[Bug 225792] Merge Review: gfs2-utils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gfs2-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225792 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||429769 -- 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 169971] Review Request: libqalculate - Multi-purpose calculator 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: libqalculate - Multi-purpose calculator library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=169971 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|fedora-extras- | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | CC||fedora-package- ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC|fedora-package- | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | CC||fedora-extras- ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||393721 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 326421] Review Request: xmds - the eXtensible Multi-Dimensional Simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xmds - the eXtensible Multi-Dimensional Simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=326421 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 05:01 EST --- Hi Patrice, sorry for the long delay in replying to your most recent message, I've only just now got the tuits to work on xmds again. The current version of xmds is 1.6.5 and I've merged many of your comments into the xmds trunk in order to reduce the packaging overhead (it's still not perfect though...). (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > > I've added the pdf docs (which is all that gets released now; we used to > > release > > the LaTeX sources as well... Maybe it'd be better to merge the two back > > together again). > > What is the license of the pdf? The license of the pdf is the same as the software itself: GPL, however, in the rpms I'm linking to now, the pdf isn't included as it wasn't that easy to add the pdf to the rpm easily *and* have the other documentation installed via the Makefiles etc. (the directory got removed and newly created, hence all the files which had been installed were lost, and only the pdf remained). How would an xmds-doc package be as a replacement? One could then have the source rpms for the tex files etc if anyone's keen. We've also updated the naming scheme of xmds, so the current version doesn't have '-' in it anymore :-) The library and header placement has also been improved since the last version you would have seen, so I hope the rpms meet the requirements and that xmds can soon become a part of Fedora. The rpms are: Spec URL: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/xmds/xmds-1.6.5.spec SRPM URL: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/xmds/xmds-1.6.5.src.rpm The spec file has the version in it to keep the sourceforge site happy, this is *not* how it appears in the xmds repository. Thanks, as always, for your help! -- 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 248431] Review Request: perl-Net-FTPServer - Secure, extensible and configurable Perl FTP server
Please 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-FTPServer - Secure, extensible and configurable Perl FTP server Alias: perl-Net-FTPServer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=248431 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 04:59 EST --- In a few days ... I'm going to be very busy this week. -- 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 222998] Review Request: iDesk - Desktop icons and background for minimal WMs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: iDesk - Desktop icons and background for minimal WMs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=222998 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 05:38 EST --- OK. Fixed the source URL and added a less intrusive example. * Sat Apr 07 2008 - 0.7.5-5 - Modified example. (+Required files) - Missing REQ: xterm. - Fix source URL. Spec URL: http://gilboadavara.thecodergeek.com/idesk.spec SRPM URL: http://gilboadavara.thecodergeek.com/idesk-0.7.5-5.fc8.src.rpm -- 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 436817] Review Request: fusecompress - FUSE based compressed filesystem implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fusecompress - FUSE based compressed filesystem implementation Alias: fusecompress-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436817 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 07:19 EST --- Thanks Peter, thanks Kevin. Imported and 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 438804] Review Request: php-pear-Auth - provides methods for creating an authentication system using PHP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Auth - provides methods for creating an authentication system using PHP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438804 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 08:26 EST --- I think the sub-packages would just include the specific container files and appropriate Requires: lines... For example, a php-pear-Auth-LDAP might have these specific bits: Requires: php-ldap %files /usr/share/pear/Auth/Container/LDAP.php (appropriate macros used of course) I'm not certain if it's terribly necessary to split up however, though it would likely be the only way to be able to ensure that a particular component would have the right bits installed without the main package requiring everything under the sun... -- 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 441164] Review Request: fedorainfinity-backgrounds - Fedora Infinity desktop backgrounds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: fedorainfinity-backgrounds - Fedora Infinity desktop
backgrounds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441164
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 09:08 EST ---
- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
$ rpmlint fedorainfinity-backgrounds-0.0.4-1.fc9.src.rpm
fedorainfinity-backgrounds.src: W: no-%build-section
Fine to ignore, nothing to build.
$ rpmlint
/home/hadess/Projects/packages/RPMS/noarch/fedorainfinity-backgrounds-0.0.4-1.fc8.noarch.rpm
fedorainfinity-backgrounds.noarch: W: no-documentation
Might a good idea to include a link to the "upstream" website.
- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK.
- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines.
OK.
- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
OK.
- MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
OK.
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
OK.
- MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
Would be better if the upstream tarball included a COPYING file.
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK, although "which was the default theme for Fedora 8." Just saying "the
default theme for Fedora 8".
- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable
to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not
the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/).
OK.
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK, Matthias is upstream
- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
OK.
- MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to
the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries
during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment
until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the
long explanation with the bug number. (Extras Only) The bug should be marked as
blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues:
FE-ExcludeArch-x86, FE-ExcludeArch-x64, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64
- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
- MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
- MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each
subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig.
- MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
N/A.
- MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.
OK.
- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
OK.
- MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%d
[Bug 214751] Review Request: xview - XView widget libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xview - XView widget libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214751 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 09:18 EST --- No progress... (gee, time flies...) -- 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 432259] Review Request: speech-dispatcher - Required for speech synthesis on OLPC XO
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: speech-dispatcher - Required for speech synthesis on OLPC XO https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432259 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 10:06 EST --- Hi, The latest srpm is at : http://www.nsitonline.in/hemant/stuff/speechd-rpm/speech-dispatcher-0.6.6-4.fc7.src.rpm The spec file is at : http://www.nsitonline.in/hemant/stuff/speechd-rpm/speech-dispatcher.spec I had written an explanation for selective make installs in this spec file before... Here it is again : I ve made updates to fix the issues you described. speech-dispatcher-0.6.6 installs the python packages into /usr/lib/ by default unless I dont mention the prefix explicitly in ./configure Since you advised me to avoid that, I have installed python modules directly using the setuptools file provided. Also to prevent make install from breaking when it tries to install python packages to /usr/lib I have written separate make install for all the src directories which must be installed. I am not sure if this is advisable, but could not figure out a better approach. dotconf package request has been made, and I hope that it will be resolved soon. Thanks! -- 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 434880] Review Request: tanukiwrapper - Java Service Wrapper
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tanukiwrapper - Java Service Wrapper https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434880 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 11:25 EST --- I am jmrodri one of the two co-maintainers listed on the page from comment #3. -- 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 433778] Review Request: fsvs - full system versioning using subversion repositories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fsvs - full system versioning using subversion repositories https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433778 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 11:23 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: fsvs Short Description: Fast System VerSioning versioning for file trees using subversion Owners: davidf Branches: F-7 F-8 InitialCC: none 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 434880] Review Request: tanukiwrapper - Java Service Wrapper
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tanukiwrapper - Java Service Wrapper https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434880 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 11:24 EST --- I was trying to take over this package but I didn't have the right credentials to take ownership of it. I was told to resubmit it for review to beat the deadline. I would be happy to take the package for fedora 7 and 8 branches. -- 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 435829] Review Request: tomcat6 - Apache Servlet/JSP Engine, RI for Servlet 2.5/JSP 2.1 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: tomcat6 - Apache Servlet/JSP Engine, RI for Servlet
2.5/JSP 2.1 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435829
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 11:49 EST ---
SRPM URL:
http://dwalluck.fedorapeople.org/tomcat6/tomcat6-6.0.16-1jpp.7.fc9.src.rpm
More on the changes:
The initscript should be fixed to only call pgrep if the PID file doesn't exist.
If the PID file exists, the built-in status function can be used.
I have moved d%{name} to %{name} and created a symlink for d%{name}. In the
tomcat5 package, the scripts are different files, and %{name} launches d%{name}
with the tomcat user. Note that these scripts are in %{_sbindir} which should be
more correct according to FHS, whereas the tomcat5 package has them in
%{_bindir).
--
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 436894] Review Request: universalindentgui - Gui for Reformatting Source
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: universalindentgui - Gui for Reformatting Source https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436894 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 11:58 EST --- Please see: http://nbecker.fedorapeople.org/universalindentgui-0.8.1-1.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 438932] Review Request: libotf - Library for handling OpenType Font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libotf - Library for handling OpenType Font https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438932 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 12:01 EST --- You mean only install example/*.c and not Makefile? I think the original (including Makefile and .deps) is better - at least it has then a working Makefile. -- 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 433778] Review Request: fsvs - full system versioning using subversion repositories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fsvs - full system versioning using subversion repositories https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433778 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 12:02 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 440269] Review Request: fedora-ds-dsgw - Directory Server Gateway web apps for Fedora Directory Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fedora-ds-dsgw - Directory Server Gateway web apps for Fedora Directory Server Alias: fedora-ds-dsgw https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=440269 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 12:33 EST --- Thanks guys! -- 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 440679] Review Request: lua-sql - Database connectivity for Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lua-sql - Database connectivity for Lua https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=440679 [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 438804] Review Request: php-pear-Auth - provides methods for creating an authentication system using PHP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Auth - provides methods for creating an authentication system using PHP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438804 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 12:51 EST --- Dave, can you access the #fedora-devel channel on the freenode IRC network? I prefer this form of communication for those I sponsor. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate#IRC -- 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 439117] Review Request: preupgrade - Preresolves dependencies and prepares a system for an upgrade
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: preupgrade - Preresolves dependencies and prepares a
system for an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439117
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 12:51 EST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Builds fine. rpmlint says:
> preupgrade.src: W: strange-permission preupgrade.spec 0600
> which is a little weird but isn't a blocker. (If it were 666, that would be a
> problem.)
artifact of rpmbuild -ts file.tar.gz :)
> Is there no URL where the source can be downloaded? Where does the tarball
> come
> from?
not yet, we've not exactly made an official release, yet.
