[Bug 254060] Review Request: e16-epplets - Epplets for Enlightenment, DR16
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: e16-epplets - Epplets for Enlightenment, DR16 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254060 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 02:56 EST --- 1. As with e16, could you ping upstream to try and change sometime to a nicer license? Not a blocker, but would be nice to do. Ok. 2. I see in the build.log: configure: WARNING: *** GL epplets will not be built *** Missing buildrequires? Yes, adding freeglut-devel and mesa-libGLU-devel fixed that, thanks. 3. Any reason to ship the .la and .a files? .la files should be removed and unless there is some good reason, static libs shouldn't be shipped. Removed. 5. Not a blocker, but Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig Removed. spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/e16/e16-epplets.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/e16/e16-epplets-0.10-3.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 442507] New: Review Request: libspe2 - SPE Runtime Management Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442507 Summary: Review Request: libspe2 - SPE Runtime Management Library 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: ftp://testcase.software.ibm.com/fromibm/linux/libspe2.spec SRPM URL: ftp://testcase.software.ibm.com/fromibm/linux/libspe2-2.2.80-95.src.rpm Please use anonymous FTP to download files. Description: SPE Runtime Management Library for the Cell Broadband Engine Architecture. This package is already part of the RHEL 5.1 Supplementary CD. -- 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 442371] Review Request: collectd - Statistics collection daemon for filling RRD files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: collectd - Statistics collection daemon for filling RRD files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442371 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 03:38 EST --- The answer is simply 'because that's how the RPM / specfile was when I found it.' I'm just doing an upgraded version, back in a bit ... -- 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 442507] Review Request: libspe2 - SPE Runtime Management 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: libspe2 - SPE Runtime Management Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442507 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Platform|All |ppc64 -- 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 428686] Review Request: tex-simplecv - latex class for writing curricula vitae
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tex-simplecv - latex class for writing curricula vitae https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428686 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 04:28 EST --- I added the texhash for doc too in release 4. See http://jamatos.fedorapeople.org/ -- 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 442513] New: Review Request: php-pear-Cache-Lite - Fast and Safe little cache system for PHP
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=442513 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Cache-Lite - Fast and Safe little cache system for PHP 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://remi.fedorapeople.org/php-pear-Cache-Lite.spec SRPM URL: http://remi.fedorapeople.org/php-pear-Cache-Lite-1.7.3-1.fc8.src.rpm Mock Log: http://remi.fedorapeople.org/php-pear-Cache-Lite-build.log Scratch build : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=566443 Description: This package is a little cache system optimized for file containers. It is fast and safe (because it uses file locking and/or anti-corruption tests). -- rpmlint is silent. My goal is to remove the cache_lite bundled in GLPI to use the system one. -- 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 442329] gnome-lirc-properties: Infrared Remote Controls setup tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: gnome-lirc-properties: Infrared Remote Controls setup tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442329 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 05:00 EST --- Spec: http://people.redhat.com/bnocera/gnome-lirc-properties/gnome-lirc-properties.spec Source: http://people.redhat.com/bnocera/gnome-lirc-properties/gnome-lirc-properties-0.2.5-1.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 442371] Review Request: collectd - Statistics collection daemon for filling RRD files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: collectd - Statistics collection daemon for filling RRD files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442371 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 05:03 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/collectd.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/collectd-4.3.2-1.src.rpm * Tue Apr 15 2008 Richard W.M. Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 4.3.2-1 - New upstream version 4.3.2. - Create a -devel subpackage for development stuff, examples, etc. - Use .bz2 package instead of .gz. - Remove fix-hostname patch, now upstream. - Don't mark collectd init script as config. - Enable MySQL, sensors, email, apache, Perl, unixsock support. - Don't remove example Perl scripts. - Package types.db(5) manpage. - Fix defattr. - Build in koji to find the full build-requires list. Koji build is here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=566445 The only problem I can see with this one is that the Perl packages get installed in site_perl instead of vendor_perl. I looked at the Makefiles and couldn't see a way to change this. rpmlint complains but the Fedora Perl guidelines don't mention anything. -- 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 442522] New: Review Request: audit-viewer - Audit event viewer
