[Bug 464802] Review Request: hunspell-fur - Friulian hunspell dictionary
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=464802 Caolan McNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Caolan McNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:51:59 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: hunspell-fur Short Description: Friulian hunpspell dictionary Owners: caolanm Branches: 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 464805] Review Request: hunspell-mi - Maori hunspell dictionary
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=464805 Caolan McNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Caolan McNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:50:09 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: hunspell-mi Short Description: Maori hunspell dictionary Owners: caolanm Branches: 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 464460] Review Request: pypop - Python for Population Genomics
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=464460 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:41:31 EDT --- pypop-0.7.0-2.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update pypop'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F8/FEDORA-2008-8497 -- Configure 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 458204] Review Request: coredumper - Library to help applications create core dumps
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=458204 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:42:40 EDT --- coredumper-1.2.1-6.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure 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 454120] Review Request: vdr-streamdev - Streaming client/server package for VDR
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=454120 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:41:46 EDT --- vdr-streamdev-0.3.4-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure 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 458548] Review Request: uriparser - URI parsing library - RFC 3986
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=458548 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:43:56 EDT --- uriparser-0.7.1-6.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure 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 448201] Review Request: pyvnc2swf - Vnc screen recorder
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=448201 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:43:06 EDT --- pyvnc2swf-0.9.3-4.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure 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 464460] Review Request: pypop - Python for Population Genomics
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=464460 Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:40:02 EDT --- pypop-0.7.0-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update pypop'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-8487 -- Configure 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 454462] Review Request: ksplice - Patching a Linux kernel without reboot
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=454462 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:40:52 EDT --- ksplice-0.9.0-3.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update ksplice'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F8/FEDORA-2008-8492 -- Configure 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 454120] Review Request: vdr-streamdev - Streaming client/server package for VDR
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=454120 Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 438750] Review Request: qtoctave - fronted for octave written using qt4 widgets
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=438750 --- Comment #42 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:40:40 EDT --- qtoctave-0.8.1-0.20080823.svn165.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure 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 458939] Review Request: arora - a cross platform web browser
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=458939 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:41:10 EDT --- arora-0.3-1.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure 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 458939] Review Request: arora - a cross platform web browser
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=458939 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:38:19 EDT --- arora-0.3-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure 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 454462] Review Request: ksplice - Patching a Linux kernel without reboot
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=454462 Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:39:03 EDT --- ksplice-0.9.0-3.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update ksplice'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-8479 -- Configure 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 445152] Review Request: yacpi - ncurses based acpi viewer
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=445152 Bug 445152 depends on bug 445153, which changed state. Bug 445153 Summary: Review Request: libacpi - General purpose library for ACPI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445153 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:36:14 EDT --- yacpi-3.0.1-11.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure 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 457808] Review Request: gwibber - An open source microblogging client for GNOME developed with Python and GTK
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=457808 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:39:14 EDT --- gwibber-0.7-5.102bzr.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update gwibber'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-8481 -- Configure 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 454120] Review Request: vdr-streamdev - Streaming client/server package for VDR
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=454120 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:38:47 EDT --- vdr-streamdev-0.3.4-2.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure 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 461054] Review Request: qrq - Morse telegraphy trainer
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=461054 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:40:22 EDT --- qrq-0.1.4-3.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure 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 #13 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:39:28 EDT --- txt2rss-0.1-3.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure 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 461054] Review Request: qrq - Morse telegraphy trainer
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=461054 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:39:55 EDT --- qrq-0.1.4-3.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure 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 273701] Review Request: gnome-main-menu - Gnome Main Menu
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=273701 --- Comment #58 from Ken Crandall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:37:14 EDT --- The latest NetworkManager broke it. The applet won't even load on FC9 or 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 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 #16 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:33:57 EDT --- python-peak-util-assembler-0.5-1.fc8, python-peak-util-extremes-1.1-1.fc8, python-peak-util-addons-0.6-1.fc8, python-peak-rules-0.5a1.dev-0.2569.fc8, python-peak-util-symbols-1.0-1.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-peak-util-assembler python-peak-util-extremes python-peak-util-addons python-peak-rules python-peak-util-symbols'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F8/FEDORA-2008-8369 -- Configure 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 459175] Review Request: python-peak-util-assembler - Generate Python code objects by "assembling" bytecode
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=459175 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:33:54 EDT --- python-peak-util-assembler-0.5-1.fc8, python-peak-util-extremes-1.1-1.fc8, python-peak-util-addons-0.6-1.fc8, python-peak-rules-0.5a1.dev-0.2569.fc8, python-peak-util-symbols-1.0-1.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-peak-util-assembler python-peak-util-extremes python-peak-util-addons python-peak-rules python-peak-util-symbols'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F8/FEDORA-2008-8369 -- Configure 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 445152] Review Request: yacpi - ncurses based acpi viewer
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=445152 Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 445153] Review Request: libacpi - General purpose library for ACPI
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=445153 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:35:15 EDT --- libacpi-0.2-12.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure 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 #12 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:33:29 EDT --- txt2rss-0.1-3.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure 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 459176] Review Request: python-peak-util-addons - Dynamically extend other objects with AddOns
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=459176 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:33:48 EDT --- python-peak-util-assembler-0.5-1.fc8, python-peak-util-extremes-1.1-1.fc8, python-peak-util-addons-0.6-1.fc8, python-peak-rules-0.5a1.dev-0.2569.fc8, python-peak-util-symbols-1.0-1.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-peak-util-assembler python-peak-util-extremes python-peak-util-addons python-peak-rules python-peak-util-symbols'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F8/FEDORA-2008-8369 -- Configure 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 459172] Review Request: python-peak-util-symbols - Simple "symbol" type, useful for enumerations or sentinels
