all files/directories/etc under %_datadir/%name.
* Changelog
- The contents of %changelog is strange :)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 405901] Review Request: libconfig - C/C++ configuration file 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: libconfig - C/C++ configuration file library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=405901 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 10:13 EST --- pkgconfig dep should also be in the -devel package, not the main package. And looking at the actual docs, they're docs for using the library and so belong more in the -devel package than the main one and then the appropriate scriptlet and requires move -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 403991] Review Request: mythes-cs - Czech thesaurus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mythes-cs - Czech thesaurus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=403991 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 02:58 EST --- built -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 404001] Review Request: mythes-de - German thesaurus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mythes-de - German thesaurus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=404001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 03:10 EST --- built -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 404011] Review Request: mythes-pl - Polish thesaurus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mythes-pl - Polish thesaurus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=404011 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 03:16 EST --- built -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 283721] Review Request: bolzplatz2006 - Slam Soccer 2006 is a funny football game in 3D-comic-style
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bolzplatz2006 - Slam Soccer 2006 is a funny football game in 3D-comic-style https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=283721 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 03:49 EST --- Now I have only one problem, the game isn't running for me. Maybe that's because of my two lcd's. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 225671] Merge Review: curl
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: curl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225671 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 05:27 EST --- A few more quickies: 1. curl no longer dlopens the LDAP libraries; instead it links to them conventionally. So the ldap_version macro definition and --with-ldap-lib/--with-lber-lib configure options are no longer needed. A buildreq of openldap-devel needs adding though. 2. How about enabling LDAPS support (--enable-ldaps)? 3. A buildreq of krb5-devel needs to be added to re-enable GSSAPI support; this used to get pulled in by openssl-devel but nss-devel doesn't do it. 4. The conditional if pkg-config nss seems redundant since the nss-devel buildreq will ensure that it's always true. I'd simplify things by removing the if statement entirely and replace it with: export CPPFLAGS=$(pkg-config --cflags nss) -DHAVE_PK11_CREATEGENERICOBJECT This way, CFLAGS doesn't need to be specified in the subsequent make command either. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 283721] Review Request: bolzplatz2006 - Slam Soccer 2006 is a funny football game in 3D-comic-style
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bolzplatz2006 - Slam Soccer 2006 is a funny football game in 3D-comic-style https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=283721 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 05:30 EST --- Hmm, Thats strange, it worked fine for me last time I tried it, you are launching it through the shell script, and it does first download the needed datafiles? What error do you get? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 226236] Merge Review: pciutils
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: pciutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226236 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 06:35 EST --- The only thing I see missing is keeping timestamps http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-0239576e441f9ef53d175c4aec8c12868dffb5ab Otherwise packaging looks ok to me. rpmlint is silent. Thought static library should be in -static package but its not good to have -static for single file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226237] Merge Review: pcmciautils
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: pcmciautils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226237 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||fedora-review+, needinfo? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 06:48 EST --- rpmlint gave pcmciautils.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided pcmcia-cs pcmciautils.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided kernel-pcmcia-cs you SHOULD use make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL=install -p to preserve timestamps. Rest looks ok. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226236] Merge Review: pciutils
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: pciutils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226236
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 06:52 EST ---
ohh. Missing some -devel things here
- MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).
Also, is following needed here?
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 283721] Review Request: bolzplatz2006 - Slam Soccer 2006 is a funny football game in 3D-comic-style
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bolzplatz2006 - Slam Soccer 2006 is a funny football game in 3D-comic-style https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=283721 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-30 06:56 EST --- Thanks for the review and the trust! I'll make sure to double check it still works for me on both i386/i810 video and x86_64/radeon video. It worked fine there when I initially packaged it, but maybe something else has changed causing problems. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: bolzplatz2006 Short Description: Slam Soccer 2006 is a funny football game in 3D-comic-style Owners:jwrdegoede Branches: F-8 devel InitialCC: empty Cvsextras Commits: Yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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