> BuildRoot should be one of the values from
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot or at minimum
> should include %{release} in addition to what's there.
fixed.
> You can shorten BuildArchitectures: as BuildArch: if you like to save typing.
> (I only mention it because vim highlights it oddly; the 'itectures' is a
> different color.)
fixed.
>
> You can remove the tests that ensure the buildroot isn't '/'; rpmbuild does
> that
> for you.
fixed.
>
> I was under the impression that Red Hat-developed code was GPLv2 only. Not
> really my business as the License: tag matches the source code, but I figured
> I'd ask.
that's news to me. Where did you see that?
>
> I notice you don't use the dist tag. Your choice, of course; I assume you
> know
> how to deal with its absence.
we'll add it b/c we will need it.
--
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 440679] Review Request: lua-sql - Database connectivity for Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lua-sql - Database connectivity for Lua https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=440679 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 13:03 EST --- luaforge.net seems to be down at the moment; I'll wait a bit to see if it comes back up before 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 441343] New: Review Request: guilt - Scripts to manage quilt-like patches on top of git
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=441343 Summary: Review Request: guilt - Scripts to manage quilt-like patches on top of git Product: Fedora Version: rawhide 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://sandeen.fedorapeople.org/guilt-package/guilt.spec SRPM URL: http://sandeen.fedorapeople.org/guilt-package/guilt-0.29-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: Guilt allows one to use quilt functionality on top of a Git repository. Changes are maintained as patches which are committed into Git. Commits can be removed or reordered, and the underlying patch can be refreshed based on changes made in the working directory. The patch directory can also be placed under revision control, so you can have a separate history of changes made to your patches. F9 koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=554591 -- 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 432259] Review Request: speech-dispatcher - Required for speech synthesis on OLPC XO
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: speech-dispatcher - Required for speech synthesis on OLPC XO https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432259 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 13:42 EST --- Does not build at least on i386 and x86_64 (dist-f9) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=554609 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=554614 I have not checked your srpm at all, however: - Why do you disable some configure optional dependency by default? -- 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 441186] Review Request: freenx-server - Free Software (GPL) Implementation of the NX Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: freenx-server - Free Software (GPL) Implementation of the NX Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441186 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 14:43 EST --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPLv2) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 961913bb82ee6e60d8df6f10e647bda9 freenx-server-0.7.2.tar.gz 961913bb82ee6e60d8df6f10e647bda9 ../rpm/freenx-server-0.7.2/freenx-server-0.7.2.tar.gz OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. Why have Release already at 6? This is a version bump from the old one, so I would think it should be able to start again at 1? 2. rpmlint says: freenx-server.src:20: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/cups/backend freenx-server.src:95: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/cups/backend/nxsmb freenx-server.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/nxserver 0700 freenx-server.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/nxserver/db 0700 freenx-server.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/nxserver/db/closed 0700 freenx-server.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/nxserver/db/failed 0700 freenx-server.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/nxserver/db/running 0700 freenx-server.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/nxserver/home 0700 freenx-server.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/nxserver/home/.ssh 0700 freenx-server.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/nx 0700 freenx-server.x86_64: E: non-standard-uid /etc/logrotate.d/freenx nx freenx-server.x86_64: E: non-standard-uid /etc/nxserver/node.conf.sample nx freenx-server.x86_64: E: non-standard-uid /etc/nxserver nx freenx-server.x86_64: E: non-standard-uid /var/lib/nxserver/db/closed nx freenx-server.x86_64: E: non-standard-uid /var/lib/nxserver/db/failed nx freenx-server.x86_64: E: non-standard-uid /var/lib/nxserver/db nx freenx-server.x86_64: E: non-standard-uid /var/lib/nxserver/db/running nx freenx-server.x86_64: E: non-standard-uid /var/lib/nxserver/home nx freenx-server.x86_64: E: non-standard-uid /var/lib/nxserver/home/.ssh/authorized_keys nx freenx-server.x86_64: E: non-standard-uid /var/lib/nxserver/home/.ssh nx freenx-server.x86_64: E: non-standard-uid /var/lib/nxserver nx freenx-server.x86_64: E: non-standard-uid /var/log/nx nx freenx-server.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post mv freenx-server.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /var/lib/nxserver/home/.ssh/authorized_keys /etc/nxserver/server.id_dsa.pub.key freenx-server.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/nxserver/home/.ssh freenx-server.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/nxserver/home/.ssh freenx-server.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/nxserver/node.conf.sample freenx-server.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/freenx-server-0.7.2/nxsetup freenx-server.x86_64: W: symlink-should-be-relative /var/lib/nxserver/home/.ssh/authorized_keys /etc/nxserver/server.id_dsa.pub.key All these can be ignored I think. freenx-server.x86_64: E: incoherent-logrotate-file /etc/logrotate.d/freenx perhaps re-name the logrotate file to 'freenx-server' ? Both of those issues are pretty minor, so if you could address them before you import, that would be great. This package is 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 441187] Review Request: freenx-client - Free client libraries and binaries for the NX protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: freenx-client - Free client libraries and binaries for
the NX protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441187
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 14:56 EST ---
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
See below - License
See below - License field in spec matches
See below - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
777b3cda7a245e3870d4870a9460cb73 freenx-client-0.9.tar.bz2
777b3cda7a245e3870d4870a9460cb73 freenx-client-0.9.tar.bz2.1
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install
See below - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
See below - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
See below - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
See below - .so files in -devel subpackage.