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=459172 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:33:45 EDT --- python-peak-util-assembler-0.5-1.fc8, python-peak-util-extremes-1.1-1.fc8, python-peak-util-addons-0.6-1.fc8, python-peak-rules-0.5a1.dev-0.2569.fc8, python-peak-util-symbols-1.0-1.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-peak-util-assembler python-peak-util-extremes python-peak-util-addons python-peak-rules python-peak-util-symbols'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F8/FEDORA-2008-8369 -- Configure 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 457808] Review Request: gwibber - An open source microblogging client for GNOME developed with Python and GTK
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=457808 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:35:11 EDT --- gwibber-0.7-5.102bzr.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update gwibber'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F8/FEDORA-2008-8466 -- Configure 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 445153] Review Request: libacpi - General purpose library for ACPI
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=445153 Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458204] Review Request: coredumper - Library to help applications create core dumps
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=458204 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:34:26 EDT --- coredumper-1.2.1-6.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure 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 458548] Review Request: uriparser - URI parsing library - RFC 3986
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=458548 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:32:43 EDT --- uriparser-0.7.1-6.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure 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 448201] Review Request: pyvnc2swf - Vnc screen recorder
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=448201 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 02:35:31 EDT --- pyvnc2swf-0.9.3-4.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure 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 464804] Review Request: hunspell-fy - Frisian hunspell dictionary
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=464804 Parag AN(पराग) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 00:51:17 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock. Koji build => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=853580 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream. 49e592658529af2c9b67a24b817453da frysk_wurdboek-2.0.0-fx+tb+sm.xpi + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc files present. + BuildRequires are proper. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + no scriptlets are used. + Not a GUI app. Suggestions:- I am not sure about license of this package. Also not sure how to read this language/convert to English. Link given in fy.dic points to LGPLv3+ but in fy.dic it stated only as LGPL. -- Configure 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 464802] Review Request: hunspell-fur - Friulian hunspell dictionary
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=464802 Parag AN(पराग) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 00:40:59 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock. Koji build => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=853578 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream. 807bbcfd755d8160a0418d814361e88b myspell-fur-12092005.zip + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc files present. + BuildRequires are proper. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + no scriptlets are used. + Not a GUI app. 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 464805] Review Request: hunspell-mi - Maori hunspell dictionary
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=464805 Parag AN(पराग) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 00:37:41 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock. Koji build => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=853576 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream. 81bdb8563e1890466da842fe5e17d9cd hunspell-mi-0.1.20080630-beta.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc files present. + BuildRequires are proper. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + no scriptlets are used. + Not a GUI app. 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 464171] Review Request: gedit-latex-plugin - Gedit plugin for composing and compiling LaTeX documents
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=464171
--- Comment #3 from Orcan Ogetbil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 00:21:40 EDT
---
I verified that there is a valid reason to put the py* files inside %{_libdir}
and make the package arch-specific. (See
http://live.gnome.org/Gedit/PythonPluginHowTo )
Can you fix the other issues and update the package?
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 213662] Review Request: openmpi - Upstream MPI package with native InfiniBand support
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=213662 --- Comment #6 from Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 23:24:01 EDT --- The old, closed, no longer needed package review request is not the right place to discuss issues with existing packages. If your package has a problem, then you need to file a bug. That being said, your report is currently useless. I don't know what package you are talking about "sniffing" infiniband, but the Fedora package of openmpi-1.2.4-2.fc9 (latest built) does *not* include infiniband support. Secondly, the openmpi package does not "sniff" infiniband *anyway*. It uses infiniband if you pass the option -mca btl openib,self. But, as I said, the fedora package isn't even built with infinband support so the openib module doesn't exist. I don't know what's wrong in your setup, but if you are using the fedora openmpi package, then it isn't "infiniband sniffing". -- Configure 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 453412] Review Request: gtk-aurora-engine - Aurora theme engine for gtk2
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=453412
John Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #1 from John Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 21:34:40 EDT
---
I'm looking for sponsorship as well, so I can't do a full review, but I'd like
to point out a few things.
1) It would be nice if you could link directly to the source. I notice
http://www.gnome-look.org/CONTENT/content-files/56438-Aurora-1.4.tar.bz2
seems to work for the main source file.
2) Add a -q to your %setup
3) The permissions in source1 are kind of screwy. You can fix them in the files
section with something like this:
%attr(755, -, root) %{_datadir}/themes/*
%attr(644, -, root) /usr/share/themes/Aurora-Midnight/gtk-2.0/gtkrc
%attr(644, -, root) /usr/share/themes/Aurora/gtk-2.0/gtkrc
%attr(644, -, root) /usr/share/themes/Aurora-looks/gtk-2.0/gtkrc
Otherwise, it looks good to me. It builds and installs fine against 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 213662] Review Request: openmpi - Upstream MPI package with native InfiniBand support
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=213662 --- Comment #5 from Jussi Lehtola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 20:49:38 EDT --- But then *why* is it so slow to execute? Even on a shining new system it takes about a second to start an MPI job, whereas without IB sniffing it's as fast as executing a "normal" binary.. Could openmpi be branched into IB and non-IB versions? -- Configure 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 464424] Review Request: GROMACS - a Molecular Dynamics 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=464424
--- Comment #10 from Jussi Lehtola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 20:45:47 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> > Yes, since the configure script distributed with GROMACS is so old that it
> > uses rpath. Works fine on F9 and RHEL5.
>
> You still need to make it build on F-10. There are other ways of avoiding
> rpaths that don't involve re-running autoconf. See
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Removing_Rpath. In fact,
> adding those two sed lines mentioned there before each make call in %build
> seems to solve the problem without rebuilding configure. If you insist on
> rebuilding it, then at least add BR: libtool and run "autoreconf -f -i -I .".
> That solves the problem as well. Of course, I prefer the solution which
> doesn't
> involve running autoreconf.
I tried this before, but it didn't work. Seems to work now. Good.
Still couldn't get rid of the ldconfig errors.
gromacs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-bash.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-bash.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/bash_completion.d/gromacs
gromacs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-mpi.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-mpi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-mpi-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-mpi-libs.x86_64: E: postun-without-ldconfig
/usr/lib64/libmd_mpi_d.so.4.0.0
gromacs-mpi-libs.x86_64: E: postun-without-ldconfig
/usr/lib64/libmd_mpi.so.4.0.0
gromacs-mpi-libs.x86_64: E: postun-without-ldconfig
/usr/lib64/libgmx_mpi.so.4.0.0
gromacs-mpi-libs.x86_64: E: postun-without-ldconfig
/usr/lib64/libgmx_mpi_d.so.4.0.0
gromacs-mpi-libs.x86_64: E: non-empty-%postun /sbin/ldconfig
gromacs-tutor.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-zsh.x86_64: W: no-documentation
12 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 10 warnings.
> > Made packages gromacs-bash, -zsh and -csh.
>
> I still think bash-completion-gromacs is a better name for the package, but I
> won't insist on it.
I can't find any packages beginning with bash-completion in Fedora 9 repos.
IMHO it's better to keep the same base name.
