[Bug 444257] Review Request: nted - Musical score editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nted - Musical score editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444257 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 02:40 EST --- Watching the diffs, I find: - Upstream COPYING is unchanged. Good. - Upstream file licenses are unchanged. Good. - You have made sure configure does not reset CXXFLAGS. Good catch. - You are resetting icondir from $(datadir)/icons to $(datadir)/pixmaps for some reason. Makes no difference to me. - You have fixed a bunch more compiler warnings. Good. (Have you sent this upstream?) - More translations for nted.desktop. Good. - po/nted.pot is now broken with CVS merge conflicts. Does not affect us. - You have removed the Requires: yelp. Hmm... whatever. Help|Documentation will still need yelp, won't it? - You also install the Italian manual. Good. So there remains a single issue now that you are changing configure.in... rebuilding the RPM from the SRPM appears to re-run aclocal, automake, autoconf, autoheader, and we'd like to avoid this. Looks like adding something like sleep 1 find . -type f -name Makefile.in | xargs touch touch aclocal.m4 config.h.in configure at the end of %prep prevents automakeCo re-runs. When this last one is done, I'll finally shut up and approve 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 449928] Review Request: libwfut - WorldForge update tool 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: libwfut - WorldForge update tool library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449928 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 03:22 EST --- Thanks, I'll check these issues. (In reply to comment #3) It also appears that the system-tinyxml.patch is not working as expected. To verify, try adding this to the end of %prep and rebuilding: rm -f libwfut/tiny* I'm patching this file libwfut/tinyxml.h to include system tinyxml.h. So, if you remove it, you will get errors indeed. I'm doing so because this patch has been merged upstream, so it has to mainain compatibility with systems where are no system-wide tinyxml installed. One thing that could be done - is patch removing tinyxml sources from tinyxml* to ensure that we are not building against it. I think the problem is that you are patching configure.ac, but the changes are never propogated to the configure script itself. To make the changes take effect, you will have to either patch the configure and Makefile.in files in addition to configure.ac (preferred), or run autoconf/automake in %prep to regenerate the files at build time. Yes, I thought about this, but autotools is smart thing - in Makefile it is checking if configure.ac or Makefile.in changes and then rebuild configure or Makefiles. So in our case it's running configure twice - yes, this is uneffective but working. Anyway, I'll make patch on configure and Makefile.in in some future. -- 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 449928] Review Request: libwfut - WorldForge update tool 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: libwfut - WorldForge update tool library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449928 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 03:27 EST --- Um, I looked in build log and find that tinyxml patch is not working for some reason (had to do this before) - will investigate 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 439263] Review Request: javahelp2 - needed for NetBeans Platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: javahelp2 - needed for NetBeans Platform https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439263 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 04:08 EST --- I've connected to fedorepeople and I've also just got the CVS. Looks like there was some delay between getting the key and being able to use it. Now I think I will proceed with the upload. -- 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 449393] Review Request: prism - make web apps standalone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: prism - make web apps standalone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449393 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 04:33 EST --- There's another srpm/spec up now with the fix for run-mozilla.sh in. -- 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 439263] Review Request: javahelp2 - needed for NetBeans Platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: javahelp2 - needed for NetBeans Platform https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439263 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 04:37 EST --- Created an attachment (id=308671) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=308671action=view) Commited, what next? -- 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 450323] Review Request: coq - Coq proof management 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: coq - Coq proof management system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450323 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 04:41 EST --- In reply to comment 12: I think you should just Require: rlwrap It's not a big package, just 49K, and rlwrap really improves usability of coq (and OCaml). I'm taking this package for review now. -- 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 450323] Review Request: coq - Coq proof management 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: coq - Coq proof management system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450323 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||436875 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 449928] Review Request: libwfut - WorldForge update tool 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: libwfut - WorldForge update tool library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449928
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 04:55 EST ---
Spec URL: http://purple.worldforge.org/~alex/fedora/libwfut.spec
SRPM URL: http://purple.worldforge.org/~alex/fedora/libwfut-0.2.0-1.fc9.src.rpm
Updated tinyxml patch to solve build problem.
The problem was that sometimes config.h.in wasn't rebuild and therefore
HAVE_LIBTINYXML was not defined. May be it's a bug in automake making makefile
unsuitable with %{?_smp_mflags}. Any suggestions, should we report it?
New patch, first, patches configure and Makefile.in so there will be no need to
run autoconf/automake. And second, removes tinyxml sources so there will never
be intention to build against 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 450323] Review Request: coq - Coq proof management 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: coq - Coq proof management system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450323 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- 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 450323] Review Request: coq - Coq proof management 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: coq - Coq proof management system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450323
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 05:09 EST ---
These bits of the spec file are all wrong:
# Test for emacs site_lisp directory, if so, add relevant files to roster,
else, don't try and install
...
# Test for tex directory, if so, add relevant files to roster, else, don't
try and install
...
It's not acceptable to have different RPMs being produced depending on what
happens to be installed at the time. Instead, assume those directories /
packages
are installed and ensure this by having a complete list of BuildRequires.