See below - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
See below - .la files are removed.
See below - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
See below - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane:
SHOULD Items:
OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
Issues:
1. Fix the description. ;)
2. The License seems to be GPLv2+ here. All the code I can see has the 'or
later'
in it. Can you confirm and adjust the License tag? Also, you might ping upstream
to include a copy of the GPL and ship it once they do?
3. Minor/nitpick: Can this package (and now that I think of it, the server as
well)
use %{?_smp_mflags}?
4. Might split off those devel files to a devel subpackage?
Or if there isn't much point now, perhaps remove them for now?
5. Might consider making a desktop file for the clients?
6. rpmlint says:
freenx-client.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/nxcl/nxclientlib.h
freenx-client.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/nxcl/notQt.h
freenx-client.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/nxcl/nxdata.h
freenx-client.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/pkgconfig/nxcl.pc
freenx-client.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/nxcl/nxclientlib_i18n.h
freenx-client.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/nxcl/nxsession.h
freenx-client.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libnxcl.so
freenx-client.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/nxcl/nxcl.h
freenx-client.i386: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/libnxcl.so.1.0.0
freenx-client.i386: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/libnxcl.so.1.0.0
All would be fixed by nuking the devel files or shipping them in a devel
subpackage.
--
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 439117] Review Request: preupgrade - Preresolves dependencies and prepares a system for an upgrade
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: preupgrade - Preresolves dependencies and prepares a system for an upgrade https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439117 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 15:08 EST --- okay so: 1. added the source path and url 2. put up a new src.rpm and spec file at: http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade/ let me know if this passes muster. -- 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 435829] Review Request: tomcat6 - Apache Servlet/JSP Engine, RI for Servlet 2.5/JSP 2.1 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: tomcat6 - Apache Servlet/JSP Engine, RI for Servlet 2.5/JSP 2.1 API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435829 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 15:32 EST --- Looks good. 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 226480] Merge Review: tclx
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: tclx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226480 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 15:34 EST --- All the packages I have reviewed have the bcond macro now. It is not only eye-candy. The use of such conditional is much simpler than one that needs a define. I can do the patch if you want to. -- 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 441378] New: Review Request: smokeping - Latency Logging and Graphing System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441378 Summary: Review Request: smokeping - Latency Logging and Graphing System Product: Fedora Version: rawhide 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://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/smokeping/smokeping.spec SRPM URL: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/smokeping/smokeping-2.3.5-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: SmokePing is a latency logging and graphing system. It consists of a daemon process which organizes the latency measurements and a CGI which presents the graphs. Note rrdtool is currently broken in rawhide: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441359 making testing there somewhat difficult, however fc8 works. -- 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 441378] Review Request: smokeping - Latency Logging and Graphing 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: smokeping - Latency Logging and Graphing System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441378 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: smokeping - |Review Request: smokeping - |Latency Logging and Graphing|Latency Logging and Graphing |System |System --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 16:11 EST --- rpmlint says smokeping.src: E: unknown-key GPG#7666df64 Otherwise is ok on F8 -- 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 433497] Review Request: swing-layout - Natural layout for Swing panels
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: swing-layout - Natural layout for Swing panels Alias: swing-layout-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433497 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+, fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 16:14 EST --- Kevin, worked with Lubomir on last details. I see no other issues (except the distag, Lubomir is fixing it). -- 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 222998] Review Request: iDesk - Desktop icons and background for minimal WMs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: iDesk - Desktop icons and background for minimal WMs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=222998
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 16:17 EST ---
Doing a complete re-review since it has been a while...
