[Bug 460111] Review Request: perl-Data-ICal - Generates iCalendar (RFC 2445) calendar files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460111 Dan Horák <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460107] Review Request: perl-Text-vFile-asData - Parse vFile formatted files into data structures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460107 Dan Horák <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460101] Review Request: perl-HTML-RewriteAttributes - Concise attribute rewriting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460101 --- Comment #1 from Dan Horák <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-27 01:32:00 EDT --- formal review: OK source files match upstream: de1a91417cef97727f6201f7d986ed07df71bae5 HTML-RewriteAttributes-0.03.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK build root is correct. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. N/A compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). N/A debuginfo package looks complete. OK rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. OK %check is present and all tests pass. OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460253] New: Review Request: qle - A QSO Logger and log Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: qle - A QSO Logger and log Editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460253 Summary: Review Request: qle - A QSO Logger and log Editor 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/qle.spec SRPM URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/qle-0.0.10-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: The qle-package is a graphic QSO log viewer, log editor and QSO logger for amateur radio operators. 'qle' stands for QSO Logger and Editor. It is a Perl/Tk script that logs (or modifies) QSOs directly in a fast and light-weight SQLite database. Intended use: casual logging of rag-chew and contest QSOs. The logger caters for CW operators. Table headings, fonts, colours and other attributes are set in a user-editable configuration file. The SQLite log schema supplied may be altered to suit your taste, provided the configuration file is updated accordingly. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459933] Review Request: perl-RPC-XML - Set of classes for core data, message and XML handling
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459933 --- Comment #6 from Chris Weyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 23:01:36 EDT --- Wrapped it in a TODO. Not ideal, but then, we don't really expect it to consistently work, so... http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=787971 SRPM URL: http://fedora.biggerontheinside.net/review/perl-RPC-XML-0.60-2.fc9.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://fedora.biggerontheinside.net/review/perl-RPC-XML.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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428798] Review Request: OmegaT - Computer Aid Translation tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428798 --- Comment #18 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 22:38:08 EDT --- Thanks for your work. Then would you submit seperate review requests for each srpms and add proper "Depends on/Blocks" markers? (and please make the newly created review requests block NEEDSPONSOR as well as this bug) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459979] Review Request: mlt - Toolkit for broadcasters, video editors, media players, transcoders
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459979
--- Comment #2 from jebba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 22:26:59 EDT ---
***
mlt-devel.i386: W: no-documentation
Does the -devel package need a LICENSE or something? I'd think not since it
Requires: the main package.
***
mlt-devel.i386: W: executable-stack /usr/lib/mlt/libmltgtk2.so
I have no clue here.
***
%(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XX)
I changed my BuildRoot: to that. I had a more commonly used one before.
***
No url provided.
Now using full URL to source:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/mlt/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
***
Not tested on any other architectures.
This package does *not* compile on x86_64, croaking on some assembly...
Untested on ppc. I added ExcludeArch: x86_64.
***
To -devel section, added:
Requires: pkgconfig
***
-devel section, fixed:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
Revised packages here (0.3.0-2):
ftp://ftp.blagblagblag.org/pub/BLAG/developers/jebba/jebbadora/mlt.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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453422] Review Request: songbird - Mozilla based multimedia player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422 --- Comment #12 from David Halik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 22:04:39 EDT --- In keeping with the Songbird release of 0.7, I've bumped the package version and spec file. Both can be found here along with stable builds from koji: http://rpm.rutgers.edu/fedora/songbird-0.7.0-1.fc9.src.rpm http://rpm.rutgers.edu/fedora/songbird.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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459148] Review Request: txt2rss - Convert from txt to rss
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459148 --- Comment #3 from Rakesh Pandit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 21:51:14 EDT --- Confirmed upstream, that it is GPLv3. A license block will shortly be on scripts. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459979] Review Request: mlt - Toolkit for broadcasters, video editors, media players, transcoders
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459979
Yaakov Nemoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #1 from Yaakov Nemoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 21:51:34 EDT
---
- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
mlt-devel.i386: W: no-documentation
mlt-devel.i386: W: executable-stack /usr/lib/mlt/libmltgtk2.so
Not sure about the first one, no clue what the second one means, but it is
probably a problem in the compilation process of the package itself.
- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
CHECK
- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
.
CHECK
- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
BuildRoot needs to follow the guidelines. The following value is recommended.
%(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XX)
- MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
CHECK
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
CHECK
- MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
CHECK
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
CHECK
- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is
unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora
is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest
(http://www.ioccc.org/).
CHECK - for some values of legible ;) (next time use better handwriting)
- 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.
No url provided.
MD5 matches with the source package from sourceforge, nonetheless.
- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
Tested on i386, works.
- MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next
to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla
entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the
comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and
replace the long explanation with the bug number. The bug should be marked as
blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues:
FE-ExcludeArch-x86 , FE-ExcludeArch-x64 , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc ,
FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64
Not tested on any other architectures.
- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
CHECK
- MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
Not applicable (?)
- MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each
subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig.
An example of the correct syntax for this is:
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
CHECK
- MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
Not Applicable
- MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.