Your BuildRequires is missing at least emacs, texlive-latex, another texlive-*
package which provides /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/misc (I couldn't find
which one).
Once you think you've got a complete list of BuildRequires, you should then
scratch-build the package in koji:
koji build --scratch dist-f10 coq-8.1pl3-1.fc9.src.rpm
This will almost certainly fail, but it should fail in a way which tells you
which
extra BuildRequires you are missing and any other problems that you'll
encounter in the real build.
When you have a successful scratch-build in Koji, please attach a link to
the Koji build here.
Next thing you should do is to run rpmlint on all the RPMs (source and binary
RPMs). rpmlint output should be nil for this package.
Another thing I notice in the spec file:
%{_bindir}/parser
%{_bindir}/parser.opt
# I suppose technically we might not have built parser.opt, but my efforts to
fix this problem re: accounting for this in
the file manifest have failed
This is against the OCaml packaging policy which requires that you package the
best possible binary (ie. native, if available, else bytecode). You can easily
do
this by testing for the presense of ocamlopt. See the first line of our sample
specfile:
http://fedoraproject.org/w/uploads/5/5c/Packaging_OCaml_ocaml-foolib.spec
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 450466] Review Request: clive - Video extraction tool for user-uploaded video hosts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clive - Video extraction tool for user-uploaded video hosts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450466 [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 447599] Review Request: immix - image mixer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: immix - image mixer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447599 [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 450408] Review Request: trickle - Portable lightweight userspace bandwidth shaper
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: trickle - Portable lightweight userspace bandwidth shaper https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450408 [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 450323] Review Request: coq - Coq proof management 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: coq - Coq proof management system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450323
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED
Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) |
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 06:22 EST ---
(In reply to comment #14)
Thanks for looking at the package. I have some questions and comments about what
you said.
These bits of the spec file are all wrong:
# Test for emacs site_lisp directory, if so, add relevant files to roster,
else, don't try and install
...
# Test for tex directory, if so, add relevant files to roster, else, don't
try and install
...
It's not acceptable to have different RPMs being produced depending on what
happens to be installed at the time. Instead, assume those directories /
packages
are installed and ensure this by having a complete list of BuildRequires.
Your BuildRequires is missing at least emacs, texlive-latex, another texlive-*
package which provides /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/misc (I couldn't find
which one).
I put things the way I did in the spec file to attempt to reduce the list of
BuildRequires. It seems a bit odd to require someone to have emacs installed
just to put a .el file in the appropriate place. What if, for the sake of
argument, the user is a vi person and doesn't feel like installing emacs?
However, you are right, it would certainly affect the built binary RPM. Is there
a way to do what I would actually like here? I suppose things like that could be
subpackaged, but that seemed excessive for such a low number of files.
Once you think you've got a complete list of BuildRequires, you should then
scratch-build the package in koji:
koji build --scratch dist-f10 coq-8.1pl3-1.fc9.src.rpm
This will almost certainly fail, but it should fail in a way which tells you
which
extra BuildRequires you are missing and any other problems that you'll
encounter in the real build.
Just to clarify, you're saying that you think that when I change to acting as
though the person has TeX and emacs installed that I'll be missing appropriate
BuildRequires, right? As is, I did a test build with mock to see if the
BuildRequires were appropriately satisfied, and things seemed to work.
When you have a successful scratch-build in Koji, please attach a link to
the Koji build here.
Next thing you should do is to run rpmlint on all the RPMs (source and binary
RPMs). rpmlint output should be nil for this package.
I knew that there was a bit of rpmlint output - it fell into three categories,
two of which are related:
1) One of the graphics files appears to be corrupted
2) Some of the text files are not in UTF-8
I could repackage the main coq source, but I wasn't sure if this was a good idea
as this changes the signature of the main source, thus denying anyone the
ability to check for a match. I thought a solution would be to include a
separate icon and I wasn't sure how necessary the UTF-8 conversion is - perhaps
I should be including separate versions of those files too?
3) Inclusion of .cmxa files in a non-devel package
I'm not sure about that one. I didn't think it was really appropriate to make a
separate package for those.
Another thing I notice in the spec file:
%{_bindir}/parser
%{_bindir}/parser.opt
# I suppose technically we might not have built parser.opt, but my efforts
to fix this problem re: accounting for this in
the file manifest have failed
This is against the OCaml packaging policy which requires that you package the
best possible binary (ie. native, if available, else bytecode). You can
easily do
this by testing for the presense of ocamlopt. See the first line of our
sample
specfile:
http://fedoraproject.org/w/uploads/5/5c/Packaging_OCaml_ocaml-foolib.spec
Their main configuration file always attempts to build with the best possible
binary. I originally was just trying to check whether their setup in doing so
(by checking whether a parser.opt file was created), but was having a bit of a
time doing that. Is checking for ocamlopt what I should be doing? Just because
there is an ocamlopt program available doesn't necessarily mean that their setup
was able to detect everything properly and build using 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 450323] Review Request: coq - Coq proof management 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: coq - Coq proof management system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450323
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 06:40 EST ---
I put things the way I did in the spec file to attempt to reduce the list of
BuildRequires. It seems a bit odd to require someone to have emacs installed
just to put a .el file in the appropriate place. What if, for the sake of
argument, the user is a vi person and doesn't feel like installing emacs?