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=442522 Summary: Review Request: audit-viewer - Audit event viewer 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://people.redhat.com/mitr/packaging/audit-viewer.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/mitr/packaging/audit-viewer-0.2-1.src.rpm Description: A graphical utility for viewing and summarizing audit events. -- 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 226302] Merge Review: pm-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: pm-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226302 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 06:42 EST --- Afaics these are the issues, that still need to be addressed, I will see what I can do about them soon: 2. Why is pkgconfig BuildRequires there? 3. Should there be a Requires: pam? 5. Why is there a Conflicts: bluez-utils 2.25-6 ? Shouldn't you just require the newer one? pm-utils.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/security/console.apps/pm-suspend-hybrid pm-utils.i686: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/pm-hibernate /usr/lib/pm-utils/bin/pm-action pm-utils.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/security/console.apps/pm-hibernate pm-utils.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/pm-hibernate pm-utils.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/pm-suspend-hybrid pm-utils.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/pm-suspend pm-utils.i686: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/pm-suspend-hybrid /usr/lib/pm-utils/bin/pm-action pm-utils.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/pm-powersave pm-utils.i686: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/pm-suspend /usr/lib/pm-utils/bin/pm-action pm-utils.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/security/console.apps/pm-suspend pm-utils.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/security/console.apps/pm-powersave pm-utils.i686: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/pm-suspend.log pm-utils.i686: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre mv pm-utils.i686: W: dangerous-command-in-%post mv What are you trying to do in that pre? It looks odd. -- 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 226302] Merge Review: pm-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: pm-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226302 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 07:40 EST --- On issue is missing: it needs to be checked, whether these Requires are needed: kbd pciutils = 2.2.1 -- 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 226302] Merge Review: pm-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: pm-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226302 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 07:36 EST --- (In reply to comment #12) 2. Why is pkgconfig BuildRequires there? This will be removed (also all other BRs). Maybe they were all needed for vbetool or radeontool, which now are in their own packages. 3. Should there be a Requires: pam? pm-utils requires usermode which requires pam. 5. Why is there a Conflicts: bluez-utils 2.25-6 ? Shouldn't you just require the newer one? This will be removed, too. pm-utils.i686: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/pm-hibernate /usr/lib/pm-utils/bin/pm-action pm-utils.i686: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/pm-suspend-hybrid /usr/lib/pm-utils/bin/pm-action pm-utils.i686: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/pm-suspend /usr/lib/pm-utils/bin/pm-action I do not know how to do this directly in automake, I will see what we can do about this at upstream. pm-utils.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/security/console.apps/pm-suspend-hybrid pm-utils.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/security/console.apps/pm-hibernate pm-utils.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/pm-hibernate pm-utils.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/pm-suspend-hybrid pm-utils.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/pm-suspend pm-utils.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/pm-powersave pm-utils.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/security/console.apps/pm-suspend pm-utils.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/security/console.apps/pm-powersave I am not sure, whether these file are intended to be edited by anyone, half of them are empty, anyways. Maybe it is even completely wrong to allow users to run pm-utils directly, so these files can be removed. pm-utils.i686: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/pm-suspend.log The logfile will be emptied on every run, so there is no need to rotate it. pm-utils.i686: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre mv pm-utils.i686: W: dangerous-command-in-%post mv What are you trying to do in that pre? It looks odd. The scriptlets move the old config files to the new locations, I guess they can be removed when F9 is branched, because then every release should already have had the new pm-utils. -- 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 435155] Review Request: fuse-s3fs - Fuse filesystem for amazon.com's S3 storage service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fuse-s3fs - Fuse filesystem for amazon.com's S3 storage service https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435155 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 08:08 EST --- Closing this Review Request... -- 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 227191] Review Request: php-pear-Services-Yadis - PHP Yadis
Please 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-Services-Yadis - PHP Yadis https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227191 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 08:15 EST --- I'll review it. -- 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 227190] Review Request: php-pear-Auth-OpenID - PHP OpenID