CHECK (but someone who does the actual review, please double check)
- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
CHECK
- MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executabl
[Bug 440560] Review Request: openssl098b - The OpenSSL toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=440560 Jason Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||201449 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 427411] Review Request: common-lisp-controller - Common Lisp source and compiler manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427411 --- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 20:47:08 EDT --- Somehow missed the bugzilla notification, sorry. Yes, all issues are resolved. 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 440560] Review Request: openssl098b - The OpenSSL toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=440560 Michel Alexandre Salim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] | |il.com) | --- Comment #9 from Michel Alexandre Salim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 20:31:36 EDT --- Can't actually remember what package I needed openssl098b for, so I'll just close the bug. Someone else can pick it up. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460244] Review Request: alt-ergo - Alt-Ergo automatic theorem prover
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460244 David A. Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460244] Review Request: alt-ergo - Alt-Ergo automatic theorem prover
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460244 David A. Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #2 from David A. Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 20:29:26 EDT --- For completeness, I'll vouch that comment #1 is an accurate copy of the emails I sent Alan Dunn while Bugzilla was down. I'm looking forward to seeing the updated alt-ergo. I'll make myself the reviewer; thanks for packaging alt-ergo. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459409] Review Request: E - Equational Theorem Prover
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459409 --- Comment #14 from David A. Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 20:20:47 EDT --- Help! Can't build; is the build env still down? I got the cvs directories okay, but can't seem to build for F-8, F-9, _OR_ devel. I just get these errors: "FAILED: BuildError: package E not in list for tag dist-f8-updates-candidate" I ran this: cd ~/cvs fedora-cvs E cd E ./common/cvs-import.sh ~/dwheeler.com/E-0.999.006-2.fc9.src.rpm ./common/cvs-import.sh -b F-9 ~/dwheeler.com/E-0.999.006-2.fc9.src.rpm ./common/cvs-import.sh -b F-8 ~/dwheeler.com/E-0.999.006-2.fc9.src.rpm cd F-8 cvs up cd ../F-9 cvs up cd ../devel/ cvs up cd .. cd F-8 make build cd ../F-9/ make build cd ../devel/ make build Here's what I get (skipping to the "make build" stuff): $ cd F-8 $ make build /usr/bin/koji build dist-f8-updates-candidate 'cvs://cvs.fedoraproject.org/cvs/pkgs?rpms/E/F-8#E-0_999_006-2_fc8' Created task: 787924 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=787924 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 787924 build (dist-f8-updates-candidate, F-8:E-0_999_006-2_fc8): free 787924 build (dist-f8-updates-candidate, F-8:E-0_999_006-2_fc8): free -> open (ppc4.fedora.phx.redhat.com) 787925 buildSRPMFromSCM (F-8:E-0_999_006-2_fc8): free 787925 buildSRPMFromSCM (F-8:E-0_999_006-2_fc8): free -> open (x86-7.fedora.phx.redhat.com) 787925 buildSRPMFromSCM (F-8:E-0_999_006-2_fc8): open (x86-7.fedora.phx.redhat.com) -> closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 787924 build (dist-f8-updates-candidate, F-8:E-0_999_006-2_fc8): open (ppc4.fedora.phx.redhat.com) -> FAILED: BuildError: package E not in list for tag dist-f8-updates-candidate 0 free 0 open 1 done 1 failed 787924 build (dist-f8-updates-candidate, F-8:E-0_999_006-2_fc8) failed make: *** [koji] Error 1 $ cd ../F-9/ $ make build /usr/bin/koji build dist-f9-updates-candidate 'cvs://cvs.fedoraproject.org/cvs/pkgs?rpms/E/F-9#E-0_999_006-2_fc9' Created task: 787926 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=787926 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 787926 build (dist-f9-updates-candidate, F-9:E-0_999_006-2_fc9): free 787926 build (dist-f9-updates-candidate, F-9:E-0_999_006-2_fc9): free -> open (x86-3.fedora.phx.redhat.com) 787927 buildSRPMFromSCM (F-9:E-0_999_006-2_fc9): free 787927 buildSRPMFromSCM (F-9:E-0_999_006-2_fc9): free -> open (ppc2.fedora.redhat.com) 787927 buildSRPMFromSCM (F-9:E-0_999_006-2_fc9): open (ppc2.fedora.redhat.com) -> closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 787926 build (dist-f9-updates-candidate, F-9:E-0_999_006-2_fc9): open (x86-3.fedora.phx.redhat.com) -> FAILED: BuildError: package E not in list for tag dist-f9-updates-candidate 0 free 0 open 1 done 1 failed 787926 build (dist-f9-updates-candidate, F-9:E-0_999_006-2_fc9) failed make: *** [koji] Error 1 $ cd ../devel/ $ make build /usr/bin/koji build dist-f10 'cvs://cvs.fedoraproject.org/cvs/pkgs?rpms/E/devel#E-0_999_006-2_fc10' Created task: 787928 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=787928 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 787928 build (dist-f10, devel:E-0_999_006-2_fc10): open (ppc4.fedora.phx.redhat.com) 787929 buildSRPMFromSCM (devel:E-0_999_006-2_fc10): free 787929 buildSRPMFromSCM (devel:E-0_999_006-2_fc10): free -> open (x86-5.fedora.phx.redhat.com) 787929 buildSRPMFromSCM (devel:E-0_999_006-2_fc10): open (x86-5.fedora.phx.redhat.com) -> closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 787928 build (dist-f10, devel:E-0_999_006-2_fc10): open (ppc4.fedora.phx.redhat.com) -> FAILED: BuildError: package E not in list for tag dist-f10 0 free 0 open 1 done 1 failed 787928 build (dist-f10, devel:E-0_999_006-2_fc10) failed make: *** [koji] Error 1 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459177] Review Request: python-peak-rules - Generic functions and business rules support systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459177 --- Comment #5 from Luke Macken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 20:21:12 EDT --- To quote upstream author, Phillip J. Eby: "ZPL 2.1; see http://www.zope.org/Resources/ZPL"; -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460244] Review Request: alt-ergo - Alt-Ergo automatic theorem prover
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460244
--- Comment #1 from Alan Dunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 20:15:14 EDT ---
Bugzilla was inoperative at the time that I originally produced this package,
so I solicited a review by email (from David Wheeler, who will vouch for this).
He wrote:
* I could NOT rebuild on i386; it seems to fail on ocaml-ocamlgraph. Perhaps
the ocaml-ocamlgraph I'm using is not the latest version, but in any case, I
got this error: "Cannot find file graph.cmxa". I rebuilt
http://www.duke.edu/~amd34/ocamlgraph/ocaml-ocamlgraph-0.99c-2.fc9.src.rpm to
create ocaml-ocamlgraph, and it's true, there's no .cmxa file:
$ rpm -qil ocaml-ocamlgraph
...