However, you are right, it would certainly affect the built binary RPM. Is
there
a way to do what I would actually like here? I suppose things like that could
be
subpackaged, but that seemed excessive for such a low number of files.
The purpose of BuildRequires is a complete list of build requirements so
that an identical binary package can be built on any system. The current
spec file would build different binary RPMs depending on whatever happened
to be installed on the build system. (And in fact it fails if that tex.../misc
directory is missing). Don't worry about reduc[ing] the list of
BuildRequires.
In fact you should be doing just the opposite.
The issue of what a user needs at install time is completely different.
Provide a coq-emacs subpackage which contains the emacs components.
Users can optionally install this depending on their editor choice.
Just to clarify, you're saying that you think that when I change to acting as
though the person has TeX and emacs installed that I'll be missing appropriate
BuildRequires, right? As is, I did a test build with mock to see if the
BuildRequires were appropriately satisfied, and things seemed to work.
I think you're misunderstanding the difference between the build (which
happens once, on Fedora's Koji build system) and what users install (those
binary packages built by Koji).
1) One of the graphics files appears to be corrupted
2) Some of the text files are not in UTF-8
I could repackage the main coq source, but I wasn't sure if this was a good
idea
as this changes the signature of the main source, thus denying anyone the
ability to check for a match. I thought a solution would be to include a
separate icon and I wasn't sure how necessary the UTF-8 conversion is -
perhaps
I should be including separate versions of those files too?
No don't rebuild any tarballs. Add a line to your %prep section to fix these,
eg:
%prep
mv text-file text-file.old
iconv -f ISO-8859-1 -t UTF-8 text-file.old text-file
rm bad-binary.gif
If the changes are more significant, use a patch instead.
3) Inclusion of .cmxa files in a non-devel package
I'm not sure about that one. I didn't think it was really appropriate to make
a
separate package for those.
Does coq ship libraries? If so you should follow the OCaml package policy
for libraries, which would mandate a separate -devel subpackage. The
generic 'foolib' spec file above is a good starting point for packaging
libraries.
Their main configuration file always attempts to build with the best possible
binary. I originally was just trying to check whether their setup in doing so
(by checking whether a parser.opt file was created), but was having a bit of a
time doing that. Is checking for ocamlopt what I should be doing? Just because
there is an ocamlopt program available doesn't necessarily mean that their
setup
was able to detect everything properly and build using it.
It's not build with the best possible binary. Fedora packages should ship the
best possible binary of each program. So you'll need something like this:
%install
%if %opt
install parser.opt %{_bindir}/parser
%else
install parser %{_bindir}/parser
%endif
BTW having a binary called /usr/bin/parser is probably a bad idea. How do
Debian package this file? They usually rename such generic names ('coqparser'
or the like). If Debian rename it, then we should do so 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 450323] Review Request: coq - Coq proof management 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: coq - Coq proof management system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450323 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 06:44 EST --- BTW, I had a look at the Debian package and they're applying no fewer than 7 patches. You might want to check if any of those are relevant to Fedora. Also they ship parser as /usr/bin/parser, so I guess we can leave that for now. -- 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 450323] Review Request: coq - Coq proof management 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: coq - Coq proof management system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450323 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 06:47 EST --- Link to Debian package: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-ocaml-maint/trunk/packages/coq/trunk/debian/?rev=0sc=0 -- 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 450527] New: Review Request: libkni - C++ library für the Katana robot arm
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=450527 Summary: Review Request: libkni - C++ library für the Katana robot arm 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://fedorapeople.org/~timn/robotics/libkni.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~timn/robotics/libkni-3.9.2-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: Katana Native Interface is a C++ library for programmers who would like to write their own programs, but don't want to implement the protocol and device stuff katana is using. Website: http://www.neuronics.ch/cms_en/web/index.php?id=284s=software_kni Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=653541 Additional notes: The package has been tested here with a Katana 6M180 robotic arm and is working just fine. There is no other way besides real hardware to test this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 442714] Review Request: sat-solver - Satisfyability Solver library which can be used to compute inter-package dependencies.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sat-solver - Satisfyability Solver library which can be used to compute inter-package dependencies. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442714 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 08:56 EST --- Building on x86_64 gives the following error during rpmbuild: error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/lib/zypp/zypp-query-pool -- 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 442714] Review Request: sat-solver - Satisfyability Solver library which can be used to compute inter-package dependencies.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sat-solver - Satisfyability Solver library which can be used to compute inter-package dependencies. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442714 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 08:58 EST --- Sorry, the above comment should have been on libzypp, not sat-solver. -- 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 447738] Review Request: libzypp - ZYpp is a Linux software management engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libzypp - ZYpp is a Linux software management engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447738 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 08:58 EST --- Building on x86_64 gives the following error during rpmbuild: error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/lib/zypp/zypp-query-pool -- 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 450539] New: Review Request: service-discovery-applet - Service discovery applet based on Avahi for the Gnome panel