Please 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-OpenID - PHP OpenID https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227190 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 08:17 EST --- If Brandon won't find any free time to review this package, then I'll pick it up. -- 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 435090] Review Request: Cython - This is a development version of Pyrex, a language for writing Python extension modules.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Cython - This is a development version of Pyrex, a language for writing Python extension modules. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435090 [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 227946] Review Request: stgit - StGIT provides similar functionality to Quilt 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: stgit - StGIT provides similar functionality to Quilt on top of GIT https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227946 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 08:22 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: stgit New Branches: EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 442371] Review Request: collectd - Statistics collection daemon for filling RRD files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: collectd - Statistics collection daemon for filling RRD files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442371 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 09:53 EST --- Apparently we need: --with-perl-bindings=INSTALLDIRS=vendor -- 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 442371] Review Request: collectd - Statistics collection daemon for filling RRD files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: collectd - Statistics collection daemon for filling RRD files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442371 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 09:58 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/collectd.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/collectd-4.3.2-2.src.rpm * Tue Apr 15 2008 Richard W.M. Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 4.3.2-2 - Install Perl bindings in vendor dir not site dir. -- 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 439630] Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jogl - Java bindings for OpenGL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439630 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 10:08 EST --- Feel free to take the spec for use elsewhere, of course. I think it is worth trying again to open up a conversation with SGI about this issue too. -- 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 438805] Review Request: php-pear-MDB2-Driver-pgsql - PostgreSQL driver for MDB2
Please 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-MDB2-Driver-pgsql - PostgreSQL driver for MDB2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438805 [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 171993] Review Request: mpich2 - An implementation of MPI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mpich2 - An implementation of MPI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=171993 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 11:43 EST --- It doesn't build in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=566788 -- 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 286851] Review Request: kaya - A Statically typed, imperative programming-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: kaya - A Statically typed, imperative programming-language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=286851 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 12:31 EST --- Meanwhile there is a new upstream release available which should solve the reported issues. I have uploa the new SPEC and source RPM at: Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/kaya/kaya.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/kaya/kaya-0.4.0-1.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 439337] Review Request: python-sphinx - Python documentation generator
Please 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-sphinx - Python documentation generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439337 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 12:46 EST --- It's fair game if I've not assigned the review to myself, so please go ahead. -- 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 442269] Review Request: lxappearance - Feature-rich GTK+ theme switcher for LXDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lxappearance - Feature-rich GTK+ theme switcher for LXDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442269 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 12:59 EST --- I'll do the review this evening. -- 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 436677] Review Request: xxdiff
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xxdiff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436677 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 13:19 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) - consider creating an egg-info for f7 and f8 I'll take this one back. As it turns out, eggs are entirely optional for f7 and f8, unless no other package requires them. -- 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 171993] Review Request: mpich2 - An implementation of MPI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mpich2 - An implementation of MPI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=171993 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 13:28 EST --- (In reply to comment #59) It doesn't build in koji: Known issue caused by a regression in mock (bug #442484), which I believe will be resolved soon. I will be pleased if you can continue with the review the package using local mock build for now (your resources permitting of course). I've uploaded a new src.rpm and spec file with the url fix; ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/mpich2/mpich2-1.0.7-1.fc9.src.rpm ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/mpich2/mpich2.spec -- 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 171993] Review Request: mpich2 - An implementation