/usr/lib/ocaml/ocamlgraph
/usr/lib/ocaml/ocamlgraph/META
/usr/lib/ocaml/ocamlgraph/graph.cma
/usr/lib/ocaml/ocamlgraph/graph.cmi
/usr/share/doc/ocaml-ocamlgraph-0.99c/LICENSE
...
which I fixed in version 2 by adding ocaml-ocamlgraph-devel to BuildRequires
(it is not yet in the repositories, which implies that I can't really use mock)
* In "cp %{SOURCE1} %{SOURCE2} .", say "cp -p" instead. You should try to keep
the timestamps where you can. Indeed, if you got these files from elsewhere,
try to preserve THEIR timestamps.
which I also changed, and the following two comments
* The spec file says this, and I couldn't figure out what "->" meant;
can you make it clearer by replacing "->" with the word(s) you mean?
# Avoid a Makefile patch by just adding this empty file -> autoconf
# doesn't complain (better than ignoring all status from configure)
* I think the "iconv" should be run during _build_, not _install_.
Also, you have 3 semicolon-separated commands on one line to invoke it,
which kindof hides the "iconv". I'd prefer to have that as a sequence
of 3 commands on 3 lines. I'm not big on cuddling multiple commands
on a line anyway, but this sequence hides the important command:
"mv CeCILL-C CeCILL-C.iso8859; iconv -f ISO-8859-1 -t UTF-8 < CeCILL-C.iso8859
> CeCILL-C; rm CeCILL-C.iso8859"
which I also changed. He then gave a "more formal review":
+ rpmlint output
It outputs:
alt-ergo.i386: W: invalid-license CeCILL-C
But this is an error in rpmlint (CeCILL-C is a recent addition),
already explained in the spec file
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
Yes. CeCILL-C was just added to the acceptable list.
+ license matches the actual package license
+ %doc includes license file
Yes, /usr/share/doc/alt-ergo-0.8/CeCILL-C
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
Yes, sha1sum:
6a073b88d799e3dfcc7e13dfc1386c6422ce9ab8
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
i386. Can't try koji until ocamlgraph is in.
??? ExcludeArch bugs filed
??? BuildRequires list all build dependencies
(Not yet)
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun
+ does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8
Optional:
n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
??? reviewer should build the package in mock
Don't know how to do that yet; ocamlgraph not available in yum
??? the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
Don't know how to do that yet; ocamlgraph not available in yum
+ review should test the package functions as described
Tried using gwhy; looks great!
n/a scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat
[Bug 460244] New: Review Request: alt-ergo - Alt-Ergo automatic theorem prover
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: alt-ergo - Alt-Ergo automatic theorem prover https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460244 Summary: Review Request: alt-ergo - Alt-Ergo automatic theorem prover 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.duke.edu/~amd34/alt-ergo/alt-ergo.spec SRPM URL: http://www.duke.edu/~amd34/alt-ergo/alt-ergo-0.8-2.fc9.src.rpm Description: Alt-Ergo is an automated theorem prover implemented in OCaml. It is based on CC(X) - a congruence closure algorithm parameterized by an equational theory X. This algorithm is reminiscent of the Shostak algorithm. Currently CC(X) is instantiated by the theory of linear arithmetics. Alt-Ergo also contains a home made SAT-solver and an instantiation mechanism by which it fully supports quantifiers. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 426753] Review Request: xmonad - A tiling window manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426753 --- Comment #6 from Yaakov Nemoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 20:09:18 EDT --- I've redone the guidelines completely to use macros. I'll be going over this in the coming weeks to make some badly needed updates to everything. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455555] Review Request: libhocr - A Hebrew optical character recognition library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=45 --- Comment #20 from Kevin Fenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 19:36:49 EDT --- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459409] Review Request: E - Equational Theorem Prover
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459409 --- Comment #13 from Kevin Fenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 19:30:31 EDT --- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458472] Review Request: grub2 - Bootloader with support for Linux, Multiboot and more
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458472 --- Comment #25 from Kevin Fenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 19:28:25 EDT --- ok, cvs done. I still think this could well confuse users, but I don't have any hard objections. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458457] Review Request: grc - GUI for GNURadio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458457 --- Comment #13 from Kevin Fenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 19:25:22 EDT --- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455067] Review Request: ferm - For Easy Rule Making
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455067 --- Comment #15 from Kevin Fenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 19:20:08 EDT --- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428798] Review Request: OmegaT - Computer Aid Translation tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428798 --- Comment #17 from Ismael Olea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 19:04:49 EDT --- First version of vldocking: http://olea.org/tmp/vldocking.spec http://olea.org/paquetes-rpm/fedora-9/vldocking-2.0.6e-1olea.src.rpm http://olea.org/paquetes-rpm/fedora-9/vldocking-2.0.6e-1olea.noarch.rpm http://olea.org/paquetes-rpm/fedora-9/vldocking-javadoc-2.0.6e-1olea.noarch.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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459908] Review Request: freedink - Adventure and role-playing game (engine)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459908 --- Comment #3 from Sylvain Beucler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 18:58:09 EDT --- Hello, Do you need anything else? I also uploaded an updated version (remove a dependency and amd64 fixes) Spec URL: http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora/freedink.spec SRPM URL: http://www.freedink.org/snapshots/fedora/freedink-1.08.20080826-1.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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458643] Review Request: dansguardian - Content filtering web proxy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458643 Michel Alexandre Salim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 17:41:40 EDT --- What if the spec that Fedora ships does *not* contain the full URL to the source tarball? Put the full URL under a comment, noting that access to that URL is restricted to non-commercial use. Since Fedora is a non-commercial project, the Fedora maintainer's downloading of the source from upstream is legit. But let's wait and see what -legal says about this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428798] Review Request: OmegaT - Computer Aid Translation tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428798 --- Comment #16 from Ismael Olea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 17:14:59 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) > Currently I found 4 jar files in OmegaT source tarball: > ./nbproject/org-netbeans-modules-java-j2seproject-copylibstask.jar This seems not to be needed. > ./lib/vldocking_2.0.6d.jar > - Seemingly from > http://www.vlsolutions.com/en/products/docking/licensing.php pending > ./lib/htmlparser.jar > - Seemingly from > http://htmlparser.sourceforge.net/ first version done: http://olea.org/tmp/htmlparser.spec http://olea.org/paquetes-rpm/fedora-9/htmlparser-1.6-1olea.src.rpm http://olea.org/paquetes-rpm/fedora-9/htmlparser-1.6-1olea.noarch.rpm http://olea.org/paquetes-rpm/fedora-9/htmlparser-javadoc-1.6-1olea.noarch.rpm Koji info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=787616 lib-mnemonics.jar is pending 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459409] Review Request: E - Equational Theorem Prover