OK - MUST: rpmlint is silent on all packages
OK - MUST: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - MUST: Spec file name matches base package %{name}
OK - MUST: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
OK - MUST: The package is licensed BSD and meets the Licensing Guidelines.
OK - MUST: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license
OK - MUST: License from source is included in %doc.
OK - MUST: Spec is written in American English.
OK - MUST: Spec file is legible.
OK - MUST: Sources matches upstream by md5 beb48c97815c7b085e3b3d601297fbb8
OK - MUST: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64
OK - MUST: no known exclude archs
OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires
OK - MUST: Package is not relocatable
OK - MUST: Package owns all directories that it creates
OK - MUST: No duplicates in %files listing
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, valid %defattr
OK - MUST: Valid %clean section present
OK - MUST: Use of macros is consistent
OK - MUST: Package contains code, no content.
OK - MUST: No large documentation
OK - MUST: docs don't affect the runtime of the app
OK - MUST: No static libraries
OK - MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages
OK - MUST: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT called at beginning of %install.
OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm package are valid UTF-8.
OK - SHOULD: builds in mock
OK - SHOULD: package functions as described (even on x86_64 ;))
Suggestion: Renaming default_lnk.patch to
%{name}-%{version-when-patch-was-introduced}-default_lnk.patch will make your
life easier. ;)
Final question: Why do you remove folder_home.xpm?
Anyway, this package finally is 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 441378] Review Request: smokeping - Latency Logging and Graphing 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: smokeping - Latency Logging and Graphing System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441378 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 16:20 EST --- > rpmlint says smokeping.src: E: unknown-key GPG#7666df64 Yeah, my build scripts is adding a internal only gpg key. -- 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 434906] Review Request: xosview - OS resource viewer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xosview - OS resource viewer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434906 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 16:29 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) > Ok, let's work with this new spec file that you've just posted here -- > from the above comments, what is still applicable to the new spec file? Let's see: * License - Not looked into this. * SourceURL - Fixed * %configure - Fixed * Fedora specific compilation flags - Here Fedora uses optimization level "-O2" by default, which is replaced by the latter level "-O4" and Fedora does not allow this. - Fixed (I believe) * Macros - Fixed * Desktop file - Fixed (partly?) * rpmlint issue - rpmlint clean now spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/xosview/xosview.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/xosview/xosview-1.8.3-6.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 440353] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-geode
Please 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-geode https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=440353 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Flag||fedora-cvs+ -- 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 435829] Review Request: tomcat6 - Apache Servlet/JSP Engine, RI for Servlet 2.5/JSP 2.1 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: tomcat6 - Apache Servlet/JSP Engine, RI for Servlet 2.5/JSP 2.1 API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435829 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 16:59 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: tomcat6 Short Description: Apache Servlet/JSP Engine, RI for Servlet 2.5/JSP 2.1 API Owners: dwalluck Branches: F-9 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 440679] Review Request: lua-sql - Database connectivity for Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lua-sql - Database connectivity for Lua https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=440679 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 17:19 EST --- Yes, according to the mailing list they are restoring backups. Will take a few hours. I'll ping you if it comes back up. Maybe you can finish the review of the other two packages. These should be easy as I already incorporated your suggested changes. -- 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 438445] Review Request: python-cjson - Fast JSON encoder/decoder for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-cjson - Fast JSON encoder/decoder for Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- 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 438354] Review Request: python-decorator - Module to simplify usage of decorators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-decorator - Module to simplify usage of decorators https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438354 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- 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 440676] Review Request: lua-filesystem - File System Library for Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lua-filesystem - File System Library for Lua https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=440676 [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 440681] Review Request: luadoc - Documentation Generator Tool for Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luadoc - Documentation Generator Tool for Lua https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=440681 Bug 440681 depends on bug 440676, which changed state. Bug 440676 Summary: Review Request: lua-filesystem - File System Library for Lua https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=440676 What|Old Value |New Value 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 417511] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=417511 Bug 417511 depends on bug 435598, which changed state. Bug 435598 Summary: Review Request: joni - Java regexp library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435598 What|Old Value |New Value 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 433497] Review Request: swing-layout - Natural layout for Swing panels