> %{_datadir}/gromacs/tutor/gmxdemo/demo
> %{_datadir}/gromacs/tutor/gmxdemo/demo_d
>
> These two scripts drag /bin/csh dependency into -common as well. If they
> aren't
> necessary to run gromacs, the please remove the #!/bin/csh lines from them.
Branched to -tutor package.
> OK. If you say there's runtime CPU capabilities detection and that it will run
> on a machine without SSE and 3DNow! then I'll take your word for it. I can't
> find any information on that on GROMACS website though, so I'd feel more
> comfortable if you could confirm it with upstream.
Made a question about it to the mailing list.
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/gromacs.spec
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/gromacs-4.0-5.rc2.fc9.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464424] Review Request: GROMACS - a Molecular Dynamics 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=464424
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Alias|GROMACS |
--- Comment #9 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2008-09-30 19:09:24 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > Full review below. OK'd items omitted.
> >
> > - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
> > the review.
> > NEEDSFIX
>
> Fixed. Now rpmlint output is:
>
> gromacs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> gromacs-bash.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> gromacs-bash.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/gromacs
Mark as %config, please, and use %{_sysconfdir} instead of /etc.
> gromacs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> gromacs-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> gromacs-mpi.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> gromacs-mpi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> gromacs-mpi-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> gromacs-mpi-libs.x86_64: E: postun-without-ldconfig
> /usr/lib64/libmd_mpi_d.so.4.0.0
> gromacs-mpi-libs.x86_64: E: postun-without-ldconfig
> /usr/lib64/libmd_mpi.so.4.0.0
> gromacs-mpi-libs.x86_64: E: postun-without-ldconfig
> /usr/lib64/libgmx_mpi.so.4.0.0
> gromacs-mpi-libs.x86_64: E: postun-without-ldconfig
> /usr/lib64/libgmx_mpi_d.so.4.0.0
> gromacs-mpi-libs.x86_64: E: non-empty-%postun /sbin/ldconfig
> gromacs-zsh.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> 11 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 9 warnings.
>
> gromacs-mpi-libs *does* run ldconfig in post and postun.
> Is this a bug in rpmbuild / rpmlint??
Could be, but if you separate them with an empty line it stops complaining.
Also please remove all
###
such
# Files section
and such lines. Do they serve any useful purpose?
There's still some trailing whitespace, please get rid of it.
> > - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
> > NEEDSFIX
[...]
> > autoreconf
> >
> > Is it necessary? Calling autoreconf makes the build fail on rawhide/i386.
> > If you remove that, remove BR: autoconf/automake, too.
>
> Yes, since the configure script distributed with GROMACS is so old that it
> uses rpath. Works fine on F9 and RHEL5.
You still need to make it build on F-10. There are other ways of avoiding
rpaths that don't involve re-running autoconf. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Removing_Rpath. In fact,
adding those two sed lines mentioned there before each make call in %build
seems to solve the problem without rebuilding configure. If you insist on
rebuilding it, then at least add BR: libtool and run "autoreconf -f -i -I .".
That solves the problem as well. Of course, I prefer the solution which doesn't
involve running autoreconf.
One more thing:
error: %patch without corresponding "Patch:" tag
Use %patch0. New rpm is more picky.
[...]
> Made packages gromacs-bash, -zsh and -csh.
I still think bash-completion-gromacs is a better name for the package, but I
won't insist on it.
There is another problem, however, with the -common package.
%{_bindir}/GMXRC.csh
%{_bindir}/GMXRC.zsh
These scripts drag /bin/csh and /bin/zsh dependencies into -common. If
(t)csh/zsh are not necessary to run gromacs, then please put the scripts in
-csh and -zsh packages and update their summaries/descriptions.
%{_datadir}/gromacs/tutor/gmxdemo/demo
%{_datadir}/gromacs/tutor/gmxdemo/demo_d
These two scripts drag /bin/csh dependency into -common as well. If they aren't
necessary to run gromacs, the please remove the #!/bin/csh lines from them.
[...]
> > Please ask upstream to add appropriate license headers to these files.
>
> Filed upstream bug, http://bugzilla.gromacs.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217 .
Thanks.
> Disabling assembly hurt the speed of GROMACS *a lot*. People would probably
> still end up compiling locally GROMACS if the instructions were disabled.
>
> Also, I think GROMACS handles this automatically: when I run it on an x86_64
> it reports
>
> Configuring nonbonded kernels...
> Testing x86_64 SSE support... present.
>
> so I think there should be no problems.
OK. If you say there's runtime CPU capabilities detection and that it will run
on a machine without SSE and 3DNow! then I'll take your word for it. I can't
find any information on that on GROMACS website though, so I'd feel more
comfortable if you could confirm it with upstream.