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459409 Jason Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459409] Review Request: E - Equational Theorem Prover
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459409 --- Comment #12 from David A. Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 16:37:20 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: E Short Description: Equational Theorem Prover Owners: dwheeler Branches: F-8 F-9 InitialCC: -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459065] Review Request: italc - intelligent teaching and learning with computers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459065 --- Comment #16 from John Ellson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 16:32:49 EDT --- Yes, fc9 is fine, as far as I've progressed with it. See #11. Ok with allowing rawhide to catch up. I was just trying to record that the issue is still open. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459409] Review Request: E - Equational Theorem Prover
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459409
--- Comment #11 from David A. Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 16:31:03
EDT ---
Wow! Thanks for the quick turnaround!
> I'm a little dubious about calling the package 'E' rather
> than something like 'E-theorem-prover', but it doesn't
> seem to be specifically against any guideline.
I wondered about that too, but they're consistent in their use of this unusual
one-capital-letter name ("E"). There's even precedence for this - "R" is one
of the most popular statistical packages, and the Fedora package name is,
unsurprisingly, "R". So, since they consistently use the name, there's no
guideline against it, and we have precedent, I just went along with the flow.
Only 24 to go in U.S. ASCII :-).
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459065] Review Request: italc - intelligent teaching and learning with computers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459065 --- Comment #15 from Axel Thimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 16:22:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14) > Re #6: But the problem with the italc executable from the freshly built rpms > is > still there on Rawhide: What about F9, does it work as advertised? One needs to have ica on all systems running, which is probably the largest issue on F9 and not completely solved (if you need remote access during gdm, kdm, ldm, ..., one needs to add several different autostart mechanisms for ica). If it works on F9, I'd suggest to to allow for rawhide to kickstart again. Since the infrastructure incident two weeks ago there was no update and rawhide was in the middle of going alpha to beta. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459065] Review Request: italc - intelligent teaching and learning with computers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459065 --- Comment #14 from John Ellson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 16:11:23 EDT --- Re #6: But the problem with the italc executable from the freshly built rpms is still there on Rawhide: $ italc Loading socket Config module ... Creating backend ... Loading x11 FrontEnd module ... Failed to load x11 FrontEnd module. Loading simple Config module ... Creating backend ... desc table has been created. Loading socket FrontEnd module ... Starting SCIM as daemon ... desc table has been created. QInotifyFileSystemWatcherEngine::addPaths: inotify_add_watch failed: No such file or directory Tue Aug 26 16:08:00 2008: [warning] QFileSystemWatcher: failed to add paths: /tmp/ibus-ellson/ -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455187] Review Request: erlang-pgsql - Erlang PostgreSQL interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455187 --- Comment #5 from Robert Scheck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 16:05:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > I think we should, probably, discuss it via fedora-devel maillist. There are > more libraries for interpreted languages coming, there similar issues would > arise. I don't care whether -devel or -src or whatelse, but we should be consistent for all packages. I'll rename to whatever gets defined or discussed, I'm lacking a bit time to drive such a discussion the next time. > Erlang packaging guidelines are still missing. Are you interested in creating > ones? There is a dedicated SIG for erlang: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Erlang > > but still no guidelines. Sorry, I just need PostgreSQL-Support for ejabberd at work - not more and not less, so I'm maintaining the package, but I'm clueless regarding Erlang and all what has to do with. Updated files are here now (should include everything from yesterday): Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/erlang-pgsql.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/erlang-pgsql-0-1.20080825svn.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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459065] Review Request: italc - intelligent teaching and learning with computers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459065 --- Comment #13 from John Ellson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 16:05:53 EDT --- ... oops hit enter too soon...The issue was solved in bug #460123 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459065] Review Request: italc - intelligent teaching and learning with computers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459065 --- Comment #12 from John Ellson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 16:01:28 EDT --- Re #10: The Rawhide bug was cause by bad qt,qt-devel rpms sometime in the past. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459549] Review Request: python-ethtool - bindings for the ethtool kernel interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459549
--- Comment #4 from Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26
16:01:52 EDT ---
http://userweb.kernel.org/~acme/python-ethtool/python-ethtool-0.3.tar.bz2
http://userweb.kernel.org/~acme/python-ethtool/python-ethtool.spec
[EMAIL PROTECTED] python-ethtool]# rpmlint rpm/SPECS/python-ethtool.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] python-ethtool]# rpmlint
rpm/SRPMS/python-ethtool-0.3-1.fc10.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] python-ethtool]# rpmlint
rpm/RPMS/x86_64/python-ethtool-0.3-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] python-ethtool]# rpm -Uvh
rpm/RPMS/x86_64/python-ethtool-0.3-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm
Preparing...### [100%]
1:python-ethtool ### [100%]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] python-ethtool]# rpmlint python-ethtool
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] python-ethtool]# rpm -q --qf "%{url}\n" python-ethtool
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/acme/python-ethtool.git
[EMAIL PROTECTED] python-ethtool]# grep ^Source rpm/SPECS/python-ethtool.spec
Source:
http://userweb.kernel.org/~acme/python-ethtool/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] python-ethtool]#