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: swing-layout - Natural layout for Swing panels Alias: swing-layout-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433497 Bug 433497 depends on bug 435598, which changed state. Bug 435598 Summary: Review Request: joni - Java regexp library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435598 What|Old Value |New Value 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 435598] Review Request: joni - Java regexp 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: joni - Java regexp library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435598 [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 436239] Review Request: joda-time - Java date and time 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: joda-time - Java date and time API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436239 [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 417511] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=417511 Bug 417511 depends on bug 436239, which changed state. Bug 436239 Summary: Review Request: joda-time - Java date and time API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436239 What|Old Value |New Value 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 441411] New: Review Request: adonthell - A 2D graphical RPG game
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=441411 Summary: Review Request: adonthell - A 2D graphical RPG game Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://dl.free.fr/iWoKmtpoj/adonthell.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.free.fr/o4pMN1LvT/adonthell-0.3.4-0.6.fc8.src.rpm (this is a french host server, click on "Télécharger ce fichier" to download the files) Description: A 2D, graphical, single player role playing game inspired by good old console RPGs from the SNES like Secret of Mana or Chrono Trigger. This package contains the Adonthell engine. You will also need a game package to play Adonthell. For this release, the official package is Waste's Edge. Notes: 1. This is my first package submission :) 2. rpmlint runs fine, except for the adonthell-doc package: $ rpmlint RPMS/i386/adonthell-doc-0.3.4-0.6.fc8.i386.rpm adonthell-doc.i386: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/adonthell-doc-0.3.4/html/classmapsquare__area__coll__graph.map (same thing for a few other files) I am not very familiar with doxygen, so I don't know if those files can be safely removed or not... 3. Something is bugging me: the adonthell-debuginfo package does not depend on the adonthell package. Isn't that a problem? Did I forget something? 4. This is only a game engine, I'll submit a second package for Waste's Edge, which is a game using the Adonthell engine (I'll add a link to the other submission in the comments, might be better if the two were reviewed simultaneously). -- 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 441411] Review Request: adonthell - A 2D graphical RPG 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: adonthell - A 2D graphical RPG game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441411 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|rawhide |8 -- 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 433497] Review Request: swing-layout - Natural layout for Swing panels
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: swing-layout - Natural layout for Swing panels Alias: swing-layout-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433497 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 18:02 EST --- ok, cvs done. I assume the javadoc scriptlets mentioned in comment #6 will be removed before 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 435829] Review Request: tomcat6 - Apache Servlet/JSP Engine, RI for Servlet 2.5/JSP 2.1 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: tomcat6 - Apache Servlet/JSP Engine, RI for Servlet 2.5/JSP 2.1 API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435829 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 18:04 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 441415] New: Review Request: wastesedge - Official game package for Adonthell
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=441415 Summary: Review Request: wastesedge - Official game package for Adonthell Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://dl.free.fr/jLC82iDWw/wastesedge.spec SRPM URL: (this is a french host server, click on "Télécharger ce fichier" to download the files) Description: As a loyal servant of the elven Lady Silverhair, you arrive at the remote trading post of Waste's Edge, where she is engaged in negotiations with the dwarvish merchant Bjarn Fingolson. But not all is well at Waste's Edge, and soon you are confronted with circumstances that are about to destroy your mistress' high reputation. And you are the only one to avert this ... Notes: 1. This is my first package submission (along with the one in bug 441411). 2. This package depends on adonthell, which I submitted in bug 441411. -- 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 441411] Review Request: adonthell - A 2D graphical RPG 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: adonthell - A 2D graphical RPG game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441411 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 18:03 EST --- This package is needed for the one I submitted in bug 441415 (as I said in the submission) -- 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 438354] Review Request: python-decorator - Module to simplify usage of decorators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-decorator - Module to simplify usage of decorators https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438354 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 18:06 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 438445] Review Request: python-cjson - Fast JSON encoder/decoder for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-cjson - Fast JSON encoder/decoder for Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 18:09 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 440373] Review Request: smc-fonts - malayalam opentype fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: smc-fonts - malayalam opentype fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=440373 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 441415] Review Request: wastesedge - Official game package for Adonthell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wastesedge - Official game package for Adonthell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441415 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|rawhide |8 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 18:24 EST --- Sorry, I forgot the URL for the SRPM. Here it is: http://dl.free.fr/oTkAOMwRF/wastesedge-0.3.4-0.5.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 437960] Review Request: mac-robber - Tool to create a timeline of file activity for mounted file systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: mac-robber - Tool to create a timeline of file
activity for mounted file systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437960
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 18:30 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type:GPLv2+
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package:4d506e1a4f7c96ca9048432e376f8410140b9f8f
mac-robber-1.00.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[-] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on:devel/x86_64
[x] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