of MPI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mpich2 - An implementation of MPI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=171993 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 13:29 EST --- Sorry the link should be; ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/mpich2/mpich2-1.0.7-2.fc9.src.rpm ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/mpich2/mpich2.spec -- 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 307821] Review Request: sooperlooper - Realtime software looping sampler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sooperlooper - Realtime software looping sampler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=307821 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 14:49 EST --- Imported and build, closing. -- 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 442371] Review Request: collectd - Statistics collection daemon for filling RRD files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: collectd - Statistics collection daemon for filling RRD files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442371 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 15:27 EST --- Created an attachment (id=302508) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=302508action=view) collectd.spec for RHEL/CentOS 5 This is an alternate collectd.spec supplied by Richard Shade at Rightscale, with suggestions that the two be merged. -- 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 433312] Review Request: opengrok - A wicked fast source browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: opengrok - A wicked fast source browser Alias: opengrok-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433312 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 16:08 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) (In reply to comment #9) X specfile is legible - I'd rather see common_reqs split out and enumerated in both Requires and BuildRequires I thought this will save me from some errors and work when adding common requires, but it's just a matter of personal taste. If you both think it doesn't look well, I'll split it. It's not a blocker for us, so if you think it'll be easier to maintain, go for it :) Notes: - don't build with gcj at all because of this missing bit: [javac] import java.util.Scanner; [javac]^ [javac] The import java.util.Scanner cannot be resolved - remove gcj bits as the diff I'm attaching does Applied. I wonder if it's right that this didn't break the build? Yeah, it wasn't using libgcj's class library to build before. - re-name patches to match version (0.5 - 0.6) I read somewhere, though I am not able to find the link now, that the version number in patch name is one the patch was created against, and doesn't change when it applies to newer upstream package. Okay, if it was generated against 0.5 then keep it. I guess my question is why it wasn't applied upstream :) I like to keep bugs and/or rationale in comments to denote why we're carrying patches ... but don't worry about it if you don't want to do it. - why don't you build a jrcs package and Require/BR it? AFAIK this is a fork of jrcs from times when it was part of Apache Commons and is modified by OpenGrok developers. Currently development of jrcs development continues in the place it did before, and I am not aware of any effort to put OpenGrok modifications back there. Okay, well as long as it's building from source (as you have it doing), it's fine then. - why the big patch between 0.6 and this hg snapshot? if that's actually required, why not just use an hg snapshot tarball as SOURCE0 instead of 0.6 and patching? About the same reason kernel package does a thing like this. I updated the package with new revisions quite rapidly and it would not make much sense to waste space with new tarball until patch file has sane length. It can moreover be compressed. Alright, I guess that's acceptable. New package: http://people.redhat.com/lkundrak/SRPMS/opengrok-0.6-8.hg275.fc8.1.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/lkundrak/SPECS/opengrok.spec Okay, just two more things: What's going on with this? javadoc: error - Error while reading file /home/overholt/rpmbuild/BUILD/opengrok-0.6-src/jrcs/src/java/org/apache/commons/jrcs/overview.html And I don't think it should be trying to access the internet using hg during the build: -hg-get-changeset: [exec] Execute failed: java.io.IOException: Cannot run program hg: java.io.IOException: error=2, No such file or directory -- 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 428718] Review Request: pysvn - Python bindings for Subversion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pysvn - Python bindings for Subversion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428718 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 17:52 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: pysvn Short Description: Pythonic style bindings for Subversion Owners: ravenoak Branches: F-9 InitialCC: ravenoak 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 171993] Review Request: mpich2 - An implementation of MPI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: mpich2 - An implementation of MPI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=171993
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 17:58 EST ---
Need to change:
%{_datadir}/%{name}/*log*
---
%{_datadir}/%{name}/*.*log*
to avoid having example_logging going into the base mpich2 package.
mpich2-devel.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/mpich2/bin32/mpif90/usr/bin/mp32-mpif90
(and same for mpif77, mpicc, mpicxx).
Lots of:
mpich2-libs.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/mpich2-32/mpe_callstack_ldflags.conf
I also think a note should be made in the description of the package that this
was compiled with the default options and so uses the mpd process manager and
the ch3:sock communication device.
Another thing to think about it who should take precedence among lam, openmpi,
and mpich2 when they are all installed.