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=450539 Summary: Review Request: service-discovery-applet - Service discovery applet based on Avahi for the Gnome panel 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://fedorapeople.org/~timn/misc/service-discovery-applet.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~timn/misc/service-discovery-applet-0.4.5-0.2.svn20080609.fc9.src.rpm Description: The service discovery applet lists all available services which are published through Avahi/Rendezvous/Bonjour/ZeroConf and allows to run actions on that service. Website: has none, mentioned on http://avahi.org/wiki/AdministrativeAvahiApplication, SVN at http://svn.0pointer.de/viewvc/trunk/?root=service-discovery-applet Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=653703 Subversion package contains more functionality than latest release (very old), thus svn-version is packaged. -- 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 450470] RDMA kernel stack initializing package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: RDMA kernel stack initializing package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450470 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 10:19 EST --- Not necessarily *package* review comments: - The udev in Fedora is new enough that you should be able to do add --attr-match or --subsystem-match to your udevtrigger call so it doesn't cause a retrigger of everything. - Shouldn't those chipset errata be in PCI quirks (and the MTRR in DMI quirks)? -- 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 449842] Review Request: trac-xmlrpc-plugin - XML-RPC plugin for Trac
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: trac-xmlrpc-plugin - XML-RPC plugin for Trac https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449842 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 10:44 EST --- After investigation, it is no longer necessary to pull in python-setuptools-devel. That's only necessary if you want the command line executed easy_install, which we do not need since we're using python setup.py and setuptools directly. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: trac-xmlrpc-plugin Short Description: XML-RPC plugin for Trac Owners: jkeating Branches: EL-5 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 449840] Review Request: trac-spamfilter-plugin - Spam-Filter plugin for Trac
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: trac-spamfilter-plugin - Spam-Filter plugin for Trac https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449840 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 10:44 EST --- After investigation, it is no longer necessary to pull in python-setuptools-devel. That's only necessary if you want the command line executed easy_install, which we do not need since we're using python setup.py and setuptools directly. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: trac-spamfilter-plugin Short Description: Spam-Filter plugin for Trac Owners: jkeating Branches: EL-5 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 444428] Review Request: ocaml-cmigrep - Search OCaml compiled interface (cmi) 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: ocaml-cmigrep - Search OCaml compiled interface (cmi) files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=28 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||450551 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 11:26 EST --- Bug filed: bug 450551 -- 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 450553] Review Request: perl-TAP-Harness - Run Perl standard test scripts with statistics
Please 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-TAP-Harness - Run Perl standard test scripts with statistics https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450553 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 11:40 EST --- Note that this is perl Test-Harness 3.10 package, stripped of Test::Harness compatibility module, because older version of Test::Harness is included in perl package (and perl-Test-Harness since Fedora 9). This means that packages that rely on Test::Harness interface won't be affected by this package, and only TAP::Harness is provided by this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 450553] New: Review Request: perl-TAP-Harness - Run Perl standard test scripts with statistics
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=450553 Summary: Review Request: perl-TAP-Harness - Run Perl standard test scripts with statistics Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All URL: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/perl-TAP-Harness.spec OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: low Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package- [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/perl-TAP-Harness.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/mock-results/perl-TAP-Harness-3.10-1.el5.noarch/perl-TAP-Harness-3.10-1.el5.src.rpm mock: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/mock-results/perl-TAP-Harness-3.10-1.el5.noarch/ Description: Run Perl tests and output formatted results with statistics. -- 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 450553] Review Request: perl-TAP-Harness - Run Perl standard test scripts with statistics
Please 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-TAP-Harness - Run Perl standard test scripts with statistics https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450553 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 11:46 EST --- I am very strongly opposed to letting this package in and am leaning to reject it. What is the issue you are trying to solve? -- 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 439263] Review Request: javahelp2 - needed for NetBeans Platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: javahelp2 - needed for NetBeans Platform https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439263 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 12:22 EST --- Jaroslav: Looks like you are at this step: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Request_Builds I am going to clear the cvs flag here as CVS is 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 447766] Review Request: mathomatic - Small, portable symbolic math program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mathomatic - Small, portable symbolic math program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447766 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 12:25 EST --- thanks. 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 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] 2008-06-09 13:32 EST ---
For -9:
* Source file
--
1038719 2008-02-16 15:54
speech-dispatcher-0.6.6-7.fc7/speech-dispatcher-0.6.6.tar.gz
1039765 2008-06-08 00:04
speech-dispatcher-0.6.6-9.fc7/speech-dispatcher-0.6.6.tar.gz
--
* Requires(preun) duplicates
--
Requires(preun): /sbin/chkconfig /sbin/service /sbin/install-info initscripts
--
- Here /sbin/service and initscripts are duplicates.