--
Configure 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 459535] Review Request: backup-manager - A command line backup tool for GNU/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=459535 --- Comment #6 from Jussi Lehtola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 17:23:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > @Jussi => I think that a backup policy is an important administration task. > The > backup's schedule is an important choice (what time ?) and I don't prefer > providing a cron.daily. Indeed it is, and that's why the cron job shouldn't do anything automatically - the configuration has to be done first. However the nice thing about a distributed cron file is that it's easy to use: just install the package and configure, and the backups are made every day. Of course the admin still has to verify that the backups really work (can be restored in case of crash), but that's a wholly another thing. -- Configure 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 230449] Review Request: hostapd - User space daemon for access point
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=230449 --- Comment #9 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 17:04:03 EDT --- I will try to rework on this package soon, but i don't know if this will be relevant (specially as some master mode functions will still miss from the kernel, even from Rawhide kernel). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 463996] Review Request: tuxguitar - A multitrack tablature editor and player written in Java-SWT
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=463996 --- Comment #18 from Orcan Ogetbil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 17:02:05 EDT --- Here are the updated files: SRPM(F-8): http://6mata.com:8014/tuxguitar/tuxguitar-1.0-5.fc8.src.rpm SRPM(F-9): http://6mata.com:8014/tuxguitar/tuxguitar-1.0-5.fc9.src.rpm SPEC: http://6mata.com:8014/tuxguitar/tuxguitar.spec Notes: -I switched from gcj to openjdk for compiling the code. This enables more features in the software (not all the plugins compiled in gcj). -I excluded ppc/ppc64 on F-8 since there is no icedtea (java 1.7) for them (see bug #464843). As you can see there are different src.rpms for each build. -I removed the patches and do the modifications with sed. The link for the discussions of these mods is given in the spec: http://www.tuxguitar.com.ar/forum/4/817/need-help-with-packaging-for-fedora/ The package can be reviewed now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459455] Review Request: fmit - Free Music Instrument Tuner
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=459455 Chris Weyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #8 from Chris Weyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 16:41:40 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > I have packaged a number of things which may be of interest to fedora. All of > the .specs would need to be cleaned up (some significantly...). Partial list: > freej, jamin, daemontools, ffmpeg2theora, flumotion, fre-encyclopedia-en, > fre-encyclopedia-reader, ihu, indywiki, libclaw, mlt, mlt++, kdenlive, > oggfwd, palantir, plee-the-bear, qdvdauthor, ucspi-tcp, gastman, kiax, > hasciicam, jabbin, jahshaka, kiax, lives, MuSE, netjack, thoggen, wengophone, > xoo, qtnx, pocketphinux, PenguinTV, openlibraries, openmovieeditor, sphinxbase > plus a variety multimedia applications which are often found on freeworld > servers (mplayer, vlc, etc). > > If there's anything in particular there that you'd like to see, I'll prepare > it. I'll start the process of cleaning them up... As a side note, I'd love to see daemontools making it into Fedora :) -- Configure 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 225900] Merge Review: initscripts
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=225900 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 16:20:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) > Someone suggested using git-filter-branch on the repo to edit the history, but > that would massively screw up anyone pulling from the repo into local cloned > versions, so I can't really do that. I suppose you could always somehow construct an UTF-8 version, then keep it in git and append to it as well, but that's a colossal waste of effort. > Everything except the last two bits should be in 8.83-1, showing up tomorrow. > The last bits will show up in 8.84 at some point in the future. Sounds great. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225900] Merge Review: initscripts
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=225900 --- Comment #12 from Bill Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 16:14:44 EDT --- Someone suggested using git-filter-branch on the repo to edit the history, but that would massively screw up anyone pulling from the repo into local cloned versions, so I can't really do that. Everything except the last two bits should be in 8.83-1, showing up tomorrow. The last bits will show up in 8.84 at some point in the future. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225900] Merge Review: initscripts
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=225900 Jon Ciesla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 16:10:06 EDT --- I see. I'm out of ideas. :( APPROVED. Be sure and commit to rawhide, but I wouldn't bother with a special build. Thanks for being so responsive! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 426387] Merge reviews to be completed for F9
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=426387 Bug 426387 depends on bug 225900, which changed state. Bug 225900 Summary: Merge Review: initscripts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225900 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure 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 225900] Merge Review: initscripts
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=225900 --- Comment #10 from Bill Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 16:03:15 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > initscripts.src:255: W: macro-in-%changelog config Fixed. > > This is generated from git history. I'm welcome to ideas as to how to do > > this. > > Is there no way iconv it in the spec? No, because some of the commit log messages are in UTF-8, and some aren't. Attempting to iconv the whole thing would corrupt the ones that are already in UTF-8. > > initscripts.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/profile.d/lang.csh > > profile.d needs changes forced in. Possibly they should not be %config. Changed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225900] Merge Review: initscripts
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=225900 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 15:55:19 EDT --- Missed one. . . initscripts.src:255: W: macro-in-%changelog config Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. >> initscripts.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/initscripts-8.82/ChangeLog >> The character encoding of this file is not UTF-8. Consider converting it in >> the specfile for example using iconv(1). >> >> Fix. > This is generated from git history. I'm welcome to ideas as to how to do this. Is there no way iconv it in the spec? > initscripts.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/profile.d/lang.csh profile.d needs changes forced in. Possibly they should not be %config. Agreed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 449037] Review Request: afio - cpio compatible archiver
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=449037 Itamar Reis Peixoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Alias||afio -- Configure 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 459010] Review request: pystatgrab - Python bindings for libstatgrab
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=459010 Itamar Reis Peixoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||pystatgrab -- Configure 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 464424] Review Request: GROMACS - a Molecular Dynamics 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=464424 Itamar Reis Peixoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Alias||GROMACS -- Configure 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 463996] Review Request: tuxguitar - A multitrack tablature editor and player written in Java-SWT
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=463996 Orcan Ogetbil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||464843 -- Configure 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 225900] Merge Review: initscripts
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=225900 --- Comment #8 from Bill Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 15:35:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > Source URL is 404, but works as https. It should redirect OK. I can fix it if it's really needed. > Build fails. Fixed, an old tarball was pushed initially. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464621] Review Request: etherboot - roms needed for pxe boot
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=464621
--- Comment #5 from Eduardo Habkost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 15:34:12
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> The only concern here is that the 32bit built roms on x86_64 will not be the
> same as those used on i386, due to the different optflags in use.
>
Even before introducing optflags, the x86_64 binaries were not bitwise-equal to
the i386 ones (I didn't check how different they were), I guess there are
differences (small ones, I expect) on the way gcc behaves when running native
32-bit or compiling 32-bit binaries on x86_64. But I don't expect the binaries
to be exactly the same, anyway.
> Maybe we could use:
>
> EXTRA_CLFAGS="`echo %{__global_cflags} |sed 's|-fstack-protector||g'`"
>
> That should avoid the -m32/-m64 issues that are causing the failure on x86_64.
That may work.
--
Configure 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 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[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 460387] Review Request: python-schedutils - bindings for the scheduler settings 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=460387 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE -- Configure 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 225900] Merge Review: initscripts
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=225900
--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 15:18:51 EDT ---
Thanks.
Source URL is 404, but works as https.
Build fails.