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 450243] Review Request: google-gadgets - Google Gadgets for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450243 --- Comment #16 from Michel Alexandre Salim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 15:37:08 EDT --- There were some missing build requirements, sorry. Should have tried a scratch build. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=787490 http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/for_review/web/google-gadgets-0.10.1-2.fc10.src.rpm http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/for_review/web/google-gadgets.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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 438608] Review Request: elisa-plugins-good - Good Plugins for the Elisa Media Center
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438608 --- Comment #10 from Michel Alexandre Salim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 14:48:16 EDT --- That might be a good idea -- 1 MB is nothing, really nowadays. So elisa-common can be called elisa-devel, and should only be used for building plugins. Will proceed with the review (reviewing -bad as well) once I could actually install the whole thing. I commented on the twisted-web2 review asking if you could upload the twisted-core package you used for building -web2. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457219] Review Request: python-twisted-web2 - Next generation Twisted Web Server Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457219 Michel Alexandre Salim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 14:44:43 EDT --- Do you have an updated python-twisted-core package one can test this with? I need it to review elisa-plugins-bad -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 438608] Review Request: elisa-plugins-good - Good Plugins for the Elisa Media Center
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438608 --- Comment #9 from Matthias Saou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 13:36:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > How about making the %postun of elisa be 'rpm -e elisa-common' ? Not that it > is > that big of a deal. Eek, that's wy too ugly :-) If the current way is to be changed, it would be to have the two nearly identical packages, wasting a little bit of mirror server space (less than 1MB). -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 438608] Review Request: elisa-plugins-good - Good Plugins for the Elisa Media Center
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438608 Michel Alexandre Salim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Michel Alexandre Salim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 13:22:11 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > The only drawback I can see here is that after removing "elisa", the plugins > will be gone, but not the "elisa-common" package. The only solution I can > think > of would be to duplicate the files currently in "elisa-common" in "elisa" and > rename the "common" to "devel". We'd have two packages nearly identical, with > one used only for building the plugins. I was about to suggest combining elisa with elisa-plugins-good, but if the GUI itself is in elisa-plugins-bad... How about making the %postun of elisa be 'rpm -e elisa-common' ? Not that it is that big of a deal. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457839] Review Request: rubygem-cobbler - Provides Ruby bindings to interact with a Cobbler server.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457839 --- Comment #10 from Darryl L. Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 13:20:34 EDT --- I've fixed the licensing to state that it is released under LGPLv2.1, and added a call to the tests in the %check section. Specfile: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-cobbler.spec SRPM: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-cobbler-0.0.2-2.fc9.src.rpm Upstream: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/cobbler-0.0.2.gem -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460101] Review Request: perl-HTML-RewriteAttributes - Concise attribute rewriting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460101 Dan Horák <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460182] New: Review Request: python-virtualenv - Tool to create isolated Python environments
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-virtualenv - Tool to create isolated Python environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460182 Summary: Review Request: python-virtualenv - Tool to create isolated Python environments 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://stevemilner.org/tmp/python-virtualenv.spec SRPM URL: http://stevemilner.org/tmp/python-virtualenv-1.1-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: virtualenv is a tool to create isolated Python environments. virtualenv is a successor to workingenv, and an extension of virtual-python. It is written by Ian Bicking, and sponsored by the Open Planning Project. It is licensed under an MIT-style permissive license. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 450243] Review Request: google-gadgets - Google Gadgets for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450243 --- Comment #15 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 12:30:26 EDT --- Umm... doesn't build on dist-f10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=785923 By the way you can check if your srpm can be rebuilt correctly using koji like: $ koji build --scratch where can be dist-f10, dist-f9-updates-candidate or dist-f8-updates-candidate (and some olpc related target). When the rebuild succeeds, the result binary rpms and some logs are put under http://koji.fedoraproject.org/scratch//task_/ -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457839] Review Request: rubygem-cobbler - Provides Ruby bindings to interact with a Cobbler server.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457839
Jason Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
--- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 12:16:56 EDT
---
I'm going to assign this to myself; I don't mean to steal the ticket, but I
fear losing track of it since I see some things that need fixing.
OK. First problem: The upstream source does not match what is in this package.
I downloaded the src.rpm from comment #3, unpacked it, and used spectool -g to
download the Source URLs and compared them. This either points to a naughty
upstream which modified the tarball without changing the version (which should
never be done) or the tarball was modified before the src.rpm was built (which
should only be done in rare circumstances where legalities require it).
Wow, unpacking the data.tar.gz file inside the gem gives lots of complaints
from tar:
tar: examples/has_distro.rb: implausibly old time stamp 1969-12-31 18:00:00
What on earth is going on there?
The license of cobbler.rb and all files in lib/cobbler is GPLv2 only. The
specfile says LGPLv2+. I see this was discussed earlier but I don't understand
why the sources in the tarball contradict the COPYING file in the tarball. In
any case, the COPYING file takes second seat here, but I still wouldn't approve
this package until the upstream licensing issue is clarified.
There seems to be a test suite included; is there any reason for not running
it?
X source files do not match upstream.
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field matches the actual license.
? latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
rubygem(cobbler) = 0.0.1
rubygem-cobbler = 0.0.1-3.fc10
=
/usr/bin/ruby
rubygems
? %check is not present, but a test suite seems to exist.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* rubygem(%{gemname}) provided.
* gems installed properly.
* gems installed to proper directory.
* gems, cache, and specifications subdirectories owned properly.