* _sourcedir, %_builddir
--
cp %{_sourcedir}/speech-dispatcherd .
iconv -f WINDOWS-1252 -t UTF-8
%{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/doc/speech-dispatcher-cs.info
%{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/doc/speech-dispatcher-cs.info
--
- Please don't use %_sourcedir, %_builddir
* Don't use %_sourcedir but specify source files by %SOURCEx as
--
install -p -m 0755 %SOURCE1 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_initrddir}/
--
This is a must.
(cping %SOURCE1 to %_builddir is not needed, just install
directly. Also please don't forget to add -p when using
cp or install)
- Also, when %setup is done, the working directory is
%{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}, so just
--
iconv -f WINDOWS-1252 -t UTF-8 speech-dispatcher-cs.info ...
--
is sufficient.
* iconv usage
- Then
--
iconv -f ... -t speech-dispatcher-cs.info speech-dispatcher-cs.info
--
as you write now destroys this info file.
* INSTALL= option on make install
--
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT -p
--
- This is wrong (-p is treated just as a option of make, see
man make, also please check build log to see what is happening).
(This executes make command, not install command)
(In reply to comment #31)
- To keep timestamps on installed files, please use
--
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL=install -p
--
* Macros in %changelog
--
* Sun Jun 08 2008Hemant Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.6.6-9
- removed %{_infodir}/dir file
--
- rpm -q --changelog speech-dispatcher shows that this
%{_infodir} macro is expanded, which should not be. To avoid
macros expansion, please use %%, i.e.
--
- removed %%{_infodir}/dir file
--
for example.
(In reply to comment #35)
One error however:
The script works perfectly when I start it, however after that I consistently
receive
==
speech-dispatcherd dead but subsys locked
==
I must manually remove the lockfile to resolve this error. Cannot figure out
what is wrong here :-?
- daemon name is wrong ;)
From %_initrddir/speech-dispatcherd:
---
11 exec=/usr/bin/speech-dispatcher
12 prog=speech-dispatcherd
---
- Also speech-dispatcher -d seems to create
%{_localstatedir}/run/speech-dispatcher.pid, however
service speech-dispatcher stop does not delete this file, which
needs fixing.
--
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 442714] Review Request: sat-solver - Satisfyability Solver library which can be used to compute inter-package dependencies.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sat-solver - Satisfyability Solver library which can be used to compute inter-package dependencies. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442714 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 13:50 EST --- SPEC URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/SPECS/libs/sat-solver.spec SRPM URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/SRPMS/sat-solver-0.9.0-1.fc9.src.rpm * Mon Jun 09 2008 Lorenzo Villani [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.9.0-1 - Version bump -- 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 450013] Review Request: testopia - bugzilla extended to add test case management
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: testopia - bugzilla extended to add test case management https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450013 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 13:50 EST --- Problem was in my patching of bz_locations; extensionsdir was pointing at: /var/lib/bugzilla/extensions (empty) rather than: /usr/share/bugzilla/extensions (which has testopia/code/db_schema-abstract_schema.pl); hence not finding the testopia extenstion and thus not extending the schema to cover the Testopia tables in Bugzilla/DB/Schema.pm:_initialize Working on a revised version, and on the other issues. -- 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 450470] RDMA kernel stack initializing package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: RDMA kernel stack initializing package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450470 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 13:47 EST --- OK, I'll look into the match options with udev. As for the chipset errata, I'll look into it. As for the MTRR, I don't have anywhere near an exhaustive list of machines that do this, and since it only shows up as bad performance on ib_ipath or on a mmaped video frame buffer, I doubt I'm going to get an exhaustive list. So, the awk script works, and it's not tied to a list of machines, and it also allows people to test if it helps since I wasn't 100% sure of the correctness of doing this on all machines that punch out mtrr holes. -- 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 447738] Review Request: libzypp - ZYpp is a Linux software management engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libzypp - ZYpp is a Linux software management engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447738 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 13:54 EST --- Can you try to build against this release, please? I don't have an x86_64 machine to test it, however I'm going to try a scratch build with koji against dist-f10 -- 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 447738] Review Request: libzypp - ZYpp is a Linux software management engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libzypp - ZYpp is a Linux software management engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447738 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 13:52 EST --- Spec URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/SPECS/libs/libzypp.spec SRPM URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/SRPMS/libzypp-5.0.0.0-2.fc9.src.rpm * Mon Jun 09 2008 Lorenzo Villani [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 5.0.0.0-2 - Version bump (source checkout updated) -- 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 447740] Review Request: zypper - easy to use command line package manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zypper - easy to use command line package manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447740 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 13:53 EST --- Spec URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/SPECS/system/zypper.spec SRPM URL: http://rpm.binaryhelix.org/SRPMS/zypper-0.12.0-1.fc9.src.rpm * Mon Jun 09 2008 Lorenzo Villani [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.12.0-1 - Version bump -- 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 431277] Review Request: ocfs2-tools - programs for managing Ocfs2 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: ocfs2-tools - programs for managing Ocfs2 file systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431277 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 445224] Review Request: stapitrace - user space instruction trace