+ make ROOT=/var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root SUPERUSER=limb SUPERGROUP=limb
mandir=/usr/share/man install
mkdir -p /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc/profile.d
/var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/sbin /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/usr/sbin
mkdir -p /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/usr/share/man/man{5,8}
mkdir -p /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc/rwtab.d
/var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc/statetab.d
mkdir -p /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/var/lib/stateless/writable
mkdir -p /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/var/lib/stateless/state
install -m644 adjtime /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc
install -m644 inittab /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc/inittab.sysv
if uname -m | grep -q s390 ; then \
install -m644 inittab.s390
/var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc/inittab.sysv ; \
fi
install -m644 inittab.upstart
/var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc/inittab.upstart
install -m644 rwtab statetab networks /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc
install -m755 service setsysfont /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/sbin
install -m644 lang.csh lang.sh /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc/profile.d
install -m644 debug.csh debug.sh
/var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc/profile.d
install -m755 sys-unconfig /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/usr/sbin
install -m644 crypttab.5 /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/usr/share/man/man5
install -m644 service.8 sys-unconfig.8
/var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/usr/share/man/man8
install -m644 sysctl.conf /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc/sysctl.conf
if uname -m | grep -q sparc ; then \
install -m644 sysctl.conf.sparc
/var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc/sysctl.conf ; fi
if uname -m | grep -q s390 ; then \
install -m644 sysctl.conf.s390
/var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc/sysctl.conf ; fi
mkdir -p /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc/X11
install -m755 prefdm /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc/X11/prefdm
install -m755 -d /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc/rc.d
/var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc/sysconfig
install -m755 rc.d/rc rc.d/rc.local rc.d/rc.sysinit
/var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc/rc.d/
cp -af rc.d/init.d /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc/rc.d/
install -m644 sysconfig/debug sysconfig/init sysconfig/netconsole
sysconfig/readonly-root /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc/sysconfig/
cp -af sysconfig/network-scripts
/var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc/sysconfig/
cp -af ppp NetworkManager event.d /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc
mkdir -p /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc/ppp/peers
mkdir -p /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/lib
cp -af udev /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/lib
chmod 755 /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc/rc.d/*
/var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc/rc.d/init.d/*
chmdo 644 /var/tmp/initscripts-8.83-1-root/etc/rc.d/init.d/functions
make: chmdo: Command not found
make: *** [install] Error 127
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.37326 (%install)
RPM build errors:
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.37326 (%install)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464621] Review Request: etherboot - roms needed for pxe boot
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=464621
--- Comment #4 from Tom "spot" Callaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30
15:17:35 EDT ---
The only concern here is that the 32bit built roms on x86_64 will not be the
same as those used on i386, due to the different optflags in use.
Maybe we could use:
EXTRA_CLFAGS="`echo %{__global_cflags} |sed 's|-fstack-protector||g'`"
That should avoid the -m32/-m64 issues that are causing the failure on x86_64.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457926] Review Request: python-wikimarkup - Python module to format text to Mediawiki syntax
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=457926
--- Comment #6 from Soumya Kanti Chakraborty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30
15:14:17 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Would you update your srpm like bug 459010?
>
> - At least __init_py{,c,o} needs to be installed
> - License tag should be "GPLv3+".
> - For versioning, please refer to
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
> Also I recommend to add rev number to source tarball name.
Hi Mamoru
Thanks for guiding me. I had some questions
1) Should I install the __init__.py in %install section. I am new to packaging
so I had a doubt in what you wrote __init_py{,c,o}
2) The revision number to the Source tarball I downloaded should be added right
?
Thanks for helping me again..
--
Configure 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 225900] Merge Review: initscripts
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=225900 --- Comment #6 from Bill Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 15:03:12 EDT --- http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=initscripts.git;a=summary is the gitweb page; git and ssh links are there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225900] Merge Review: initscripts
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=225900 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 14:51:45 EDT --- Looks great. Sorry, not familiar with Fedora git setup, where do I pull from? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459535] Review Request: backup-manager - A command line backup tool for GNU/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=459535 --- Comment #5 from Guillaume Kulakowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 14:48:27 EDT --- @Jussi => I think that a backup policy is an important administration task. The backup's schedule is an important choice (what time ?) and I don't prefer providing a cron.daily. -- Configure 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 464621] Review Request: etherboot - roms needed for pxe boot
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=464621
--- Comment #3 from Eduardo Habkost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 14:45:32
EDT ---
Updated with the EXTRA_FLAGS change.
I've not set EXTRA_FLAGS on x86_64 because it breaks the building of 32-bits
binaries. We could simply use the prebuilt binaries on x86_64 also, but I think
prebuilt binaries are worse than the hack to build 32-bit binaries on x86_64.
But prebuilt binaries can be enabled on x86_64 by simply removing x86_64 from
the definition of %{real_build_arches}, if desired.
http://ehabkost.fedorapeople.org/etherboot-5.4.4-3.fc10.src.rpm
http://ehabkost.fedorapeople.org/etherboot.spec
http://ehabkost.fedorapeople.org/etherboot.spec.diff
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=852829
--
Configure 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 225900] Merge Review: initscripts
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=225900 --- Comment #4 from Bill Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 14:42:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > rpmlint on RPMS: > > initscripts.i386: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/netfs init.d/* removed from %config. > initscripts.i386: E: executable-marked-as-config-file > /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-ipsec sysconfig/network-scripts/* removed from %config. > initscripts.i386: E: executable-marked-as-config-file > /etc/sysconfig/readonly-root Permissions on /etc/sysconfig/* fixed. Oops. > initscripts.i386: E: script-without-shebang /etc/sysconfig/readonly-root See above. > initscripts.i386: E: script-without-shebang /etc/rc.d/init.d/functions Permissions fixed. > initscripts.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/88-clock.rules > A non-executable file in your package is being installed in /etc, but is not a > configuration file. All non-executable files in /etc should be configuration > files. Mark the file as %config in the spec file. > > Fine. These are moved to /lib currently in any case. > initscripts.i386: E: non-executable-script > /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/network-functions-ipv6 0644 Header of file fixed. > initscripts.i386: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/netreport 0775 > A standard directory should have permission set to 0755. If you get this > message, it means that you have wrong directory permissions in some dirs > included in your package. That's actually correct the way it is. > initscripts.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/initscripts-8.82/ChangeLog > The character encoding of this file is not UTF-8. Consider converting it in > the specfile for example using iconv(1). > > Fix. This is generated from git history. I'm welcome to ideas as to how to do this. > initscripts.i386: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/btmp > This package contains files in /var/log/ without adding logrotate > configuration for them. This isn't rotatable. > initscripts.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided event-compat-sysv See above re: obsoletes. Can't really replace hotplug as we don't support those scripts any more. > initscripts.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/X11/prefdm > A configuration file is stored in your package without the noreplace flag. A > way to resolve this is to put the following in your SPEC file: > %config(noreplace) /etc/your_config_file_here We need to force in changes here. > initscripts.