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 445604] Review Request: Tennix! - A funny 2D tennis game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445604
--- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 12:00:32 EDT
---
Well, for 0.6.1-3:
* Summary
- Usually the part like "Tennix! is a" is redundant for Summary
* SourceURL
- I recommend to use %{name}, %{version} macros (especially %{version}).
With using these you probably don't have to modify SourceURL
when the version is upgraded.
* Macros
- Use macros. /usr must be %{_prefix}.
! Timestamp
- Would you consider to add
--
sed -i -e 's|install -m|install -p -m|' makefile
--
to keep timestamps on installed files as much as possible?
* Icon caching
- Please refer to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#GTK.2B_icon_cache
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 445604] Review Request: Tennix! - A funny 2D tennis game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445604 Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458346] Review Request: gflags - Library for commandline flag processing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458346 --- Comment #7 from Rakesh Pandit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 11:33:49 EDT --- SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/gflags.spec SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/gflags-0.9-4.fc9.src.rpm Updated. Thanks, -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458012] Review Request: openwsman - Opensource Implementation of WS-Management
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458012 Matt Domsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||458024 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458024] Review Request: sblim-sfcc - Small Footprint CIM Client Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458024 Matt Domsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||458012 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458012] Review Request: openwsman - Opensource Implementation of WS-Management
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458012 Matt Domsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458024] Review Request: sblim-sfcc - Small Footprint CIM Client Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458024
Matt Domsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Matt Domsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 11:19:07 EDT ---
Srinivas and I have gone back and forth a few times privately, and he's getting
the hang of it. :-)
Trivial changes yet which can be made at checkin time. Note the preferred
value of BuildRoot I use, and since you are using the standard %setup macro
now, you don't need to pass it %{name}-%{version}.
With these changes, I approve.
-Matt
--- sblim-sfcc.spec Tue Aug 19 09:50:30 2008
+++ /home/mdomsch/sblim-sfcc.spec Tue Aug 26 10:13:44 2008
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
# Package spec for sblim-sfcc
#
-BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root
+BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud
+%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XX)
Summary: Small Footprint CIM Client Library
Name: sblim-sfcc
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ Small Footprint CIM Client Library Heade
%prep
-%setup -q %{name}-%{version}
+%setup -q
%build
chmod a-x backend/cimxml/*.[ch]
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458025] Review Request: wsmancli - Opensource Implementation of WS-Management - Command line Utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458025 Matt Domsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks|177841 | 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 450371] Review Request: pokegen - Strategy/RPG game engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450371 --- Comment #26 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 11:15:41 EDT --- Okay, I can say the packaging of the latest srpm is good, so I will wait for spot's reply of how he think about naming (and summary). -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459705] Review Request: eigen2 - A lightweight C++ template library for vector and matrix math
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459705 Jason Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #18 from Jason Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 11:05:52 EDT --- OK, this builds fine. If you think it reasonable to skip the test suite then I'll go along, although I hope that the compiler issue can be fixed soon and the tests turned back on. 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457839] Review Request: rubygem-cobbler - Provides Ruby bindings to interact with a Cobbler server.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457839 Jason Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 10:26:03 EDT --- I was hoping to knock out some of the other ruby package reviews today; one more shouldn't take long, so I'll try to look at this 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457839] Review Request: rubygem-cobbler - Provides Ruby bindings to interact with a Cobbler server.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457839 --- Comment #7 from Bryan Kearney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 10:03:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > Hey Bryan. I don't seem to see you in the packager group... > have you been sponsored yet there? You do need to be in that group to approve > packages... Ok.. misread the guidelines. Since I did an initial review, but not in the packager group what does darryl need to do 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460035] EPEL branch for fop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460035 Jason Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 09:01:31 EDT --- Closing as this is not a package review ticket. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459065] Review Request: italc - intelligent teaching and learning with computers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459065 --- Comment #11 from John Ellson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 08:47:49 EDT --- Re #9: Tested that the patch worked, and that builds failed without it, on fc9.i386 and fc9.x86_64. Thanks. Re #6: OK, on fc9.i386 and fc9.x86_64 running italc from the command line immediately after a fresh install produces much more reasonable set of warning popups. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458472] Review Request: grub2 - Bootloader with support for Linux, Multiboot and more
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458472 --- Comment #24 from Jerone Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 08:21:46 EDT --- @Marek Haha. No just just showing where I was coming from. Not to stroke my ego. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454250] Review Request: tangoGPS - tangoGPS is a lightweight and fast mapping application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454250 --- Comment #6 from Peter Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 07:18:25 EDT --- Updated to the latest version. Build tested in mock SPEC: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/tangogps.spec SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/tangogps-0.9.3-1.fc10.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. ___ 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=28 Richard W.M. Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=28 --- Comment #13 from Richard W.M. Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 06:59:32 EDT --- F-10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=786405 F-9: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=786424 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ocaml-cmigrep-1.5-2.fc9.2 Done, thanks everyone for your help. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459065] Review Request: italc - intelligent teaching and learning with computers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459065 --- Comment #10 from John Ellson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 06:46:00 EDT --- Re #8: on rawhide, a fresh install of qt-devel installs a broken link: lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 2008-08-26 06:44 /usr/bin/moc-qt4 -> ../../../bin/moc-qt4 I'll report this against qt... -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458186] Review Request: gnusound - GNUsound is a multitrack sound editor for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458186 --- Comment #5 from Rakesh Pandit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 06:28:28 EDT --- I tried to communicate with upstream regarding BUILD patch which fixs DESTDIR this but no proper response. I feel it should not be a blocker. Maintainer + moderator of dev mails seems to be on holidays. This package has other issues also like -- few dependencies are in third party repo. As they cannot be here due to license issues with audio formats. I will discuss this package with some more folks at DEV (IRC or ML) and check what is best way to move forward. Anybody having comments is welcome. Will update ASAP. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428568] Review Request: synfig - Synfig is a vector based 2D animation package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428568 --- Comment #13 from Marc Wiriadisastra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 06:25:47 EDT --- Take it over if you want -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459065] Review Request: italc - intelligent teaching and learning with computers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459065
--- Comment #9 from Axel Thimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 06:22:38 EDT ---
QTDIR is being set by qt3, not qt3-devel (as I assumed), so indeed removing it
for test building outside of chroots is not going to work. I patched up the
specfile a bit to allow building even if qt3 bits are around, please use the
following patch:
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
-Summary: intelligent teaching and learning with computers
+Summary: Intelligent teaching and learning with computers
Name: italc
Version: 1.0.9
-Release: 4%{?dist}
+Release: 5%{?dist}
License: GPLv2+
Group: System Environment/Daemons
URL: http://italc.sourceforge.net/
@@ -46,6 +46,10 @@
%patch3 -p1
%build
+# QTDIR may be set by a qt3 instance, remove it
+# (italc shouldn't be checking for QTDIR in the first place, it's
+# obsoleted in QT4)
+unset QTDIR
# docdir handling is broken in configure.in, but for good measure,
# let's keep it where it should be
%configure --docdir=%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458346] Review Request: gflags - Library for commandline flag processing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458346
--- Comment #6 from Rakesh Pandit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 06:21:32 EDT
---
> Can you maybe submit an patch to upstream that changes the installation of
the
> header files within the automake stuff or file a bug? Then you could remove
> these lines:
>mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_includedir}/%{name}
>mv $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_includedir}/google/*.h
>$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_includedir}/%{name}/
I had a discussion with upstream and had a look at some other packages. It
seems to me that it is wrong to move header files to some other place as it may
break some other useful stuff.