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stapitrace - user space instruction trace https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 14:11 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) More questions: This looks like a subset of the dpiperf.dynamic package. It seems to contain a newer (?) version of the dpiperf.dynamic tarball that has simply been rebranded to stapitrace-version.tar.gz in the SPEC file. Is this a CVS snapshot of the dpiperf tarball? The tarball is one that was created for me by the Performance Inspector(PI) maintainer which includes the modifications that I need to their source. My changes have been comitted into CVS, just not available yet on the PI web site. The maintainer assures me that a newer tarball containing my source mods will be available on the PI web site in July. Is it possible to specify the URL for the tarball on the PI web site in the spec file? I think I tried setting the URL and Source0 variables in the spec file to point to a tarball on the PI website, but my recollection is that it looked for Source0 in the SOURCES directory anyways. I thought the URL variable in the spec file was just supposed to name the project web site where documentation can be found. When the updated tarball is available, should I set the URL variable to be the path that would be used by wget to get the tarball? In that case should I change the Source0 variable to use that same name as indicated in the URL variable? I ask because if it is, you should probably follow the snapshot guidelines[1] I was planning on somehow pointing to the publicly available tarball with my source changes in it, but I wonder if I wouldn't be better off referencing cvs since it is probably inevitable that the review process will turn up something that I need to change. Would I just manually grab a CVS snapshot and build my own tarball with MMDDcvs in the name and reference it from the Source0 variable? e.g. Dpiperf-MMDDcvs.tar.gz (Dpiperf is a PI naming convention) Do you think I should make this a pre-release package with an alpha in the Release name? instead of creating a tarball that can't actually be downloaded from the project site. One of the review criteria is that the package has verifiable source: - 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. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages -- 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 444428] Review Request: ocaml-cmigrep - Search OCaml compiled interface (cmi) 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: ocaml-cmigrep - Search OCaml compiled interface (cmi) files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=28 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 14:39 EST --- I've verified that this warning can be removed. However you need to rebuild ocaml (3.10.2-4), ocaml-findlib and ocaml-pcre, then cmigrep, because any object file which wasn't built with the non-executable-stack patch 'infects' the resulting binary. Given that, it's probably worth just ignoring the warning for now. $ rpmlint /home/rjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/ocaml-cmigrep-1.5-2.fc10.src.rpm /home/rjones/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/ocaml-cmigrep-1.5-2.fc10.x86_64.rpm ocaml-cmigrep.src:66: W: configure-without-libdir-spec 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Here's a new package which also fixes the ppc64 build problem. Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-cmigrep.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-cmigrep-1.5-2.fc10.src.rpm Description: Search OCaml compiled interface (cmi) files * Mon Jun 9 2008 Richard W.M. Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1.5-2 - Include ppc64 compiler patch. - Include MAP_32BITS compiler patch. - Include no-executable-stack compiler patch. - Rebuild for OCaml 3.10.2-4 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=28#c5) -- 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 447766] Review Request: mathomatic - Small, portable symbolic math program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mathomatic - Small, portable symbolic math program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447766 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 14:51 EST --- Thanks guys, package built and pending for testing. -- 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 442714] Review Request: sat-solver - Satisfyability Solver library which can be used to compute inter-package dependencies.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: sat-solver - Satisfyability Solver library which can
be used to compute inter-package dependencies.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442714
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
Flag||fedora-review?, needinfo?
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 14:53 EST ---
Good:
+ Local build works fine on x86_64
+ Rpmlint on source package is quite
+ Consistent macro usage
+ package use a OSS license
+ Tar archive in the package matches with upstream
(md5sum: 52bc1b0309812eead630f8dfe795c923)
+ Rpmlint is quite on sat-solver package
+ File permissions seems ok.
+ Package seems not to have files own by other packages.
+ Local install and uninstall works fine.
+ Package build fine in mock (xu6_64, ppc64 and ppc, devel)
Bad:
- %{_includedir]/satsolver should be own by the package
- Package should not contains static libraries
- Package doesn't contains license text, but upstream package contains a
verbatin copy of the license.