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/initlog.conf Fixed. > initscripts.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/profile.d/lang.csh profile.d needs changes forced in. Possibly they should not be %config. > initscripts.i386: W: dangerous-command-in-%post chown > > Fix if you can. It's needed. > initscripts.i386: E: missing-mandatory-lsb-keyword Description in > /etc/rc.d/init.d/netfs Done. > initscripts.i386: E: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/netfs network > The filename of your lock file in /var/lock/subsys/ is incoherent with your > actual init script name. For example, if your script name is httpd, you have > to use 'httpd' as the filename in your subsys directory. It is also possible > that rpmlint gets this wrong, especially if the init script contains > nontrivial shell variables and/or assignments. These cases usually manifest > themselves when rpmlint reports that the subsys name starts a with '$'; in > these cases a warning instead of an error is reported and you should check the > script manually. > > initscripts.i386: E: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/netfs rpcbind > The filename of your lock file in /var/lock/subsys/ is incoherent with your > actual init script name. For example, if your script name is httpd, you have > to use 'httpd' as the filename in your subsys directory. It is also possible > that rpmlint gets this wrong, especially if the init script contains > nontrivial shell variables and/or assignments. These cases usually manifest > themselves when rpmlint reports that the subsys name starts a with '$'; in > these cases a warning instead of an error is reported and you should check the > script manually. > > I'd love to have this fixed, but there may be valid reasons not to, at which > point those should be documented in the spec. This is rpmlint being very confused. The script does reference other lock files, but it doesn't use them in the way it's complaining about. > initscripts.i386: E: missing-mandatory-lsb-keyword Description in > /etc/rc.d/init.d/network Fixed. Feel free to check out git for all the changes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com ht
[Bug 451189] Review Request: rancid - Really Awesome New Cisco confIg Differ
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=451189 --- Comment #14 from Åge Olai Johnsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 14:26:58 EDT --- Thank you for your fast reply. I've updated the spec-file: http://files.thaumaturge.org/users/dante/rancid/rancid.spec http://files.thaumaturge.org/users/dante/rancid/rancid-2.3.2-0.5.a8.fc9.i386.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 225900] Merge Review: initscripts
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=225900 --- Comment #3 from Bill Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 14:14:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > initscripts.src:11: W: hardcoded-path-in-buildroot-tag Fixed. > initscripts.src:21: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes event-compat-sysv > initscripts.src:39: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes rhsound > initscripts.src:39: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes sapinit > initscripts.src:40: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes hotplug These are all things that are unconditionally dead as a doornail. I suppose we could remove event-compat-sysv since it never shipped in a final release, and rhsound and sapinit just becuase they are really really really ancient things. > initscripts.src:41: E: prereq-use /sbin/chkconfig, /usr/sbin/groupadd, > /bin/sed, coreutils Fixed. > initscripts.src:252: E: files-attr-not-set > initscripts.src:253: E: files-attr-not-set I believe RPM does the right thing here in any case (otherwise the package would not build.) But fixed. > initscripts.src:623: W: macro-in-%changelog config ... All fixed. > initscripts.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 110, tab: line > 955) Fixed. > initscripts.src: W: no-url-tag > The URL tag is missing. > > We need this. Might be good to set something up on hosted for this purpose. Something added. May or may not be useful. More in a bit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 445126] Review Request: mirrormanager - Fedora MirrorManager server and client
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=445126 Jon Stanley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #20 from Jon Stanley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 14:10:36 EDT --- No worries on the sponsorship, I've been sponsored for awhile now for other packages I've done :) New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mirrormanager Short Description: A mirror management system Owners: mdomsch jstanley Branches: EL-5 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 451189] Review Request: rancid - Really Awesome New Cisco confIg Differ
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=451189 --- Comment #13 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 14:06:55 EDT --- By the way: - NOTE: Before being sponsored: This package will be accepted with another few work. But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) must sponsor you. Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) are required to "show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines" as is described on : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored Usually there are two ways to show this. A. submit other review requests with enough quality. B. Do a "pre-review" of other person's review request (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do a formal review) When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report so that I can check your comments or review request. Fedora package collection review requests which are waiting for someone to review can be checked on: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html (NOTE: please don't choose "Merge Review") Review guidelines are described mainly on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets -- Configure 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 451189] Review Request: rancid - Really Awesome New Cisco confIg Differ
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=451189 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 451189] Review Request: rancid - Really Awesome New Cisco confIg Differ
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=451189
--- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 13:54:19 EDT
---
For -0.4.a8:
* CFLAGS
export CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS
- This line is not needed because %configure does this.
(You can check what %configure does by
$ rpm --eval %configure )
* Macros in comment
#%{_sysconfdir}-files
- Use %% in comments (and %changelog) instead of %% to prevent
maros from being expanded.
* Symlinks
W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/bin/rancid-cvs /usr/lib/rancid/rancid-cvs
W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/bin/rancid-run /usr/lib/rancid/rancid-run
W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/bin/rancid-fe /usr/lib/rancid/rancid-fe
W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/bin/rancid /usr/lib/rancid/rancid
- It is requested that all symlinks should be relative (not absolute)
i.e.
for base in \
%{name} %{name}-cvs %{name}-fe %{name}-run
do
ln -sf ../../%{_libdir}/%{name}/${base} \
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/${base}
done
is better. Note that with the above lines you don't have to
"push" to $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir} .
* About permission/directory ownership
* %_sysconfdir/%name
(In reply to comment #10)
> Directory ownership:
> %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/ should be owned by this command
> "%attr(750,%{name},%{name}) %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/" ?
- Perhaps you want:
-
#%%{_sysconfdir}-files
%attr(750,%{name},%{name}) %dir %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}
%attr(600,%{name},%{name}) %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/*
-
* Directories in filesystem rpm
-
%dir %{_bindir}/
%dir %{_mandir}/*/
-
- These directories are owned by filesystem rpm and so should not
be owned by this 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 464822] New: Review Request: clojure - A dynamic programming language that targets the Java Virtual Machine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: clojure - A dynamic programming language that targets the Java Virtual Machine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464822 Summary: Review Request: clojure - A dynamic programming language that targets the Java Virtual Machine 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 http://walters.fedorapeople.org/clojure-20080916-1.fc10.src.rpm http://walters.fedorapeople.org/clojure.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 463211] Review Request: notify-sharp - A C# implementation for Desktop Notifications
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=463211 --- Comment #7 from Sindre Pedersen Bjørdal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 13:26:11 EDT --- ping? -- Configure 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 451189] Review Request: rancid - Really Awesome New Cisco confIg Differ
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=451189 Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235 | --- Comment #11 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 13:10:32 EDT --- (Removing FE-Legal regarding the license on the web as obsolete, review follows later) -- Configure 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 455426] Review Request: gstreamer-java - Java interface to the gstreamer 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=455426
--- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 12:35:17 EDT
---
For 0.8-3:
* License
- All codes with explicitly licensed are under LGPLv3 strict.