*** 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 321411] Review Request: ski - IA-64 user and system mode simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ski - IA-64 user and system mode simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=321411 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 19:21 EST --- This is looking good. You can get dir of the unused-direct-shlib-dependency complaints with another libtool hack: sed -i -e 's! -shared ! -Wl,--as-needed\0!g' libtool Since you're already hacking up libtool a bit, there's probably no reason not to do that as well (unless it breaks something, I guess). The remaining rpmlint complaints are: ski-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation Not a problem. ski-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on ski The -devel package depends on the -lib package, but not the main package. This also is not a problem. Most packages seem to use "-libs" for the library subpackage, but there are a few who use "-lib" and we don't seem to have any guidelines about it, so that's OK. There's a test suite in the "testsuite" directory; is this something which could be run at build time? Note that there's no need to include the COPYING twice. Just having it in the main package is sufficient, even if it's possible to install the software without installing that package. This isn't a blocker, though. * source files match upstream: 34b2a1b2575d6c8703df8f1f3980f7b668e744c4a03f20ed4ed91d40cf40c076 ski-1.3.2.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * 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 has acceptable complaints, but a few are trivially fixed if you care to. * final provides and requires are sane: ski-1.3.2-2.fc9.x86_64.rpm config(ski) = 1.3.2-2.fc9 ski = 1.3.2-2.fc9 = config(ski) = 1.3.2-2.fc9 libICE.so.6()(64bit) libORBit-2.so.0()(64bit) libSM.so.6()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXm.so.2()(64bit) libXp.so.6()(64bit) libXt.so.6()(64bit) libart_lgpl_2.so.2()(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libbonobo-2.so.0()(64bit) libbonobo-activation.so.4()(64bit) libbonoboui-2.so.0()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libelf.so.1()(64bit) libgconf-2.so.4()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglade-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgnome-2.so.0()(64bit) libgnomecanvas-2.so.0()(64bit) libgnomeui-2.so.0()(64bit) libgnomevfs-2.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpopt.so.0()(64bit) libski-1.3.so.2()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) ski-lib = 1.3.2-2.fc9 ski-devel-1.3.2-2.fc9.x86_64.rpm ski-devel = 1.3.2-2.fc9 = /bin/sh libski-1.3.so.2()(64bit) ski-lib = 1.3.2-2.fc9 ski-lib-1.3.2-2.fc9.x86_64.rpm libski-1.3.so.2()(64bit) ski-lib = 1.3.2-2.fc9 = /sbin/ldconfig libXm.so.2()(64bit) libXt.so.6()(64bit) libelf.so.1()(64bit) libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.0)(64bit) libglade-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libski-1.3.so.2()(64bit) ? %check is not present, but there's some sort of test suite included. * Manual testing shows that things work at least partially, although I don't really know how to test this. * shared libraries added; ldconfig is called properly. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files (besides the COPYING file) * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (ldconfig). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list
[Bug 441378] Review Request: smokeping - Latency Logging and Graphing 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: smokeping - Latency Logging and Graphing System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441378 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 19:25 EST --- *** Bug 187326 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 187326] Review Request: smokeping - Network latency grapher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: smokeping - Network latency grapher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187326 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NOTABUG |DUPLICATE Flag|fedora-review- | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 19:25 EST --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 441378 *** -- 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 441415] Review Request: wastesedge - Official game package for Adonthell
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wastesedge - Official game package for Adonthell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441415 [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 441411] Review Request: adonthell - A 2D graphical RPG 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: adonthell - A 2D graphical RPG game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441411 [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 440677] Review Request: lua-posix - A POSIX library for Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lua-posix - A POSIX library for Lua https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=440677 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 19:39 EST --- 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 440678] Review Request: lua-socket - Network support for the Lua language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lua-socket - Network support for the Lua language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=440678 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 19:49 EST --- Looks good; rpmlint is now silent, the compiler flags look proper and the debuginfo package is complete. 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 437960] Review Request: mac-robber - Tool to create a timeline of file activity for mounted file systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mac-robber - Tool to create a timeline of file activity for mounted file systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437960 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 20:09 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mac-robber Short Description: Tool to create a timeline of file activity for mounted file systems Owners: kwizart Branches: F-7 F-8 EL-5 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 438354] Review Request: python-decorator - Module to simplify usage of decorators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-decorator - Module to simplify usage of decorators https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438354 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 20:29 EST --- Committed and 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 438433] Review Request: python-toscawidgets - Web widget toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-toscawidgets - Web widget toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438433 Bug 438433 depends on bug 438354, which changed state. Bug 438354 Summary: Review Request: python-decorator - Module to simplify usage of decorators https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438354 What|Old Value |New Value 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 417511] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=417511 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 20:34 EST --- We had a quick IRC discussion about this and concluded that the current solution of installing the libraries in /usr/lib/jruby and having the "jruby" script installed as /usr/bin/jruby is a good compromise. I'll take this package for the final 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 438445] Review Request: python-cjson - Fast JSON encoder/decoder for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-cjson - Fast JSON encoder/decoder for Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 20:41 EST --- Packages committed and 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 438982] Review Request: pyfits - Python interface to FITS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pyfits - Python interface to FITS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438982 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 21:53 EST --- Looks good. rpmlint is silent and the dependencies are down to: pyfits = 1.3-2 = numpy python(abi) = 2.5 Thanks for looking into the test suite. You might consider commenting on it in the specfile, but that's not a big deal. 