--
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 433312] Review Request: opengrok - A wicked fast source browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: opengrok - A wicked fast source browser Alias: opengrok-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433312 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 18:38 EST --- I read somewhere, though I am not able to find the link now, that the version number in patch name is one the patch was created against, and doesn't change when it applies to newer upstream package. Okay, if it was generated against 0.5 then keep it. I guess my question is why it wasn't applied upstream :) I like to keep bugs and/or rationale in comments to denote why we're carrying patches ... but don't worry about it if you don't want to do it. Upstream is very responsive to problems so it won't be a big problem. Most of the patches (probably with exception of Patch0 and at least of the two addressing the issues below) are things that are specific to our build -- it can be hardly imaginable that upstream will omit foreign jar files from the distribution, etc. When submitting patches upstream I usually direct them to our viewcvs, so they can eventually pick patches other that ones that I propose if they want to -- I'll probably do that in this case too. Okay, just two more things: What's going on with this? javadoc: error - Error while reading file /home/overholt/rpmbuild/BUILD/opengrok-0.6-src/jrcs/src/java/org/apache/commons/jrcs/overview.html Not really fatal and doesn't seem to do any harm to the build, but for it being an annoyance I patched that away. And I don't think it should be trying to access the internet using hg during the build: -hg-get-changeset: [exec] Execute failed: java.io.IOException: Cannot run program hg: java.io.IOException: error=2, No such file or directory Right. I just commented out that target. I guess the right solution (understand: one acceptable by upstream) would be to look for existence of .hg directory before trying to speak upstream. (Now I realize -- maybe hg would look into the local respoitory only, it's a distributed vcs, but I am not sure). New bits: http://people.redhat.com/lkundrak/SPECS/opengrok.spec http://people.redhat.com/lkundrak/SRPMS/opengrok-0.6-8.hg275.fc8.2.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 442640] New: Review Request: epeg - Immensely fast JPEG thumbnailer
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=442640 Summary: Review Request: epeg - Immensely fast JPEG thumbnailer 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://rpm.scwlab.com/epeg-goes-rawhide/epeg.spec SRPM URL: http://rpm.scwlab.com/epeg-goes-rawhide/epeg-0.9.1.042-1.fc9.src.rpm RPMs for i386 and x86_64 built in mock: http://rpm.scwlab.com/epeg-goes-rawhide/ Description: Epeg is insanely fast at loading large JPEG images and scaling them down to tiny thumbnails. It's speedup will be proportional to the size difference between the source image and the output thumbnail size as a count of their pixels. It makes use of libjpeg features of being able to load an image by only decoding the DCT coefficients needed to reconstruct an image of the size desired. This gives a massive speedup. If you do not try and access the pixels in a format other than YUV (or GRAY8 if the source is grascale) then it also avoids colorspace conversions as well. RPMLint spits out only W: no-documentation on -devel package because there's no documentation in upstream package. Epeg mostly helper library for higher-lever thumbnailing API - epsilon. Package works as expected - makes thumbnails of jpegs faster than imagemagick ;) -- 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 442640] Review Request: epeg - Immensely fast JPEG thumbnailer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: epeg - Immensely fast JPEG thumbnailer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442640 [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 428718] Review Request: pysvn - Python bindings for Subversion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pysvn - Python bindings for Subversion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428718 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 21:38 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 225906] Merge Review: iptables
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: iptables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225906
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 22:04 EST ---
Sorry for the delay here. Looking much better now:
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:
90cfa8a554a29b0b859a625e701af2a7 iptables-1.4.0.tar.bz2
90cfa8a554a29b0b859a625e701af2a7 iptables-1.4.0.tar.bz2.orig
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 - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
See below - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
See below - .so files in -devel subpackage.
OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
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 function as described.
OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
Issues:
1. You have the License as GPLv2.
I see a mix in the source files of: GPL, GPLv2, GPLv2+, GPLv2 or GPLv3.
I think this results in: GPL+ for the license?
2. Any reason the package makes a static lib instead of a shared lib?
Does anything use iptables-devel? Might be nice to remove the .a and
make a shared lib instead.
3. rpmlint says:
iptables.src: W: strange-permission iptables.init 0755
iptables.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/iptables-config 0600
iptables.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/iptables
iptables.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/iptables
iptables-ipv6.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/ip6tables-config 0600
iptables-ipv6.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/ip6tables
iptables-ipv6.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name ip6tables
All look ignorable.