Also, icons included in the tarball are under CC-BY-SA.
So the license tag should be "LGPLv3 and CC-BY-SA".
* Patch
- What is this patch for? It seems after you apply this patch
you modify what is changed by this patch by using sed again...
I guess using sed from the beginning is better.
* Requires
- Are gstreamer-plugins-base, gstreamer-plugins-good _really_
needed?
More verbosely, is gstreamer-java out of work when
gstreamer-plugins-base or gstreamer-plugins-good are not
installed? I guess what you mean here is
"Conflicts: gstreamer-plugins-base < 0.10.19" or so.
* rpmlint
-
gstreamer-java.src: E: description-line-too-long An unofficial/alternative set
of java bindings for the gstreamer multimedia framework.
-
- One line in %description must contain less than 80 characters.
? About this line for swt.jar:
-
$(find %{_libdir} -name swt*.jar 2>/dev/null|sort|head -1)
-
- Can't this part be replaced by $(build-classpath swt)?
* Documents
- Please add the following to %doc (of main package)
-
CHANGES
COPYING*
-
* %changelog
- The last entry in %changelog does not coincide with current
srpm EVR (Epoch-Version-Release).
! By the way as you say this srpm does not build on rawhide.
Would you file a bug (perhaps against jna) so that we can
keep track of this issue?
dist-f10 build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=850032
--
Configure 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 462446] Review Request: ttf2pt1 - TrueType to Adobe Type 1 font converter
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=462446 --- Comment #11 from Göran Uddeborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 12:17:14 EDT --- > It seems to me that in /usr/share/ttf2pt1/scripts/, only > trans t1fdir forceiso x2gs > are needed, since others seems to be only used during build or > already in %_bindir. The scripts used only during the build can be removed. The documentation for convert and x2gs mainly talks about them with these names. It mentions that they also exist under a different name in the default path, but treats the short names as the main ones. I guess I've already invalidated the documentation somewhat by moving the README*, FONT* and similar files to defaultdocdir. The manual pages refers to these as /usr/share/ttf2pt1/README etc. But this feels a bit more invasive. Or is it part of packaging to actually rewrite the documentation for the package? > It would be better if convert looked for convert.cfg somewhere > else than in pwd. Maybe, maybe not. It describes what "convert" should do, and in that sense has some similarities with a Makefile. There may be several such files, each converting different sources. But in any case, I wouldn't change such a thing in the role of packager, would I? That seems like a discussion to have with upstreams if one want to change it. > convert.cfg.sample should certainly better be in %doc Same problem with documentation as I mentioned above, but ok. > t1asm is already in t1utils Good point. I'll remove it from this package and add a "requires" dependency instead. > Also which file is covered by the GPLv2+? The TeX scripts for CJK fonts. In /usr/share/doc/ttf2pt1-3.4.4/TeX in the current package. See the thread https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2008-September/msg00012.html for my questions about licensing. > Also forgot to say that the use fakeroot certainly deserves a comment. True. I'll add a comment in the SPEC file. I've made an intermediate update available: Spec URL: ftp://ftp.uddeborg.se/pub/ttf2pt1/ttf2pt1.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.uddeborg.se/pub/ttf2pt1/ttf2pt1-3.4.4-5.src.rpm (The convert and x2gs scripts are still included, and I haven't touched how "convert" finds its configuration file. I'll wait for further comments on that before I do anything.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460912] Review Request: DeviceKit-power - Power Management Service
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=460912 Richard Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Richard Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 11:43:47 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: DeviceKit-power Short Description: Power Management Service Owners: rhughes Branches: F-9 InitialCC: rhughes -- Configure 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 464805] New: Review Request: hunspell-mi - Maori hunspell dictionary
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: hunspell-mi - Maori hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464805 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-mi - Maori hunspell dictionary 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://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-mi.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-mi-0.20080630-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: Maori hunspell dictionary -- Configure 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 464804] New: Review Request: hunspell-fy - Frisian hunspell dictionary
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: hunspell-fy - Frisian hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464804 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-fy - Frisian hunspell dictionary 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://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-fy.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-fy-2.0.0-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: Frisian hunspell dictionary -- Configure 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 464802] New: Review Request: hunspell-fur - Friulian hunspell dictionary
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: hunspell-fur - Friulian hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464802 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-fur - Friulian hunspell dictionary 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://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-fur.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-fur-0.20050912-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: Friulian hunspell dictionary -- Configure 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 378841] Review Request: python-rdflib - Python library for working with RDF
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=378841 --- Comment #12 from Dave Malcolm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 11:14:17 EDT --- Thanks. I've followed the instructions at the link you provided to filter out that overzealous autogenerated Provides. Updated specfile at: http://people.redhat.com/dmalcolm/python/python-rdflib.spec Updated SRPM at: http://people.redhat.com/dmalcolm/python/python-rdflib-2.4.0-6.src.rpm Scratch built for dist-f9 succeeded: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=852460 -- Configure 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 464621] Review Request: etherboot - roms needed for pxe boot
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=464621 Eduardo Habkost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||EtherbootPkg -- Configure 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 464621] Review Request: etherboot - roms needed for pxe boot
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=464621 Eduardo Habkost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||464790 -- Configure 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 462736] Review Request: libfakekey - X Virtual Keyboard Library of the Matchbox WM project
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=462736 Jonathan Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||462851 -- Configure 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 451772] Review Request: ume-launcher - a full screen application launcher 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=451772 Jonathan Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||462851 -- Configure 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 451773] Review Request: window-picker-applet - an alternative window chooser for small screens
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=451773 Jonathan Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||462851 -- Configure 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 451768] Review Request: go-home-applet - applet 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=451768 Jonathan Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||462851 -- Configure 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 451771] Review Request: maximus - an addon for metacity
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=451771 Jonathan Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||462851 -- Configure 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 464621] Review Request: etherboot - roms needed for pxe boot
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=464621
--- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30
10:35:28 EDT ---
Okay, the only thing that I see is that these aren't being built with the
Fedora optflags. Unfortunately, the -fstack-protector causes these roms to fail
to build cleanly, but you should be able to pass this with make:
EXTRA_CFLAGS="`echo %{optflags} |sed 's|-fstack-protector||g'`"
Please make that fix and I'll finish off the 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 445126] Review Request: mirrormanager - Fedora MirrorManager server and client
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=445126 --- Comment #19 from Matt Domsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 10:29:55 EDT --- Sweet. Jon, I would sponsor you, but as I rewrote the whole spec from scratch here myself, I haven't reviewed any of your work. :-) Jon, do you want to maintain this package in Fedora, or should I? Thanks, Matt -- Configure 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 446847] Review Request: nagios-plugins-check_sip - A Nagios plugin to check SIP servers and devices
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=446847 --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 10:25:54 EDT --- New revision: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/nagios-plugins-check_sip.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/nagios-plugins-check_sip-1.2-4.fc9.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Sep 30 2008 Peter Lemenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1.2-4 - Fixed project's URL - Removed unnecessary explicit "Provides:" -- Configure 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 445126] Review Request: mirrormanager - Fedora MirrorManager server and client
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=445126
manuel wolfshant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #18 from manuel wolfshant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 10:18:30
EDT ---
ref #17: indeed, I missed a %{name} in the link
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPMs:empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct (%(mktemp -ud
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XX))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type:MIT and GPLv2
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: b584c6e192bea7b9a1d1e7eab0d9ac61d6e19a24
/tmp/mirrormanager-1.2.3.tar.bz2
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present (dependency is not
needed)
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on:
[x] Package functions as described.