- Rpmlint complaints on devel package:
$ rpmlint sat-solver-devel-0.9.0-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm
sat-solver-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
- Package seems not to use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
Questions:
? Why you remove the testsuite. From my point of view this may be helpful to
ensure the QA of the package
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 450054] Review Request: liblinebreak - A Unicode line-breaking 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: liblinebreak - A Unicode line-breaking library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450054 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 15:36 EST --- Ah yes, providing -static is definitely a good idea. Perhaps I can just call the package liblinebreak-devel and have it provide liblinebreak-static? If liblinebreak in the future ships a shared library, our package name in CVS will the be wrong... Just checked with Toshio on #fedora-admin and he OK-ed 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 450054] Review Request: liblinebreak - A Unicode line-breaking 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: liblinebreak - A Unicode line-breaking library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450054
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 15:47 EST ---
Disabled empty -debuginfo package (with comment), renamed package to
liblinebreak-devel and make it Provides: liblinebreak-static =
%{version}-%{release}
http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/for_review/libs/liblinebreak-devel-0.9.6-2.fc9.src.rpm
http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/for_review/libs/liblinebreak-devel.spec
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 442714] Review Request: sat-solver - Satisfyability Solver library which can be used to compute inter-package dependencies.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: sat-solver - Satisfyability Solver library which can
be used to compute inter-package dependencies.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442714
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|NEW
Flag|needinfo? |
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 16:23 EST ---
Before uploading a new version of the package I need something to be explained:
Bad things:
- %{_includedir}/satsolver: As far as I know, %{_includedir}/satsolver/* gives
ownership to directory-contained files
- static libraries: as far as i know, upstream build system (based on cmake)
only produces static library archives and not shared objects and it seems that
other packages depending on this library statically link the library in their
final executable
- verbatim copy of the license: I included that in both packages using %doc
- rpmlint warning with sat-solver-devel: the inclusion of the verbatim copy of
the license should fix this
- $RPM_OPT_FLAGS: This is due to usage of cmake, afaik, using
-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=FEDORA is sufficient, I added that to the cmake line
And now the questions:
I removed the *huge* testsuite (nearly 50MiB of stuff -compressed-) just to save
bandwidth (yes, I'm lazy), If needed I can keep the testsuite inside the tarball
but this will make the review process much slower because i'll have to upload
~100MiB of compressed tarballs (~50MiB of .src.rpm and ~50MiB of packaged
snapshot).
Side notes:
As far as I know both sat-solver, libzypp and zypper can be retrieved only from
upstream' subversion (or by 'extracting' source tarball from SuSE' .src.rpm) so
the source archive is just a local subversion checkout with SCM directories
stripped out (ie: tar'ed using --exclude-vcs)
--
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] 2008-06-09 16:42 EST --- Well still no response from author, I guess it's time to simply remove the screenshots from tarball. http://xfs.org/~cattelan/xxdiff-3.2-8.fc9.src.rpm http://xfs.org/~cattelan/xxdiff.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 243501] Review Request: qtiplot-doc - Documentation of qtiplot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qtiplot-doc - Documentation of qtiplot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=243501 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 17:34 EST --- I just realized, that I totally neglected this review request. I noticed however, that there is now a new release of the manual. I just tried the new version, the Sources needs to be adjusted and the dos2unix invokation does not work. The upstream tarball contains .svn directories, which creates a huge rpmlint warning. Imho they should be removed. Also the specfile contains both space and tabs, only after the Buildroot and the Group tag are spaces, after the other tags are tabs. I would only use spaces, but you need to choose one method to align the tags. If you still want to get this package in, please reply with a new spec and I will try very hard to complete this review soon after your reply. -- 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 435015] Review Request: libGPP4 - LGPL CCP4 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: libGPP4 - LGPL CCP4 library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435015 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 17:36 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) I'm wondering if it wouldn't just be simpler to call the package libgpp4 and save yourself the trouble. As it is, get things like this nice long %description which doesn't actually make it into any of the packages. I agree - I'll try to get this change made upstream, along with the others I've gathered here. Plenty of rpmlint spew worth looking at: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libgpp4-devel-1.0.4/doc/latex/csym_f_page.tex doxygen creates this; I'm not sure if it's worth converting or if it even matters. Not sure what the best course of action is here - could just have doxygen spit out the html docs... There are several complaints about the contents of the test directory being packaged as documentation, which I think is particularly ill-advised. Why aren't the tests just called at build time in a %check section? For now I've removed the test directory from the -devel package, and I'll make some suggestions upstream to move the test folder to TESTS in automake. updated spec: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/gpp4.spec updated srpm: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/gpp4-1.0.4-8.f8.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 450013] Review Request: testopia - bugzilla extended to add test case management
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: testopia - bugzilla extended to add test case management https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450013 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 18:03 EST --- Created an attachment (id=308756) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=308756action=view) extjs license as it appears in testopia tarball The testopia/extjs/LICENSE.txt license as it appears in the testopia tarball seems to indicate that it is LGPLv3. However the license text on http://extjs.com/products/license-faq.php seems to indicate GPLv3 -- 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 450470] RDMA kernel stack initializing package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: RDMA kernel stack initializing package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450470 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 18:09 EST --- I've uploaded a new version of the package. One of the pci errata things could be done as a quirk (but isn't yet), the other I'm not so sure about as it would require looking for a specific model and revision of hardware behind a specific model of pci bridge and then applying the quirk, most of the kernel quirks don't like being tied combinationally like that. The udevtrigger line now works (and what to match against is a bit obtuse, but I got it working and it now only does a trigger on pci based devices with no driver and that are either class NETWORK or INFINIBAND). -- 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 450483] libibmad package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: libibmad package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450483 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||450616 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 450616] New: opensm package