Few other packages have similar structure and they don't move header files.
I will like to keep them in place.
Will update ASAP.
Thanks,
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459065] Review Request: italc - intelligent teaching and learning with computers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459065 --- Comment #8 from Axel Thimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 06:11:33 EDT --- /usr/bin/moc-qt4 is part of qt-devel, which is a build requirement. Does it exist on your system (ls /usr/bin/moc-qt4)? Is the qt-devel package damaged (rpm -V qt-devel) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459065] Review Request: italc - intelligent teaching and learning with computers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459065 --- Comment #7 from John Ellson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 06:00:35 EDT --- Re #3: I removed qt3-devel, and a bunch of stuff that depended on it. I notice that even after a fresh login I still have QTDIR=/usr/lib64/qt-3.3 in my environment. Not sure where this is getting set? Its not getting set in my .bash* scripts. Anyway, same problem. I would have tried removing qt3, but this would have resulted in the removal of most of KDE. I tried a subshell and "unset QTDIR" before running rpmbuild, but this resulted in: checking QTDIR... /usr checking Qt includes... /usr/include checking for moc-qt4... no checking for moc... no configure: error: *** not found! Make sure you have Qt-devel-tools installed! error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TQpaPw (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TQpaPw (%build) I can't find any "moc-qt4" rpms. I tried on a reasonably vanilla fedora-9 system, same problem. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458457] Review Request: grc - GUI for GNURadio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458457 --- Comment #12 from Marek Mahut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 05:25:39 EDT --- Thank you Lubomir! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: grc Short Description: GUI for GNURadio Owners: mmahut Branches: F-8 F-9 EL-5 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458457] Review Request: grc - GUI for GNURadio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458457 Marek Mahut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458457] Review Request: grc - GUI for GNURadio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458457 Lubomir Rintel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Lubomir Rintel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 05:11:53 EDT --- Seems mostly fine, thanks! Please add "$@" to the launch script and remove .png extension of the Icon in desktop files before commiting. 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458457] Review Request: grc - GUI for GNURadio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458457 --- Comment #11 from Lubomir Rintel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 05:12:57 EDT --- I see you were faster! Thanks^2 :) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459065] Review Request: italc - intelligent teaching and learning with computers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459065 --- Comment #6 from Axel Thimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 05:08:22 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > I've no idea what I'm doing, so likely this is unfair, but > I installed italc and italc-master rpms then: > > $ italc > Loading socket Config module ... > Creating backend ... > Loading x11 FrontEnd module ... > Failed to load x11 FrontEnd module. > Loading simple Config module ... > Creating backend ... > desc table has been created. > Loading socket FrontEnd module ... > Starting SCIM as daemon ... > desc table has been created. > QInotifyFileSystemWatcherEngine::addPaths: inotify_add_watch failed: No > such file or directory > Mon Aug 25 21:56:53 2008: [warning] QFileSystemWatcher: failed to add > paths: /tmp/ibus-ellson/ > > > The splash screen was up, but the application was hung and had to be aborted > with C > > Shouldn't it provide a configuration screen? Yes, that's what it does. What did you test it under, rawhide? I tested this on F9 and it worked OK. Note that ica must be running for italc (the master app) to be able to work. But usually you get a note after the splash screen that this needs to happen and the program bails out. Also I've never seen this verbose output even if ica is not running, usually there is no output on the console at all. Maybe it is firing up some QT components for the first time and you see a QT issue? If you didn't try this under F9, could you please do so? And we can dig into any rawhide problems in the next step. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 450275] Review Request: sysklogd - System logging and kernel message trapping daemons
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450275 S.A. Hartsuiker <[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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457060] Review Request: wordpress-mu - Multi-user variant of WordPress
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457060 S.A. Hartsuiker <[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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455067] Review Request: ferm - For Easy Rule Making
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455067 Pavel Alexeev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Pavel Alexeev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 04:31:14 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ferm Short Description: For Easy Rule Making Owners: hubbitus Branches: F-8 F-9 InitialCC: -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459065] Review Request: italc - intelligent teaching and learning with computers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459065 --- Comment #5 from Axel Thimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 04:54:59 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > $ rpmbuild --rebuild italc-1.0.9-4.src.rpm > ... > checking QTDIR... configure: error: *** QTDIR must be defined, or --with-qtdir > option given > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.uuZdGM (%build) This is due to presence of qt3-devel. Please uninstall qt3-devel or use a chroot builder like mock to build w/o qt3-devel. This should probably be addressed with a BuildConflicts: qt3-devel or patching the sources to properly use pkg-config. For the latter there is an upstream bug report here: ([ 2040452 ] should use pkg-config to locate qt4) https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2040452&group_id=132465&atid=724375 But in Fedora's build concept this is not surfacing as it will install only the packages mentioned as BuildRequires: and not qt3-devel. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460111] Review Request: perl-Data-ICal - Generates iCalendar (RFC 2445) calendar files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460111 Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||459536 Depends on||460107 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460111] New: Review Request: perl-Data-ICal - Generates iCalendar (RFC 2445) calendar files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Data-ICal - Generates iCalendar (RFC 2445) calendar files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460111 Summary: Review Request: perl-Data-ICal - Generates iCalendar (RFC 2445) calendar files 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Data-ICal.spec SRPM URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Data-ICal-0.13-2.fc9.src.rpm Description: A Data::ICal object represents a VCALENDAR object as defined in the iCalendar protocol (RFC 2445, MIME type "text/calendar"), as implemented in many popular calendaring programs such as Apple's iCal. This package is a new prerequisite of rt >= 3.8.0. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460107] Review Request: perl-Text-vFile-asData - Parse vFile formatted files into data structures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460107 Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||460111 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456549] Review Request: pmpu - GUI for distributed VCS's