note: only the client was tested
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
As far as I am I concerned, this packages seems OK so I am glad to say:
*** 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 463922] Review Request: ifstat - Interface statistics
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=463922 --- Comment #10 from Itamar Reis Peixoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 10:18:39 EDT --- lasted changes here http://ispbrasil.com.br/ifstat/ifstat.spec http://ispbrasil.com.br/ifstat/ifstat-1.1-1.6.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460912] Review Request: DeviceKit-power - Power Management Service
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=460912 Bastien Nocera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-cvs? | --- Comment #8 from Bastien Nocera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 10:16:20 EDT --- Your CVS request is missing info, see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure -- Configure 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 460912] Review Request: DeviceKit-power - Power Management Service
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=460912 Richard Hughes <[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 464781] Review Request: flexdock - Java docking UI element. First 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=464781 --- Comment #1 from D Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 09:56:46 EDT --- I had to fiddle the %install section to get it to work, as the apache ant build.xml that is provided doesn't seem to have any facility for *installing* the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464424] Review Request: GROMACS - a Molecular Dynamics 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=464424
--- Comment #8 from Jussi Lehtola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-30 10:01:31 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Full review below. OK'd items omitted.
>
> - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
> the review.
> NEEDSFIX
Fixed. Now rpmlint output is:
gromacs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-bash.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-bash.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/gromacs
gromacs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-mpi.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-mpi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-mpi-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-mpi-libs.x86_64: E: postun-without-ldconfig
/usr/lib64/libmd_mpi_d.so.4.0.0
gromacs-mpi-libs.x86_64: E: postun-without-ldconfig
/usr/lib64/libmd_mpi.so.4.0.0
gromacs-mpi-libs.x86_64: E: postun-without-ldconfig
/usr/lib64/libgmx_mpi.so.4.0.0
gromacs-mpi-libs.x86_64: E: postun-without-ldconfig
/usr/lib64/libgmx_mpi_d.so.4.0.0
gromacs-mpi-libs.x86_64: E: non-empty-%postun /sbin/ldconfig
gromacs-zsh.x86_64: W: no-documentation
11 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 9 warnings.
gromacs-mpi-libs *does* run ldconfig in post and postun.
Is this a bug in rpmbuild / rpmlint??
> - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
> NEEDSFIX
>
> Please rename the specfile to have the same name as the main package, i.e.
> gromacs.spec.
>
> Either make four devel subpackages, one for each set of libraries
> or group them together, for example
> single+double -> gromacs
> mpi single+double -> gromacs-mpi
> and then only two -devel packages
> You should also put libraries into a separate package to allow for multilib
> installs.
OK, done.
> autoreconf
>
> Is it necessary? Calling autoreconf makes the build fail on rawhide/i386. If
> you remove
> that, remove BR: autoconf/automake, too.
Yes, since the configure script distributed with GROMACS is so old that it uses
rpath. Works fine on F9 and RHEL5.
> Maybe add --enable-pthreads? Or a separate pthread-enabled version? Not a
> blocker, just FYI.
GROMACS doesn't have thread support yet, since the performance is so bad on
NUMA systems, the speedup is about 75%. MPI results in far better results: the
speedups are >99%.
> completion.bash could be put in %{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d/ (needs
> Requires: bash-completion then, maybe a separate package
> bash-completion-gromacs?).
> Check for similar possibilities for other shells. This would help loosen the
> dependencies on various shells. As it is, -common depends on all of them:
> Requires: /bin/bash /bin/csh /bin/sh /bin/zsh /usr/bin/perl
> This is not reasonable. At least the csh and zsh dependencies must be removed.
Made packages gromacs-bash, -zsh and -csh.
> - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
> the Licensing Guidelines .
> NEEDSFIX
>
> Some files (especially src/gmxlib/gmx_{lapack,blas}/*) have no licensing
> information,
> although they look like private copies of lapack and blas, so please verify
> that.
> If so, their license is BSD, which is GPLv2+ compatible.
(clip)
> Please ask upstream to add appropriate license headers to these files.
Filed upstream bug, http://bugzilla.gromacs.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217 .
The files are C-versions of BLAS & LAPACK made with f2c.
RPMs are now built with distribution libraries instead of the ones distributed
with GROMACS.
> - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
> file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in
> the
> %install section. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of
> the Packaging Guidelines . If you feel that your packaged GUI application does
> not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your
> explanation.
> NEEDSFIX(?)
> I see libX11 in rpm-generated Requires:. Does this package display a GUI? If
> so, it needs an appropriate desktop file and desktop-file-install call (BR:
> desktop-file-utils).
The only program which requires X is ngmx, which has no desktop interface - it
must be run from the command line with file parameters.
> SHOULD Items:
>
> - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See
> MockTricks for details on how to do this.
>
> Doesn't build in mock/devel/i386 due to autoreconf failure.
> Builds fine in koji/dist-f10 (with autoreconf invocation removed).
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=851228
If you run rpmlint on these you'll fine rpaths in the libraries.
> - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
> supported architectures.
> - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
> package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
>
>