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=450616 Summary: opensm package Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: noarch URL: http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband/f10/SRPMS/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: low Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #450483 +++ +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #450482 +++ +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #450481 +++ +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #450470 +++ This is the Open Fabrics Alliance Infiniband Subnet Manager (OpenSM). It's responsible for assigning a link ID to all members of the fabric, determining routing via one of several routing algorithms, and other tasks. If you have an IB fabric with a dumb switch (meaning one without a built in SM, or one where the SM is turned off), then you must have opensm (or another SM) up and running on the fabric in order to be able to communicate with other hosts. As such, this is an essential element of the IB network stack. This package relies upon the libibumad package this bug was cloned from. src rpm can be found under http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband/f10/SRPMS/ x86_64 rpms can be found under http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband/f10/x86_64/ -- 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 450621] New: Review Request: itaka - On-demand screen capture server
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=450621 Summary: Review Request: itaka - On-demand screen capture server 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://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/SPECS/itaka.spec SRPM URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/srpms.fc9/itaka-0.2-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: Itaka is an on-demand screen capture server featuring a polished and easy to use interface with a robust backend HTTP server. The concept is : a request to your computer by a user displays an image of your screen in the user's web browser. rpmlint output : [EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ rpmlint -i itaka-0.2-1.fc9.noarch.rpm [EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ rpmlint -i itaka-0.2-1.fc9.src.rpm [EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp] src.rpm build under mock is OK. It's not my first package but I'm seeking a sponsor. -- 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 450621] Review Request: itaka - On-demand screen capture 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: itaka - On-demand screen capture server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450621 [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 450050] Review Request: cgilib - A C library for creating Common Gateway Interface (CGI) programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cgilib - A C library for creating Common Gateway Interface (CGI) programs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450050 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 19:45 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/cgilib.spec SRPM URL:http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/cgilib-0.6-2.fc9.src.rpm This version simplifies the autotools patch. It no longer attempts to conform to GNU's standards. The package also now BuildRequires the autotools programs. -- 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 450466] Review Request: clive - Video extraction tool for user-uploaded video hosts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clive - Video extraction tool for user-uploaded video hosts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450466 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 19:54 EST --- Update (add sed for Makefile because of hardcoded /lib/) : Spec URL : http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/SPECS/clive.spec SRPM URL : http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/srpms.fc9/clive-0.4.14-3.fc9.src.rpm rpmlint output : [EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ rpmlint -i clive-0.4.14-3.fc9.src.rpm [EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ rpmlint -i clive-0.4.14-3.fc9.noarch.rpm [EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ The src.rpm rebuild under mock is OK. -- 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 225621] Merge Review: bluez-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: bluez-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225621 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide CC|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| -- 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 226097] Merge Review: linux-atm
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: linux-atm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226097 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide CC|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| -- 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 449842] Review Request: trac-xmlrpc-plugin - XML-RPC plugin for Trac
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: trac-xmlrpc-plugin - XML-RPC plugin for Trac https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449842 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+, 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 450013] Review Request: testopia - bugzilla extended to add test case management
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: testopia - bugzilla extended to add test case management https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450013 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 22:11 EST --- Updated SRPM here: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/testopia-3.0.4-1_1.tr2.0_RC1.fc10.src.rpm and specfile at: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/testopia.spec This is still a work-in-progress, I'm afraid; it uses the correct extensions location and thus correctly populates the schema, but seeing some issues trying to actually creating test plans and cases. Fixing the extensions location revealed that Testopia adds a hard requirement on GD-Graph3D which stops checkinstall.pl It appears to only be referenced in the code at ./template/en/default/testopia/reports/completion.png.tmpl:USE my_graph = GD.Graph.bars3d(275,250); i.e. in one particular report, so shouldn't impact full functionality of the package beyond that. The above srpm patches out the requirement for now. perl-GD-Graph3D doesn't seem to be packaged for Fedora yet. Probably should fix that before clearing 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 450013] Review Request: testopia - bugzilla extended to add test case management
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: testopia - bugzilla extended to add test case management https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450013 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 22:14 EST --- Issue with extensionsdir filed against bugzilla package as bug 450636 -- 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 448025] Review Request: player - Cross-platform robot device interface and 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: player - Cross-platform robot device interface and server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 444257] Review Request: nted - Musical score editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nted - Musical score editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444257 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-10 01:02 EST --- Ah. the configure.in patch is really only needed for upstream, I can just not patch it (configure is patched by hand) Requires: yelp was removed because there are still disagreements about whether it should be depended on -- no core GNOME applications require it, for instance, and the problem is that it pulls in a lot of dependency for people who don't already run GNOME. Compiler warnings are sent to upstream, yes. Re-uploaded; same file names -- 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 430429] Review Request: python-storm - An object-relational mapper (ORM) 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-storm - An object-relational mapper (ORM) for Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430429 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-10 01:12 EST --- No reason not to update; the review request has just been languishing without attention. Updated package should be done by tomorrow. -- 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