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456549 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 04:36:28 EDT --- pmpu-0.2-1.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pmpu-0.2-1.fc8 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460107] New: Review Request: perl-Text-vFile-asData - Parse vFile formatted files into data structures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-vFile-asData - Parse vFile formatted files into data structures https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460107 Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-vFile-asData - Parse vFile formatted files into data structures 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Text-vFile-asData.spec SRPM URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Text-vFile-asData-0.05-2.fc10.src.rpm Description: Text::vFile::asData reads vFile format files, such as vCard (RFC 2426) and vCalendar (RFC 2445). This package is a new prerequisite of rt >= 3.8.0. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456549] Review Request: pmpu - GUI for distributed VCS's
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456549 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 04:35:00 EDT --- pmpu-0.2-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pmpu-0.2-1.fc9 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458457] Review Request: grc - GUI for GNURadio
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458457 Marek Mahut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||460104 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458472] Review Request: grub2 - Bootloader with support for Linux, Multiboot and more
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458472 --- Comment #23 from Marek Mahut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 04:01:23 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21) [...] >My point is this issue is integration into the distribution. The grub2 > tools > are not apart of the distribution process and so this is where the issues are. > Making these tools or updating the process to use the tools is what will allow > grub2 to go into fedora.. I don't agree with you, this is not a part of default core system, it's an additional package that will be primary used for hacking and over-time to adjust our tools (which are closed to community commits, btw). I confirm that I'm approving 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458472] Review Request: grub2 - Bootloader with support for Linux, Multiboot and more
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458472 Marek Mahut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora_requires_release_not |fedora_requires_release_not |e? |e- -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459409] Review Request: E - Equational Theorem Prover
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459409
Richard W.M. Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Richard W.M. Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26
03:41:58 EDT ---
+ rpmlint output
(no warnings or errors)
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
I'm a little dubious about calling the package 'E' rather
than something like 'E-theorem-prover', but it doesn't
seem to be specifically against any guideline.
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
GPLv2
+ license matches the actual package license
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
5a2168d44e8b3f23f84ccc5ef66aadee 1324629
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
i386, plus there is a Koji build
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun
+ does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8
Optional:
n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
- reviewer should build the package in mock
- the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
? review should test the package functions as described
n/a scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
===>>> 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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460101] New: Review Request: perl-HTML-RewriteAttributes - Concise attribute rewriting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-HTML-RewriteAttributes - Concise attribute rewriting https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460101 Summary: Review Request: perl-HTML-RewriteAttributes - Concise attribute rewriting 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-HTML-RewriteAttributes.spec SRPM URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-HTML-RewriteAttributes-0.03-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: HTML::RewriteAttributes is designed for simple yet powerful HTML attribute rewriting. This package is a new prerequisite of rt >= 3.8.0. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460101] Review Request: perl-HTML-RewriteAttributes - Concise attribute rewriting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460101 Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||459536 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459409] Review Request: E - Equational Theorem Prover
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459409 Richard W.M. Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #9 from Richard W.M. Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 03:28:36 EDT --- Taking bug for 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458472] Review Request: grub2 - Bootloader with support for Linux, Multiboot and more
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458472 --- Comment #22 from Lubomir Rintel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-26 03:24:10 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21) > @Lubomir > >You have to rembmer I was the first to bring grub2 to fedora last year (as > I > am a grub2 maintainer .. though not very active as of late ... see bug > 228255). Right. Your package did not pass the review. > While yes you can use grub2 with it's own tools manually, what happens when > a > new fedora kernel is installed? It doesn't run those tools to update the grub2 > config. Are you sure? >My point is this issue is integration into the distribution. You can not integrate nonexistent parts. > The grub2 tools > are not apart of the distribution process and so this is where the issues are. > Making these tools or updating the process to use the tools is what will allow > grub2 to go into fedora. I'd say we developed the review process to judge which parts do we allow into fedora. > You have to stop just thinking about the project, and understand that it is > not just a standalone tool. It can be. > But must be integrated into the processes that > fedora uses. Which is why there are comments about grubby & booty support. To reiterate: You can not integrate nonexistent parts. The guidelines don't require you to do so. Furthermore, currently it integrates at the level which is sufficient for most use cases, and having the package in distribution encourages more integration. And at last; You obviously haven't even bothered looking at the package or reading the spec file, so I do not consider you a discussion peer here anymore. Please don't put useless and uninformed comments here anymore. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