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 417511] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=417511 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 22:38 EST --- * source files match upstream: 89c41db323d6859021cdbc1747b3498c21c9739b /tmp/jruby-src-1.1.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 in tarball but not included in package. * latest version is being packaged. ? BuildRequires are proper (can't build in mock yet) * %clean is present. ? package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint clean X %check is not present, but there is a 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. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. X No comment above patches; see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PatchUpstreamStatus Java-specific bits: * no pre-built jars * single jar, named after the package * jarfiles are under _javadir. -- 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 439117] Review Request: preupgrade - Preresolves dependencies and prepares a system for an upgrade
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: preupgrade - Preresolves dependencies and prepares a system for an upgrade https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439117 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-07 23:36 EST --- Yeah, this looks fine. The buildroot's good, source URL is good, all of the other minor issues are fixed, and it still builds. 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 440679] Review Request: lua-sql - Database connectivity for Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lua-sql - Database connectivity for Lua https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=440679 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-08 00:20 EST --- luaforge.net is back up now, so rpmlist says: lua-sql.x86_64: E: no-binary This is true, and is not a problem. lua-sql-mysql.x86_64: W: no-documentation lua-sql-postgresql.x86_64: W: no-documentation lua-sql-sqlite.x86_64: W: no-documentation These are all OK as well; the documentation is in a separate package. The base package containing only the README file is kind of odd. Honestly I don't really see the point of having it at all; I'd just put the README file in the -doc package and dispense with the base package altogether. But I don't really see any problem with it. I note that there's some sort of test suite. Usually database tests can't really be run at build time and I'm going to assume that's the case here, but if if they do happen to be runnable it would be good for you to add a %check section. * source files match upstream: 608c79e84bb9a348ed2a9375a4e7ba4d42615c8b8ef6959c014661ddd9eda765 luasql-2.1.1.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summaries are OK. * descriptions are OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * 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 has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: lua-sql-2.1.1-3.fc9.x86_64.rpm lua-sql = 2.1.1-3.fc9 = lua-sql-doc lua-sql-mysql lua-sql-postgresql lua-sql-sqlite lua-sql-doc-2.1.1-3.fc9.x86_64.rpm lua-sql-doc = 2.1.1-3.fc9 = lua >= 5.1 lua-sql-mysql-2.1.1-3.fc9.x86_64.rpm mysql.so()(64bit) lua-sql-mysql = 2.1.1-3.fc9 = libmysqlclient.so.15()(64bit) libmysqlclient.so.15(libmysqlclient_15)(64bit) lua >= 5.1 lua-sql-postgresql-2.1.1-3.fc9.x86_64.rpm postgres.so()(64bit) lua-sql-postgresql = 2.1.1-3.fc9 = libpq.so.5()(64bit) lua >= 5.1 lua-sql-sqlite-2.1.1-3.fc9.x86_64.rpm sqlite3.so()(64bit) lua-sql-sqlite = 2.1.1-3.fc9 = libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) lua >= 5.1 * 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. * 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 441343] Review Request: guilt - Scripts to manage quilt-like patches on top of git
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: guilt - Scripts to manage quilt-like patches on top of git https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441343 [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 417511] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=417511 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-08 00:31 EST --- (In reply to comment #31) > ... > X %check is not present, but there is a test suite upstream I'm not sure how this is supposed to look. We'll talk about it tomorrow. > ... > X No comment above patches; see > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PatchUpstreamStatus Fixed in 1.1-3 (along with the conflicting ruby/jruby prefixes). URLs: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/jruby.spec http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/jruby-1.1-3.fc8.src.rpm (I am just uploading the src.rpm now, it may a few minutes as it's huge.) -- 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 441343] Review Request: guilt - Scripts to manage quilt-like patches on top of git
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: guilt - Scripts to manage quilt-like patches on top of git https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441343 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-08 00:39 EST --- * source files match upstream: 065ba5cd7933eba11fa13dc1af653721d6de6ebc965791a25680d34b9598ee69 guilt-0.29.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: guilt = 0.29-1.fc9 = /bin/sh bash gawk git sed * %check is present and all tests pass. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. 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 417511] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=417511 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-08 02:16 EST --- Rebuild failed on dist-f9: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=556181 -- 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 417511] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=417511 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-08 02:57 EST --- Looks like a bug with OpenJDK on PPC, I guess. I'm trying a scratch build using GCJ, we'll see how that goes. -- 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