So, items 1 and 2 look to be the last issues to address... thoughts?
--
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 226302] Merge Review: pm-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: pm-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226302 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 22:06 EST --- Excellent. Can you ping me again when you are ready for me to recheck things? Thanks for looking into it. -- 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 171993] Review Request: mpich2 - An implementation of MPI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: mpich2 - An implementation of MPI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=171993
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 22:10 EST ---
(In reply to comment #62)
Need to change:
%{_datadir}/%{name}/*log*
---
%{_datadir}/%{name}/*.*log*
to avoid having example_logging going into the base mpich2 package.
Fixed, thanks.
mpich2-devel.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/mpich2/bin32/mpif90/usr/bin/mp32-mpif90
(and same for mpif77, mpicc, mpicxx).
I've fought with this in the past, I can't find a means of dealing with it
sanely, suggestions welcomed. I believe it can be ignored.
Lots of:
mpich2-libs.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/mpich2-32/mpe_callstack_ldflags.conf
I think these can be safely ignored too, as most of them are constructed at
build-time.
I also think a note should be made in the description of the package that this
was compiled with the default options and so uses the mpd process manager and
the ch3:sock communication device.
Good point. It seems you've not noticed I did enabled dynamically loading sock,
ssm, and shm channels; the default is still the sock channel though.
I'm actually considering configuring the package to use ch3:nemesis on x86*,
since it said to offer the best performance, thoughts?
Another thing to think about it who should take precedence among lam, openmpi,
and mpich2 when they are all installed.
It really shouldn't matter, anyone who will knowingly install the three, should
be knowledgeable enough to set the default implementation, IMHO.
ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/mpich2/mpich2-1.0.7-3.fc9.src.rpm
ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/mpich2/mpich2.spec
--
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 254060] Review Request: e16-epplets - Epplets for Enlightenment, DR16
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: e16-epplets - Epplets for Enlightenment, DR16 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254060 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 22:23 EST --- Everything looks good to me now... 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 442295] Review Request: thunar-shares - Thunar file manager extension to share files using Samba
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: thunar-shares - Thunar file manager extension to share files using Samba https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442295 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 22:37 EST --- I would be happy to review this, look for a full review in a bit. -- 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 442295] Review Request: thunar-shares - Thunar file manager extension to share files using Samba
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: thunar-shares - Thunar file manager extension to share files using Samba https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442295 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 22:50 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: 64b23eec63c65f50b3a068f15d757067 thunar-shares-0.10.tar.bz2 64b23eec63c65f50b3a068f15d757067 thunar-shares-0.10.tar.bz2.orig 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 - .la files are removed. 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. OK - 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: None. I see no issues, 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 436716] Review Request: tinyproxy - A small, efficient HTTP/SSL proxy daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tinyproxy - A small, efficient HTTP/SSL proxy daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436716 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 22:52 EST --- I would be happy to review this. Look for a full review in a bit. -- 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 442377] Review Request: python-pysctp - Python binding for the SCTP network 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: python-pysctp - Python binding for the SCTP network protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442377 [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 436716] Review Request: tinyproxy - A small, efficient HTTP/SSL proxy daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: tinyproxy - A small, efficient HTTP/SSL proxy daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436716
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-15 23:08 EST ---
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
See below - 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:
bd14d029b12621bcfd7ee71b2f4893da tinyproxy-1.6.3.tar.gz
bd14d029b12621bcfd7ee71b2f4893da tinyproxy-1.6.3.tar.gz.orig
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.
OK - 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. Use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} style macros, don't mix. ;)
2. Looks like you are missing some Requires for the init script/chkconfig calls.
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript#head-91577460937bcc1e94127ca00afd8e69274823b0
--
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 254060] Review Request: e16-epplets - Epplets for Enlightenment, DR16
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: e16-epplets - Epplets for Enlightenment, DR16 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254060 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-16 01:31 EST --- Thanks! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: e16-epplets Short Description: Epplets for Enlightenment, DR16 Owners: terjeros Branches: F-7 F-8 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
